State parks were self sustaining?

by David Safier

If I'm reading it correctly, an article in the Star changes what I believed was true: that state parks need tax dollars to supplement entrance fees.

According to the article, state parks had been self sustaining until the legislature raided their funding source.

The parks system gets no tax money. It operates on about $8.5 million in entrance fees plus revenue from special sources, such as a tax on boat registrations to improve state lakes.

But lawmakers, looking for operating money for the state, raided those funds, leaving the system short of money. And the amount of future revenues from parks that make a profit is not enough to offset those that operate at a deficit.

Let me restate that. When all the state parks were open and operational, they didn't take a penny from tax dollars. The reason we had to close some of them down is because legislators raided the parks' funding sources.

By extension — and I don't know if I have this right — since the only parks left open are those that break even or make a profit, the legislature plans to use the parks as a way to put additional funds into state coffers. Doesn't that turn a user fee into a tax on people who use state parks?

Anyone know how much the state managed to siphon from the parks fund? I'll bet it wasn't a whole lot — a tiny drop in the huge budget deficit bucket. Which leads me to think true motive is to privatize the parks. 

Republicans are operating on what I'm now dubbing "the Al Melvin Principle":

"When everyone is on their knees, so to speak, from the adverse economic situation, you can get more accomplished in a fundamental way than you can if you're flush with revenue and cash." [an actual, unedited Cap'n Al quote]

Create a crisis, then use it to further your wingnut agenda.

Minor Fool's Gold Alert: If I'm right that the parks weren't using tax funds, Byron Schlomach's Daily Email against the $12 fee to keep parks open rings especially hollow:

This new funding mechanism would place state parks in a position of unaccountable financial independence somewhat similar to the state transportation department and the new Early Childhood Development & Health Board. Self-funded agencies often are not particularly responsive to those they are supposed to serve.

Before the state raided their funds, weren't parks already self-funded, and therefore "in a position of unaccountable financial independence"?