At the last city council meeting, vice-mayor Ken Brown urged the council to oppose the governor’s closing of state parks to help solve the state’s budget crisis. The resulting discussion raised questions about the direct and indirect ways in which the threatened cuts can impact the city.
“The Governor’s proposal to close 48 state parks will affect everyone,” said Brown. “Next time, it could be our parks; it could be the Mission of Sonoma; it could be the Barracks.” He pointed out that the closures of parks outside the city would deprive residents of Sonoma who regularly enjoy them, and affect Sonoma businesses, which benefit from the tourist trade the parks attract. “I think we all realize the tourism boost that parks and state facilities bring to the our city and other cities in Sonoma County.” He said a vote for the parks would be a vote for the whole community. “I see that [voting for the measure] would create a kind of solidarity with the jurisdictions that are losing their parks,” he said. Council member Steve Barbose agreed. “I think we really do need to stand together with the other communities and oppose this.”
Mayor Joanne Sanders expressed a concern that urging the state not to cut parks might tempt them to come after the city’s funds. She acknowledged that the state has to balance its budget. “The money’s got to come out of somewhere,” she said. “I just don’t think sending a message to the state to keep their hands off state parks is in our city’s best interests. That could give them more reason to want to come after us. If we have to stand for the people we represent,” said Sanders, who described herself earnestly as someone who camps and who loves the parks, “why would we want to send any message other than about something that directly affects our city?”
Council member Stanley Cohen, who voted with Brown to oppose the governor’s plan, said in a subsequent interview that while the state’s coming after city money is a concern, Prop 1A has imposed safeguards that prevent the state from taking and using local tax dollars. This can be suspended, however, if the governor declares a fiscal emergency and two-thirds of the legislature approves the suspension. So the concern and the question remain: other than the obvious – the direct cuts to schools and the parks – what and who will be affected by all these cuts, both directly and indirectly?
The Sun invited California State Assemblymember Jared Huffman and Supervisor Valerie Brown to comment. Brown summarized, “The state government is $22 billion shy. In the federal government, no one wants to raise taxes, so you’re put in a position of cutting programs. You have no choice.”
But, the costs, to cities, of the cuts? “The cost is huge,” she said. Human services will be hard hit. “Anybody knows it costs more to treat a person in jail than it does to have him in a treatment program. There are ancillary services to help the mentally ill. For example, if you’ve got a personal over 18 who’s bi-polar who needs someone to help with medication or whatever it is, and those services get cut, then what’s going to happen? The person gets in trouble and the police get called, and there they are, at the jail again.”
The closing of mental health facilities, like the one at Memorial Hospital in Santa Rosa, further impacts individuals and the community. “It’s a public safety issue. When you eliminate safe places for people who are on the edge, then you find us intervening in terms of public safety and law enforcement.” That impacts not just the police but the public health and human services workers who are already stretched. “They are really committed folks!” said Brown, who maintained her own marriage and family counseling license until just a few years ago. “They work really hard, and it’s depressing when we get this, ‘I’m sorry, we’re going to have to have a 10 percent cut.’ Who do I say no to? How do I say no to them? And when I say no, where do they go?”
State Assemblymember Jared Huffman echoes the frustration. “My days are filled with meetings with people who are going to feel deep, painful cuts,” he said. “I’m probably more frustrated than they are, because I don’t want this to happen.” He said his office has been cutting for a year. “We are looking very hard to find even more cuts, but we are approaching the point of diminishing returns. At what point do the cuts become counterproductive?
“What do you do when you put five thousand teachers out on the streets?” asked Huffman. “That’s not going to help the economy. Who puts up the tab when doctors no longer accept medical? And all of the sudden, the emergency rooms are choked with patients who need their indigent care?”
And, yes, the parks, too. “The parks are a great example,” he said. “You close these parks, and what do we do to the tourist economy? You deprive the parks of fees, and then what do you do with the maintenance of the mothballed lands? State will be paying for it without any revenue.”
Huffman suggested that creative solutions are possible. “The overwhelming majority of the elected representatives in California would like to responsibly address this problem,” he said. “There are some ways that we can bring revenue to the table without a general tax increase.” Bottom line? “We need to have a discussion in the state about what we expect of our government, and then honestly talk about how we’re going to pay for that. Because I think people expect government to keep our parks open. People expect government to keep our roads functioning. People expect a social safety net.”
Whom will the state’s budget cuts affect?
Countywide, the state’s cuts will affect the following:
• 62,480 public school children would experience cuts throughout schools.
• 540 low-income children would be dropped from the California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids Program.
• 10,150 low-income seniors and persons with disability would lose state cost-of-living adjustment for Supplemental Security Income/State Supplementary Payment cash assistance grants.
• 4,190 low-income seniors and persons with disabilities would receive fewer hours of In-Home Supportive Services.
• 160 fewer children would be enrolled in child-care and preschool.
• 1,150 low-income children would be dropped from Medi-Cal
• 50,420 low-income Medi-Cal recipients may have reduced access to health care because of payment cuts to health providers.
• 12,070 children enrolled in the Healthy Families Program will have their family premiums and co-payments raised, and dental services reduced.
