Home My Staff & I Press Box Legislation Sites To See The 2nd District The Jacob Journal How To Reach Me Helpful Info

 

DATE: May 11, 2004
TO: Board of Supervisors
SUBJECT: Opposition to AB 2064: Urban State Parks (Goldberg)

SUMMARY:
AB 2064 (Goldberg) proposes to create a new division within the California State Parks system called Urban State Parks. This division would identify needs for parks and invest funding in highly urbanized areas of the state that tend to have low-income households, few resources, and are “park poor” areas. As noble as this proposed legislation sounds, there are serious flaws in AB 2064 that excludes all of San Diego County from funding opportunities, and even jeopardizes San Diego County’s access to existing Park Bond Act funds.
Given the gross inadequacies in this bill, today’s action will request that a letter be prepared, to be signed by the Chairwoman of the San Diego County Board of Supervisors, stating San Diego County’s firm opposition to California State Assembly Bill 2064.

RECOMMENDATIONS:
Chairwoman Dianne Jacob:

  1. Oppose AB 2064 (Goldberg) related to the designation of park poor areas.
  2. Direct the Chief Administrative Officer to draft a letter, to be signed by the Chairwoman of the Board of Supervisors, stating the County of San Diego’s position and urging the 18 cities throughout the region to oppose AB 2064.
  3. Direct the Chief Administrative Officer to convey our opposition to AB 2064 to the Governor’s Office, as well as the County’s Legislative Delegation and Sacramento Representatives.

FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact associated with this action.

BACKGROUND:
AB 2064 (Goldberg) proposes to create a new division within the California State Parks system called Urban State Parks. This division would identify needs for parks and invest funding in highly urbanized areas of the state that tend to have low-income households, few resources, and are “park poor” areas. As noble as this proposed legislation sounds, there are serious flaws in AB 2064. The bill adds a layer of bureaucracy to an already bloated government. AB 2064 could redirect San Diego County’s current portion of the voter-approved Parks Bond Act of 2002 (Proposition 40) to more densely populated areas. It could direct all money from future park bond measures to “park poor” areas. And all parks in San Diego County would be ineligible to receive funding through the Urban Parks Division.

“Heavily Urbanized County” Penalizes All San Diego County Kids
AB 2064, if passed, would make San Diego County ineligible to receive any funds for urban park development, based on a narrow definition of “heavily urbanized county.” With the creation of a new Urban Parks Division within the State Department of Parks and Recreation, an Urban State Park would be one located within a heavily urbanized county-a county with a population of 500,000 or more and a density of at least 1,100 persons per square mile. Although San Diego County has the fourth largest population in the nation, its population density is just more than 700 people per square mile. Thus, AB 2064 penalizes our entire region because of our large areas of open space, our farmland, and our deserts and remote areas. Everyone loses, both in rural and urban areas of the county.

Unclear Language of AB 2064
The language of AB 2064 is vague. The bill states, “…in future bonds for the acquisition, development, or rehabilitation of parks, money should be allocated to ‘park poor’ areas.” The Director of the California State Department of Parks and Recreation would define “park poor” only after the legislation is passed.
Second, it is not clear if “money in future bonds” includes unallocated money from the already-approved Parks Bond Act of 2002 (Proposition 40). The passage of AB 2064 could swipe existing (but unallocated) Prop 40 funds away from parks in San Diego County.

More Bureaucracy, Less Local Input
Creating a new division within the State Parks System could eventually mean that State Parks will compete with local jurisdictions for still other sources of funding. Parks throughout San Diego County are tailored to meet the needs of individual communities. The San Diego County Parks Department is in constant contact with local residents, and the staff know how to meet the park needs of each unique community at a grassroots level. Creating a new division in State Parks would further separate the park from the community. For a government already in need of a strict spending diet, it is unsound to add another layer of bureaucratic fat, particularly when there is no indication that the State can be responsive to the needs of individual communities throughout California.

Given the gross inadequacies in this bill, today’s action will request that a letter be prepared, to be signed by the Chairwoman of the San Diego County Board of Supervisors, stating San Diego County’s firm opposition to California State Assembly Bill 2064. It will also ask other cities and counties throughout the state of California to oppose the bill. Californians in all types of communities must not be hamstrung by this narrow legislation, and our children are too precious a resource to deny even one the opportunity to play.

I urge your support.
Respectfully submitted,

DIANNE JACOB
Chairwoman, Second District