Closing the CA State Parks: 3 Reasons Why It Won’t Happen Celeste Fremon Witness L.A.

July 3rd, 2009

1. The Park Closures Aren’t Legal.

For one thing, Robert Garcia of the City Project says it isn’t legal to close the parks—and he said as much in a detailed letter citing plenty of case law that he sent this week to Arnold Schwarzenegger and the rest of the big five, namely Senate President pro tempore Darrell Steinberg, Senate Minority Leader Dennis Hollingsworth, Assembly Speaker Karen Bass and Assembly Minority Leader Sam Blakeslee.

Since Garcia is arguably the smartest environmental justice lawyer in the state, I tend to believe him on such things, the five would be wise to believe him too. (Since otherwise he’ll sue their sorry butts and likely win. Here’s a link to the letter.)
************************************************************************************************************************
2. If We Close the Parks, the Feds will Take Them Over

Well, not all the parks. But as of Wednesday, National Park Service Regional Director Jonathan Jarvis said that if Schwarzenegger goes ahead with the closures he threatened last month, that the Feds are legally empowered to seize the state parks that are located on Federal land, which include the Big Sur area, Point Magu, and four of California’s other big parks. To make things worse, we will lose millions in federal grants. And….by all accounts, Jarvis is willing to make good on the threat.

************************************************************************************************************************

3. Closing the Parks Was Always a Stupid idea, Fiscally Speaking.

Exactly a month ago, advocates pointed out that the revenue generated by visitors to the various state parks, exceeds their cost. But no one seemed to be listening.

Then in early June, Sacramento State University released a study that verified the fact that the cost/benefit ratio does not favor shuttering the parks at all. In other words, closing the parks would ultimately result in losing money, not gaining it.

Read the rest of this story at Witness L.A. . . .

UPDATED Legal Requirements to Keep State Parks Open for All

July 2nd, 2009

June 29, 2009 UPDATED July 2, 2009

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
Senate President pro tempore Darrell Steinberg
Senate Minority Leader Dennis Hollingsworth
Assembly Speaker Karen Bass
Assembly Minority Leader Sam Blakeslee
State Capitol Sacramento, CA

re: Legal Requirements to Keep State Parks Open for All

Dear Governor Schwarzenegger, Senate President Steinberg, Senate Minority Leader Hollingsworth, Speaker Bass, and Assembly Minority Leader Blakeslee:

We demand that you keep the California State Park system open for all, and cease and desist the threats to cut the budget of the California Department of Parks and Recreation (the Department) by $70 million this year. Closing units of the park system would cost more than $70 million and would be arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory, and illegal under the following laws, among others, as discussed below:

  • the Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund and the Federal Lands to Parks Program;
  • laws requiring that beaches remain public for all, including the public trust doctrine, the California Constitution, the California Coastal Act, other California statutory law;
  • federal and state civil rights laws prohibiting intentional discrimination and unjustified discriminatory impacts based on race color or nation origin by recipients of federal or state funds, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its regulations, and California Government Code 11135 and its regulations;
  • California Code of Civil Procedure 526a, prohibiting any illegal expenditure of, waste of, or injury to public property;
  • Federal and State Environmental laws require full environmental review before any discretionary acts to close State Parks.

Visitors to California’s state parks spend an average of $4.32 billion per year in park-related expenditures, based on attendance estimates by state Parks and Recreation of about 74.9 million visitors a year, according to a recent study by the California State University at Sacramento.

Congress has authorized the acquisition of over 700,000 acres of green space in California. The Governor proposes closing 1,287,645 acres of state parks, which would more than cancel the federal government’s efforts to green California. The National Trust for Historic Preservation has named California’s state parks as one of the nation’s eleven most endangered historic treasures. The National Park Service has fee free National Parks this summer, in recognition of the values parks provide, particularly during the worst economic crisis since the Depression.

State parks provide economic benefits including places for physical activity to reduce obesity, improve health, and cut medical costs; local green jobs for youth and small and disadvantaged business enterprises; Conservation Corps type programs to diversify job and career opportunities and to permanently improve the park system, and transit to trails.

Parks offer multiple benefits beyond dollars and cents, including the simple joys of playing in the park; social cohesion, or bringing people together; improved physical, psychic, and social health; improved youth development and academic performance; educational programs on stewardship; positive alternatives to gangs, crime, drugs, and violence; conservation values of clean air, water, land, and habitat protection, and climate justice; art, culture and historic preservation; preservation of Native American sites; spiritual values in protecting the earth and its people; and sustainable regional planning. Fundamental principles of equal justice and democracy underlie these benefits.

LWCF and FLP. Closing State Park facilities that have received assistance from the Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) State Grant Program could jeopardize future reimbursements and funding under this program. Similarly, closures affecting properties conveyed to the State under the Federal Lands to Parks Program (FLP) could result in reversion of the property to federal ownership for re-disposal. Measures exist short of park closures that will allow the State to remain in compliance with LWCF and FLP. 67 of the State Parks on the proposed closure list are affected by LWCF. See generally P.L. 88-578, 16 U.S.C. 460l-8, section 6(f)(3); 36 CFR section 59. Six of the State Parks on the proposed closure list are affected by FLP. See generally Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, 63 Stat. 377, 40 U.S.C. section 550. The federal government has provided funding or land transfers to create units of the State Park System that would be closed.

Public Beaches. Units of the State Park system on the coast, including for example over 22 miles of beaches in the Sinkyone Wilderness State Park, must remain open for all under the public trust doctrine, the California Constitution, the California Coastal Act, and state and federal civil rights laws. It was a condition of California joining the union that the beach remain public. See generally Robert García and Erica Flores Baltodano, Free the Beach! Equal Justice, Public Access, and the California Coast, 2 Stanford Journal of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties 143, 178-85, 185-93 (2005).

Urban Parks. Closing urban State Parks, such as Rio de Los Angeles State Parks and Los Angeles State Historic Park, would constitute intentional discrimination and unjustified discriminatory impacts, in violation of state and federal civil rights laws. See generally Robert García et al., Dreams of Fields: Soccer, Community and Equal Justice (Policy Report The City Project 2002).

Taxpayers’ Suits. Under these circumstances, Code of Civil Procedure section 526a permits a taxpayer action to prevent any illegal expenditure of, waste of, or injury to public property. Citizen suits promote the policy of guaranteeing citizens the opportunity to ensure that governmental bodies do not impair or defeat public rights. See, e.g., Connerly v. State Personnel Bd,. 92 Cal.App.4th 16, 29 (2001).

Everyone would suffer from the closure of parks, but people of color and low income communities would suffer first and worst. The proposal to close state parks is part of a pattern and practice of depriving people of color and low income communities of the social net of state services. A diverse and growing alliance supports healthy livable communities for all. See letter from diverse allies to Governor Schwarznegger re Keep State Parks Open for All (June 1, 2009), tinyurl.com/ntdhwq. See generally Policy Report Economic Stimulus, Green Space, and Equal Justice (The City Project 2009), tinyurl.com/m5xpyd; Peter R. Orszag, Director, Office of Management and Budget, Memo re: Updated Implementing Guidance for American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, April 3, 2009, www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/memoranda_fy2009/m09-15.pdf; California Green Stimulus Coalition, policies and principles, tinyurl.com/m3kg4j.

We demand that you keep the California State Park system open for all, and cease and desist the threats to cut the budget of the California Department of Parks and Recreation (the Department) and to close units of the State Park system. The alternative is to face the loss of federal funds and litigation.

Very truly yours,

Raul Macias, Anahuak Youth Sports Association

Harold Goldstein, California Center for Public Health Advocacy

Martin Martinez, California Pan Ethnic Health Network

Robert García, The City Project

Mark Williams, Concerned Citizens of South Central Los Angeles

Dr. Robert Bullard, Environmental Justice Resource Center, Clark Atlanta University

Roger Rivera, National Hispanic Environment Council

 

Download this UPDATED letter to keep parks open.

Monuments, Diversity and Democracy: Manzanar Natural Historic Site

July 2nd, 2009

160 Manzanar National Historic Site

“Manzanar National Historic Site preserves the stories and resources of Manzanar for this and future generations. We will facilitate a park experience that weaves the stories of the various occupations of Manzanar faithfully, completely, and accurately. Manzanzar Historic Site will provide leadership for the protection and interpretation of associated sties. From this foundation, the park will stimulate and provoke a greater understanding of, and dialogue on, civil rights, democracy, and freedom.” Manzanar Mission Statement

Learn more about Monuments, Diversity and Democracy.

Raul Macias Field L.A. River Center

July 1st, 2009

Raul Macias Field L.A. River Center

Raul Macias Field at L.A. River Center Grand Opening Jan. 24, 2009

Visit the Heritage Parkscape online and on flickr.

Legal Requirements to Keep State Parks Open for All

June 30th, 2009

READ THE UPDATED JULY 2, 2009 LETTER BY CLICKING HERE

June 29, 2009

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
Senate President pro tempore Darrell Steinberg
Senate Minority Leader Dennis Hollingsworth
Assembly Speaker Karen Bass
Assembly Minority Leader Sam Blakeslee
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA

re: Legal Requirements to Keep State Parks Open for All

Dear Governor Schwarzenegger, Senate President Steinberg, Senate Minority Leader Hollingsworth, Speaker Bass, and Assembly Minority Leader Blakeslee:

We demand that you keep the California State Park system open for all, and cease and desist the threats to cut the budget of the California Department of Parks and Recreation (the Department) by $70 million this year. Closing units of the park system would cost more than $70 million and would be arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory, and illegal under the following laws, as discussed below:

  • the Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund and the Federal Lands to Parks Program;
  • laws requiring that beaches remain public for all, including the public trust doctrine, the California Constitution, the California Coastal Act, other California statutory law;
  • federal and state civil rights laws prohibiting intentional discrimination and unjustified discriminatory impacts based on race color or nation origin by recipients of federal or state funds, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its regulations, and California Government Code 11135 and its regulations;
  • California Code of Civil Procedure 526a, prohibiting any illegal expenditure of, waste of, or injury to public property.

Visitors to California’s state parks spend an average of $4.32 billion per year in park-related expenditures, based on attendance estimates by state Parks and Recreation of about 74.9 million visitors a year, according to a recent study by the California State University at Sacramento. That is a 6 to 1 return on the $70 million proposed to be cut this budget year.

Congress has authorized the acquisition of over 700,000 acres of green space in California. The Governor proposes closing 1,287,645 acres of state parks, which would more than cancel the federal government’s efforts to green California. The National Trust for Historic Preservation has named California’s state parks as one of the nation’s eleven most endangered historic treasures. The National Park Service has fee free National Parks this summer, in recognition of the values parks provide, particularly during the worst economic crisis since the Depression.

State parks provide economic benefits including places for physical activity to reduce obesity, improve health, and cut medical costs; local green jobs for youth and small and disadvantaged business enterprises; Conservation Corps type programs to diversify job and career opportunities and to permanently improve the park system, and transit to trails.

Parks offer multiple benefits beyond dollars and cents, including the simple joys of playing in the park; social cohesion, or bringing people together; improved physical, psychic, and social health; improved youth development and academic performance; educational programs on stewardship; positive alternatives to gangs, crime, drugs, and violence; conservation values of clean air, water, land, and habitat protection, and climate justice; art, culture and historic preservation; preservation of Native American sites; spiritual values in protecting the earth and its people; and sustainable regional planning. Fundamental principles of equal justice and democracy underlie these benefits.

LWCF and FLP. Closing State Park facilities that have received assistance from the Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) State Grant Program could jeopardize future reimbursements and funding under this program. Similarly, closures affecting properties conveyed to the State under the Federal Lands to Parks Program (FLP) could result in reversion of the property to federal ownership for re-disposal. Measures exist short of park closures that will allow the State to remain in compliance with LWCF and FLP. 67 of the State Parks on the proposed closure list are affected by LWCF. See generally P.L. 88-578, 16 U.S.C. 460l-8, section 6(f)(3); 36 CFR section 59. Six of the State Parks on the proposed closure list are affected by FLP. See generally Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, 63 Stat. 377, 40 U.S.C. section 550. The federal government has provided funding or land transfers to create units of the State Park System that would be closed.

Public Beaches. Units of the State Park system on the coast, including for example over 22 miles of beaches in the Sinkyone Wilderness State Park, must remain open for all under the public trust doctrine, the California Constitution, the California Coastal Act, and state and federal civil rights laws. It was a condition of California joining the union that the beach remain public. See generally Robert García
and Erica Flores Baltodano, Free the Beach! Equal Justice, Public Access, and the California Coast, 2 Stanford Journal of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties 143, 178-85, 185-93 (2005).

Urban Parks. Closing urban State Parks, such as Rio de Los Angeles State Parks and Los Angeles State Historic Park, would constitute intentional discrimination and unjustified discriminatory impacts, in violation of state and federal civil rights laws. See generally Robert García
et al., Dreams of Fields: Soccer, Community and Equal Justice (Policy Report The City Project 2002).

Taxpayers’ Suits. Under these circumstances, Code of Civil Procedure section 526a permits a taxpayer action to prevent any illegal expenditure of, waste of, or injury to public property. Citizen suits promote the policy of guaranteeing citizens the opportunity to ensure that governmental bodies do not impair or defeat public rights. See, e.g., Connerly v. State Personnel Bd,. 92 Cal.App.4th 16, 29 (2001).

Everyone would suffer from the closure of parks, but people of color and low income communities would suffer first and worst. The proposal to close state parks is part of a pattern and practice of depriving people of color and low income communities of the social net of state services. A diverse and growing alliance supports healthy livable communities for all. See letter from diverse allies to Governor Schwarznegger re Keep State Parks Open for All (June 1, 2009), tinyurl.com/ntdhwq. See generally Policy Report Economic Stimulus, Green Space, and Equal Justice (The City Project 2009), tinyurl.com/m5xpyd; Peter R. Orszag, Director, Office of Management and Budget, Memo re: Updated Implementing Guidance for American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, April 3, 2009, www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/memoranda_fy2009/m09-15.pdf; California Green Stimulus Coalition, policies and principles, tinyurl.com/m3kg4j.

We demand that you keep the California State Park system open for all, and cease and desist the threats to cut the budget of the California Department of Parks and Recreation (the Department) and to close units of the State Park system. The alternative is to face the loss of federal funds and litigation.

Very truly yours,

Robert García
Executive Director and Counsel

Download this letter to keep parks open by clicking here.

South Park City Colorado 2004

June 29th, 2009

South Park City Colorado 2004

View the Fun in the Park collection on flickr.

Learn more about Monuments, Diversity, and Democracy.

World Wall Mexico City SPARC 2006

June 26th, 2009

World Wall Mexico City SPARC 2006

Triumph of the Heart

The World Wall is a traveling installation mural that envisions a future without fear. It was conceived by Chicana mural artist and UCLA Professor Judith F. Baca and coordinated by the Social and Public Art Resource Center (SPARC) in celebration of 30 years of community-based, participatory public arts projects. The World Wall consists of eight 10 feet by 30 feet portable panels that envision a transformation from a war-based society to a peaceful one.

Four of the panels are by Judy Baca: Triumph of the Heart, Nonviolent Resistance, Balance, and Triumph of the Hands. A team from Finland, Sirkka-Lisa Lonka, Aaro Matinlauri, and Juha Saaski, painted Dialogue of Alternatives. Alexi Begov, a native Russian artist, with the assistance of Vladimir Jegolenkov painted The End of the Twentieth Century. The Palestinian-Israeli team consisting of Ahmed Bweerat, Suliman Monsour, and Adi Yekutieli painted Inheritance-Compromise. Two Mexican muralists, Martha Ramirez Oropeza and Patricia Quijano, painted Tlazolteotl: Creative Force of the Un-Woven. The World Wall is shown here at the Museum of Mexico City in October 2006. The World Wall © Judith Baca.

Learn more about the Monuments, Diversity, and Democracy campaign.

Visit the Heritage Parkscape online and on flickr.

Malibu Plans Lawsuit to Prevent Public Access and Camping

June 25th, 2009

City to file lawsuit against Coastal Commission

Malibu Times
Wednesday, June 24, 2009 2:20 PM PDT

Angered by the commission’s indifference to residents’ and city officials pleas to consider the risks of fire and other hazards, and approve a ban on overnight camping within city limits, the council authorizes the city attorney to file suit against the commission.

By Olivia Damavandi / Staff Writer

The City of Malibu announced on Monday it will file a lawsuit against the California Coastal Commission, challenging its rejection earlier this month of the city’s Local Coastal Program amendment to ban overnight camping, while approving an amendment by the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy that would allow camping at three canyon parks.

[City Attorney Christy] Hogin, voicing a sentiment by many Malibu residents, said the commission was biased and had decided to reject the city’s proposal long before the meeting even started.

Several commissioners exited the meeting room during testimonies by Malibu residents, and those who were present repeatedly conducted private conversations with other commissioners seated next to them.

“We think the courtroom is the worst place for government entities to resolve their differences, but as you saw at the Coastal Commission meeting, we were met with an absolute stonewall,” Hogin said. “Meanwhile, the Coastal Commission is taking helicopter rides with Joe Edmiston [executive director of the SMMC].”

Numerous residents at Monday night’s City Council meeting echoed Hogin’s sentiment and voiced their support of the lawsuit.

“It’s just amazing how the Coastal Commission demonstrated to us how well they can carry the water for Mr. Edmiston and his group,” Navy Banvard told the council. “I thought that was pretty disappointing. It makes me angry that we wasted our time now that minds were made up before we entered that hearing room.

“My sensibilities are to stay out of court,” he continued, “but I think that might be the only way the Edmiston crowd doesn’t get a pre-determined advantage.


Read the rest of this article in the Malibu Times . . .

200906251406.jpg

It is ironic that the Malibu City Attorney and residents of Malibu are now complaining about the recent California Coastal Commission hearing, where the Commission gave supporters and opponents a full and fair hearing.

In contrast, as seen in YouTube videos of the December 2007 hearing before the Malibu City Council, SMMC Executive Director Joe Edmiston presented the plan for public access to public lands and camping, while Malibu residents booed and hooted.

The City Project’s Robert García called for Malibu to provide equal access to public lands for all under state and federal laws. The Malibu mayor repeatedly called for order while Malibu residents jeered and yelled “Pay your taxes!” The discriminatory implication is that García, a Latino, does not pay taxes, nor do other people of color who are interested in going to the beach, hiking in the mountains, or camping overnight.

Angela Mooney D’Arcy from The City Project urged the Malibu city council to comply with state law and the letter of concern from the Native American Heritage Commission by engaging in respectful government to government consultation with Native American leaders before cutting off public access to public lands that may implicate Native American religious rights and freedoms. Residents tried to drown out her presentation with howling and stomping. The discriminatory implications are clear. Native Americans are not welcome in Malibu.

A city council member asked the crowd, “Ladies and gentlemen, we have the press here. Is this really how you want to present the image of Malibu to the public?” Residents responded with a resounding “Yes!”

A Malibu resident barked out invectives demanding that the city council cut off public access to public lands: “as God is my witness, I will recall every single person I can that votes the wrong way . . . . I grew up in Florida in a resort city. [Malibu] looks like the most hellacious city I’ve ever seen in my life. You’ve told me, Barovsky, that you were going to clean up this, this illegal slave operation we have out in front of, of the city hall. We don’t even know if they’re illegal or not. We don’t know who could have been starting fires anywhere.” Reflecting a sense of entitlement, exclusivity, and privilege, Malibu residents applauded this acerbic message, while at the same time they tried to drown out advocates who spoke up for public access for all. The discriminatory implications are manifold. First, people of color are working at city hall, and those people must be undocumented workers or slaves. Second, there is or may be a connection between wild fires and those people of color, undocumented workers, or slaves, or others like them. Finally, the distorted sense of privilege demonstrated by this resident’s diatribe takes one’s breath away. Malibu is not the first city that comes to mind when most people think of hellacious cities. The poorest sections of Calcutta or the favelas of Río de Janeiro, perhaps — but not Malibu, even on a beach day with heavy traffic.

The City Project submitted the following memorandum on the coastal access plan and equal justice.

Learn more about Free the Beach! to keep public beaches free for all the people of California here.

Heritage Parkscape: St. Bridget’s Chinese Catholic Center

June 25th, 2009

St.Bridget's Chinese Catholic Center

Located on the north end of Chinatown, St. Bridget’s Chinese Catholic Center has been a centering force for Los Angeles’s Chinese community since its founding in 1940. Each Sunday, the newly remodeled church hosts one service in English and one in Cantonese.

Visit the Heritage Parkscape online and on flickr.

Learn more about Monuments, Diversity, and Democracy.

U.S. 2-Spain 0 Confederations Cup

June 25th, 2009
Published: June 24, 2009

BLOEMFONTEIN, South Africa — When the final whistle blew and the United States had collected one of its greatest soccer victories, defeating Spain, the No. 1 team in the world, the American players ran and jumped into one another’s arms and waved towels. . . .

Immediately, the victory took its place among other classic American soccer triumphs — victories in the World Cup over England in 1950, over Colombia in 1994, and over Portugal and Mexico in 2002 that were similarly stirring and unexpected. . . . It was the first time the United States had defeated a top-ranked team since a 1-0 victory over Brazil in the 1998 Concacaf Gold Cup, and only the second time ever.

Read the rest of this story in the New York Times . . .


lat us spain stanford.jpg

Read the rest of this story in the L.A. Times . . .