Escape to Serenity: Yes on 70

A dirt road that enters Chino Hills State Park from the east transports visitors from the bustle of expanding urban life into rolling, grassy hills. Sycamores hug stream beds, and walnut trees are silhouettes along the park’s ridgelines. The ridges protect the serenity of this parkland, keeping the push of development beyond view, but they are not all part of the park. They could be--if Proposition 70, the $776-million bond issue for parkland and wildlife protection, passed on June 7.

Chino Hills State Park, a dream come to life in large part by the efforts of a citizens’ group called Hills for Everyone, would receive $7 million from the bond issue. Chino Hills--with land in Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino and Orange counties--still needs to add 3,000 acres to the 10,000 already in state ownership.

Half the funds in the proposed bond issue are earmarked for Southern California, the rest for the remainder of the state. Most of the money would be used to buy land, with local park districts receiving $130 million to use on their own projects. Development projects within new or existing parks would get $50 million.

The Santa Monica Mountains, starved for acquisition money, would receive $30 million, while Los Angeles County would receive $10 million for expansion of the Baldwin Hills Recreation Area. Laguna Beach would get $10 million for open space near the city; Riverside would receive $1 million to expand Sycamore Canyon Park.

There are worthy projects throughout California. The existing state redwood parks would receive $12 million; there would be $2 million to acquire wintering sites of monarch butterflies around the state. A citizens’ group on the border of Mendo cino and Humboldt counties has raised the down payment to spare old-growth redwoods in Sanctuary Forest from logging; that forest would receive $4 million to complete the land purchase. And Robert Louis Stevenson State Park in Napa County would get $2 million for expansion.

There is some opposition. A coalition that draws heavily from the California Farm Bureau Federation and the state Chamber of Commerce argues that money would be better spent in developing existing parks. The principal argument of these opponents is that park priorities should be determined by state government officials, not by people gathering signatures to place an initiative on the ballot. In an orderly legislative world they would be right. But Sacramento’s inability to tend to the people’s business with its own bond measures or appropriations to buy threatened parkland once again has forced people to do the government’s work themselves.

The ridges above Chino Hills, once bulldozed, cannot be reclaimed. Once logged, the centuries-old redwood forests cannot be restored. Wetlands disappear when concrete is poured. Proposition 70 offers an immediate opportunity to ensure that those ridges, those redwoods and those wetlands remain for future generations’ escape to serenity. We urge a Yes vote on Proposition 70.