Editorial: Will money ever grow on trees?

To borrow a phrase by Mark Twain – everybody talks about public parks, but nobody ever does anything about them.

Twain’s quip, of course, was about the weather. But the sentiment holds true for many of our state and county trails, beaches, overlooks and picnic areas – that are rapturously promoted by our elected officials, but notoriously underfunded.

Yet in recent weeks, both state and county officials are not only talking about public parks, they’re putting their Sequoia sempervirens where their mouth is.

Last month, the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors approved the placement of a 10-year, half-cent sales tax increase on the Tuesday, Nov. 8 ballot which, if passed by two-thirds of voters, would raise nearly $10 million per year for Sonoma County Regional Parks.

The Supes were unanimous in their decision, if somewhat dubious about its chances – boardmembers David Rabbitt and Efren Carrillo said they didn’t wholly trust the encouraging poll numbers, especially since the BOS had been burned so badly last year after trusting wildly over-optimistic polling for the failed Measure A roads tax.

But parks are a treasure; roads are a tool. Access to nature and the outdoors is one of the reasons people live in the North Bay; having to drive too much is one of the reasons they leave. And perhaps that line of thinking will be the difference in persuading 67 percent of voters to give their green-thumb up to a specific tax guaranteed for the parks, even when the roads tax proposal – a general tax promised to the parks, but the County could divert as needs change – couldn’t even muster 40 percent. Still, that’s expecting a 27 percent swing at a time when County and City voters are being asked to fund multiple initiatives on the upcoming ballot. At some point, even the most tax-tolerant voter will start picking and choosing.

As it happens, one such initiative County Parks could find itself competing with Nov. 8 is a $3.1 billion state park bond proposition put forward by the state Assembly in June (it hasn’t passed the Senate yet). State parks officials have been quiet about asking the public for money since its brutal turn during the Schwarzenegger governorship, when 48 of the California’s 279 state parks were slated for closure due to budget deficits – while the state parks department, it was later revealed, was sitting on $54 million in “hidden assets.” That scandal, which cost state parks director Ruth Coleman her job, was a nadir for the state parks’ reputation by a long shot. Californians haven’t consistently approved parks initiatives even before that – this, the first one on the ballot since the 2012 scandal, will test the public’s memory of how its revenue was handled the last time.

Sonoma County State Parks, meanwhile, is considering for the first time charging usage fees at its coastal locations – $8 to visit Bodega Head, in addition to the similarly priced parking fee. Sonoma beachcombers outraged by the thought of having to fork over the price of a turkey sandwich to walk on publically owned sand might be surprised to know that the majority of California state parks already charge fees. Sonoma following suit could be a testing of the waters to see how such revenue-enhancing measures work at the county’s more popular destinations. Sonoma State Historic Parks – which include Mission San Francisco Solano, the Sonoma Barracks, the Vallejo home and other historic attractions – charge $3 adults, $2 kids, under 6 free. And they don’t get anywhere near the foot traffic of Shell or Salmon Creek beaches.

And yet some argue that would-be park goers will become won’t-be park goers if a family of five is suddenly down $30 or $40 before driving in a single stake of their Coleman Sundome 4 beach tent.

In a 2013 study, “Paying for State Parks: Evaluating Alternative Approaches for the 21st Century,” land-use researcher Margaret Walls describes charging visitation fees as “inefficient.”

“As states ratchet up user fees in an attempt to cover an increasing share of park operating costs… they need to be careful,” Walls writes. “They need a good understanding of the demand curves at individual parks and how much they can raise prices for particular services at particular times of the year without significantly reducing park use.”

Walls adds that increasing fees without upgrading the parks is a no-go with many parks users, potentially offsetting the value of the fees with decreases in visitation.

Whether fees are really a drag on visitation is questionable – many of our parks most frequent users are also their most fervid supporters. They may not mind ponying up. Ballot initiatives could be the real measure of our support for parks, as passage will depend on votes from many who have never gauged the upkeep of a campground toilet and never will.

What’s clear is that the county and state parks need some form of dedicated funding in this era of slashed budgets and dwindling resources.

Everybody talks about public parks – we’ll soon find out if voters and legislators are willing to do anything about them.

Email Jason at jason.walsh@sonomanews.com.