All of us are pretty familiar by now with the main arguments against closing
For example, how exactly do you keep the public out of a "closed" park? There's also the problems of deferred maintenance and vandalism.
But an 11-page memo issued last week by attorneys for the State Parks Department points out a number of other problems associated with closing parks. (To see the memo, click here.)
For example, what about the 188 concession contracts the state has with various entities throughout the State Park System? "State Parks is required to provide the concessionaire the right, privilege and duty to develop, equip, operate and maintain a concession operation on park premises," the memo states. If a park is closed, "it is likely that State Parks would be in breach of contract and concessionaire would be entitled to the profits . . . "
Legal experts also conclude that the state will certainly be on the hook for any harm done to any endangered species in a "closed" park.
But the most intriguing argument to me is found on page 10. It raises the possibility of action by the California Coastal Commission to block the closure of parks in its jurisdiction.
The memo states, "The California Coastal Act contains, among other goals, the goal 'to maximize public access to and along the coast and maximize public recreational opportunities in the coastal zone....' With this goal, the California Coastal Commission has zealously guarded public access to the coast . . . "
The commission could force the state to obtain a "development permit" to close a park, which would be so costly and complicated as to be "untenable."
Regardless of what the Commission decides to do, the memo concludes, "it is extremely likely that a number of entities desiring to keep parks open will sue state parks for CCA compliance in hopes this will prohibit or at least delay closure of a park."
And you don't have to be a legal expert to see that coming.
- Paul Gullixson
Leave a comment