In Tuesday’s Dispatch, letter writer Chris Covielloin asks
plaintively why
”
those cheap politicians
”
would consider closing Henry Coe Park while simultaneously
buying Blair Ranch for a new park. Chris was touched by the plight
of the ranger’s family portrayed in March 21 Dispatch; the family
might have to move out of their quaint house at Henry Coe if the
park is closed.
&
amp;#8194;
In Tuesday’s Dispatch, letter writer Chris Covielloin asks plaintively why “those cheap politicians” would consider closing Henry Coe Park while simultaneously buying Blair Ranch for a new park. Chris was touched by the plight of the ranger’s family portrayed in March 21 Dispatch; the family might have to move out of their quaint house at Henry Coe if the park is closed. 
The fact is that Henry Coe is a state park. The state is facing a $14 billion budget deficit. School programs and parks are on the chopping block. Blair Ranch, on the other hand, is being bought by a group that includes the county, but not the state. The county is actually in no better condition. Santa Clara County is trying to juggle a $155 million deficit.
But in June 2006, county voters approved Measure B, which mandated that a specified percentage of the county’s general fund must be spent on the acquisition of new park land. While county services such as hospitals and mental health services are squeezed, Santa Clara County is forced by the voters to buy more parkland.  
Santa Clara County kicked in $1 million to buy Blair Ranch. The Moore Foundation contributed $2 million, the Coastal Conservancy and the Peninsula Open Space Trust coughed up $4.3 million between them. That adds up to $7.3 million of the $8.65 million the Blair family charged for their 865 acres.
Needless to say, I opposed Measure B at the time of its passage. State, federal, and local governments, between them, in 2006 owned 56 percent of California. That percentage is undoubtedly higher now. We have plenty of parks. We have more parks than we can adequately maintain or staff. And every acre of government-owned land is an acre that does not pay taxes. As a result of Measure B, even in a year when Santa Clara County is facing a $155 million shortfall, we must spend an earmarked sum on buying new parkland, parkland that must be staffed, policed, and maintained – or just be closed for lack of funds available to staff and maintain it. 
The current situation illustrates perfectly why it is a bad idea for voters to lock in rigid constraints about how the general fund – be it state or local – must be spent. This practice hamstrings the state legislature, the county board of supervisors, the city council, or the school board from making decisions in tough economic times about how to spend the funds available. Not that any branch of government is likely to consider how best to spend the funds available in tough economic times.
Witness how the Gilroy Unified School District Board of Trustees recently approved Superintendent Deborah Flores’s recommendation to hire an investment banking firm to conduct a survey to measure voter support for a potential bond and parcel tax to pay for school facilities and operations. That is how government works: when the good times roll and tax revenues are high, they spend. When the economy tanks and tax revenues fall, they hire push-poll firms to try to convince voters to pass a bond or raise taxes. But the school district says that they really have very little control over how money is spent. The state mandates most of their expenditures.
Maybe, just maybe, if a local body such as the school board had complete control over its budget, instead of being regulated and micromanaged by the state, it could make better decisions about saving in good times and tightening belts in bad. Maybe.
But it is the natural tendency of any organization to try to grow and perpetuate itself. Witness how the Santa Clara Valley Water District mushroomed, growing 300 percent while the population it served grew only 50 percent. Taxpayers and voters have very little power over out-of-control government growth and spending. But we can vote against bonds and tax increases. We can vote for politicians who at least claim they will cut spending, rather than the ones who promise to increase programs. And we can refrain from tying up the general fund with earmarks. Most of all, we can think about the long-term consequences before we vote. With our form of government, we swiftly get the government we deserve. 
