Greetings!
Here is a letter sent to the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors opposing the instalation of iron rangers on the Sonoma coast.
June 12, 2013
Sonoma County
Board of Supervisors
575 Administration Drive, Room 100 A
Santa Rosa, CA 95403
RE: State Parks
appeal regarding Iron Ranger placement at the Sonoma Coast
Dear Chair Rabbit
and Supervisors:
Coastwalk
California, a 30 year old statewide 501 (c) (3) non-profit organization, was
initially founded to support public access to our coastline as called for in
Proposition 20 and the California Coastal Act. The first "Coastwalk" was actually a protest march
along the Sonoma coast with a goal of calling attention to coastal public
access issues. This first "coastwalk" was so much fun that the
participants decided to hold "coastwalks" every year, inviting the
public on coastal camping expeditions that would educate participants about coastal
preservation and public access. In
keeping with our commitment to public access we feel compelled to express our
concern about State Parks permit applications for installing "iron rangers" at various sites
along the Sonoma Coast.
Coastwalk is a big supporter of State
Parks and the State Department of Parks and Recreation (CDPR). We consider
State Parks to be one of our most important partners. We understand that State Parks has been directed to identify
revenue sources that will help restore its fiscal health and long term
sustainability. So, we do not want
to seem obstructionist when it comes to supporting the agency's path to
financial redemption. However,
from a long term policy perspective, we believe that State Parks should be
reversing the trend toward ever higher fees, particularly in the coastal zone,
and moving back toward policies that will eventually make State Parks
properties, which are owned by the public, more financially accessible. Specifically, the Coastal Act calls for
free access to the coast and the substantial parking fees facilitated by the
installation of "iron rangers" negate free access. Perhaps, given the State's
current fiscal situation, fees may be a short term remedy, but current policies should be set with an eye
to the long term goal of ensuring
free access. Ever rising
parking fees have been implemented in Southern California, pricing many people
off the beach. Setting the
president of charging fees in Sonoma County, where fees for State Beaches have
never been charged in the past would seen to establish a trend that goes in the
wrong direction.
Coastwalk
believes that parking fees are a very real barrier to public access,
particularly to the large population of low income residents living in inland
areas. This is a social justice issue and
a public access issue. Public transit to coastal beach destinations is
very limited. The primary viable
method for arriving at the beach is the automobile - so, charging to park at
the beach is, in effect, charging to access the beach.
Parking
fees are in reality a very regressive tax. Lower income individuals, and the middle class, are paying a
much higher proportion of their income to access public property (the beach)
than those who have greater means. Additionally, in most area of California, those of greater means are more likely
to live near the beach and therefore will not need to use parking facilities.
Parking fees, in effect, ensure that lower income people do not go to the
higher income neighborhoods where many beaches are located. The parking fees
charged in recent years, which can no longer be called "modest",
ensure that the beach has ceased being a "low cost visitor serving
facility".
Parking
fees also place an undue burden on surrounding neighborhoods, municipalities
and jurisdictions. When fees are
high at State Beach lots, many beachgoers choose to park on side streets and
elsewhere. This creates a cost to
local government for law enforcement
and a nuisance to homeowners.
Business owners may also be negatively impacted by beachgoers monopolizing customer parking. Environmental damage
will likely occur from people parking on the road in rural areas and walking
through sensitive habitat to access the beach. Local government is very short on resources. There simply are not enough county
personnel to adequately police the areas impacted by the predictable changes in
coastal user behavior should these fees be implemented.
The
word "fee" implies that
it is offsetting a specific cost.
Are parking "fees" actually tied to the cost of capital
investment in parking lots and facilities, or to the operation of the parking
lots.? Are the fees offsetting the cost of restrooms or the availability of
lifeguards? Fees are being charged
indiscriminately regardless of amenities available at a site. Additionally, if the fees are actually
levied to support amenities other than parking, then the few beach-goers who are able to use transit
to arrive at the beach are not
shouldering their proportion of the burden of operating these amenities, so
therefore the fees are arbitrary in nature. Coastwalk hopes to see these issues
examined by the new Parks Forward Commission as it works to develop policies
that will sustain our Parks System while hopefully enhancing access for all of the public. In the Parks Forward Commission's mission to make our Parks system more
relevant to California's changing demographics, the issue of financial barriers
to access must be addressed.
In
the long run, significant parking fees may be needed to motivate beachgoers to
forgo using their cars and motivate them toward using transit in the future. We must reduce greenhouse gas emissions as is called for by
State policy. However, motivating beachgoers toward transit
requires that an affordable and viable
transit system be available.
Viable transit means that beachgoers be able to get to the beach from
inland areas in a reasonable amount of time. Affordable and viable
transit is not available along the coast in most areas of California at this
time. Until a robust
affordable transit system exists, significant parking fees constitute a
substantial barrier to coastal public access since there is not a reasonable
alternative to accessing the beach without an automobile.
The
people of California voted for the Passage of Proposition 20 in 1972 largely in
support of beach access. They envisioned free access to their public property, our beaches and coastline. Taxpayers expect access to the
properties and amenities that their taxes have paid for. Access to free recreation is vital to
our health, both physical and mental, and creating financial barriers to it
gives rise to more costs than savings in the long run. Beach access is a huge positive
economic driver. State Parks
deficit is small relative to the State's as a whole AND relative to the
economic activity generated by access to our coastline and the recreation
opportunities provided by the State Parks system. Public support of common
infrastructure does generate private
economic benefit therefore publically owned assets need not be treated as
profit centers that must generate fee based revenues since their positive
economic effect is realized in private economic activity and its resulting tax
revenue.
For all of these reasons, we find it
totally unacceptable for these collection devises to be installed. Please uphold Sonoma County's long
tradition leadership of supporting coastal public access by just saying no to
iron rangers!
Thank you so much for considering our
comments.
Sincerely,
Una J. M. Glass
Executive Director, Coastwalk California
.gif)
Posts
