Parks facing funding shortfalls ...

[sp_nyp]

We are in agreement... I should have explained my point better.

There is money coming into the state via taxes and fees... it isn't like the state has no source of income. It still 'has a job' , so to speak.

... the problem is twofold, as you stated...

1) We have a bloated government.

2) We have many large fiscal responsibilities.

[stripperguy]

Originally Posted by backwoodsman

Where does the money come from for the EPF, does it come from the federal level?

No, it's a NY state fund.
The EPF is funded primarily by the NYS Real Estate Transfer tax. At one point, the fund had almost $300 million in assets.

[rADK]

Originally Posted by redhawk

Actually the fact is that we are supporting rich American businesses who choose to do business in China. It's American Big Business that benefits the most.

I suppose the next logical question is, why do these businesses choose to employ people elsewhere?

[rollinslover64]

Originally Posted by rADK

I suppose the next logical question is, why do these businesses choose to employ people elsewhere?

It could possibly be that they do their business elsewhere so they do not have to pay the third highest tax rate on profits in the world. When a business is started it is with intentions that it is going to make a profit. Over time as a business grows owners have a responsibility to maximize profits for their shareholders. If that means they have to relocate to a place where that is more possible they will move. A business is not formed to merely exist but to profit in a capitalistic society. Get rid of unions and lower the costs and taxes of doing business significantly and they will return.

[adkman12986]

Originally Posted by stripperguy

No, it's a NY state fund.
The EPF is funded primarily by the NYS Real Estate Transfer tax. At one point, the fund had almost $300 million in assets.

I believe it does or did get funded at least partly from the state, and other groups.


We have an approved state budget and a fully funded Environmental Protection Fund with $250 million, representing last years and this years appropriations.

The amount that will be available for purchasing land and open space in 2002 will be $76 million, an increase of $ 10 million over the governor's original proposal. About $ 12.5 million will be available for DEC/OPRHP land and park stewardship for FY 2002-2003. This figure is equal to the FY 2000-2001 appropriation for land stewardship and $2 million more than the governor's original proposal, so we have protected the funding level for this key source of trail maintenance and backcountry projects money. We were able to eliminate $35 million of the proposed $46 million in General Fund offloads, freeing that money for land acquisition, farmland preservation and other EPF priorities.

The budget language does authorize a $235 million dollar loan from uncommitted EPF cash balances to the state's General Fund. Legislation included with the budget authorizes repayment of the EPF from the General Fund if the available funds in the EPF are insufficient to meet actual and anticipated cash needs for EPF authorized projects over the next 10 - 15 years.

I will be providing with a full report after I check some final negotiation details with Assembly senior staff and Lynette Stark of the Governor's office. But for now, key land acquisition and stewardship projects can go forward!!

Neil F. Woodworth
Counsel
Adirondack Mountain Club
New York- New Jersey Trail Conference

[stripperguy]

Originally Posted by adkman12986

I believe it does or did get funded at least partly from the state, and other groups.


We have an approved state budget and a fully funded Environmental Protection Fund with $250 million, representing last years and this years appropriations.

The amount that will be available for purchasing land and open space in 2002 will be $76 million, an increase of $ 10 million over the governor's original proposal. About $ 12.5 million will be available for DEC/OPRHP land and park stewardship for FY 2002-2003. This figure is equal to the FY 2000-2001 appropriation for land stewardship and $2 million more than the governor's original proposal, so we have protected the funding level for this key source of trail maintenance and backcountry projects money. We were able to eliminate $35 million of the proposed $46 million in General Fund offloads, freeing that money for land acquisition, farmland preservation and other EPF priorities.

The budget language does authorize a $235 million dollar loan from uncommitted EPF cash balances to the state's General Fund. Legislation included with the budget authorizes repayment of the EPF from the General Fund if the available funds in the EPF are insufficient to meet actual and anticipated cash needs for EPF authorized projects over the next 10 - 15 years.

I will be providing with a full report after I check some final negotiation details with Assembly senior staff and Lynette Stark of the Governor's office. But for now, key land acquisition and stewardship projects can go forward!!

Neil F. Woodworth
Counsel
Adirondack Mountain Club
New York- New Jersey Trail Conference

Wow,
It took me a while, but I found the source of your unreferenced quote.
That's from April 22, 2002.
Here's a link for anyone else that's interested.

Much has changed in the nearly 9 years that have passed...

[1894]

Originally Posted by stripperguy

Wow,
It took me a while, but I found the source of your unreferenced quote.
That's from April 22, 2002.
Here's a link for anyone else that's interested.

Much has changed in the nearly 9 years that have passed...

Yep states love to overspend durring the good times and base that on continued projected growth. Trouble is that they never seem to save some $$ and plan for the lean times

[DSettahr]

Originally Posted by 1894

Yep states love to overspend durring the good times and base that on continued projected growth. Trouble is that they never seem to save some $$ and plan for the lean times

Unfortunately, with the way our state government works, if an agency tries to hold on to money and doesn't spend it, then one of two things happens (or maybe both!):

- Their future funding is curtailed, with the justification that "they didn't spend that much money last year, so they don't need that much money this year."

- Those saved funds are raided by another agency for something else.

As a result, an atmosphere of "we've gotta spend as much money as we can this year, so we can justify getting more money next year" has developed in many agencies. Gotta love bureaucracies!

[BigDan93]

One, probably fairly uncontroversial thought, is how unfortunate it is that recent wildfires are costing states and the federal government huge amounts of money. It's hard to see so much money being used when even just tiny fractions of that could go such a long way for parks all over. I'm not saying we shouldn't fight fires, it's just a shame that they happen, and that we need to fight them, to begin with.

[Woodly]

We fight fires because we don't manage forests properly...and so good money goes to waste.