Can corporations save California State Parks?

California state parks are closing. This is not just a threat by government to impose higher taxes or charge higher fees. There simply is not enough revenue to sustain the operation of many of the lesser used parks. What can be done?

Corporations such as Coke Cola and a supermarket chain are offering to rescue some of the parks with infusions of cash--and of course, at a price. What that price is and how you look at it may make the difference whether a park stays open and if it does, how will the new corporate sponsorships affect the look, feel, and experience of the park?

Corporate spokespersons claim that though branding will be part of the deal, over-selling or changing the park experience is not what they want, and indeed feel that this would not help their brand but create a backlash. Their view, it seems, falls somewhere between philanthropy and branding.

So far, Coke Cola's involvement has included logo agreements that are already in place at a handful of parks. "A partnership between Coca-Cola and Stater Bros., for example," reports the Los Angeles Times, "replanted trees in Cuyamaca Rancho State Park, which in 2003 suffered a wildfire so devastating that there were no trees left to provide seed for new growth. The companies also partnered in a project that rehabilitated areas of Chino Hills State Park after a 2008 fire burned more than 90% of the park. The supermarket chain promoted offers in which the purchase of $10 worth of Coca-Cola products would result in a donation of $1 to state parks."

In three years more than $2 million was raised for the parks. And what did Coke Cola and Slater Bros. get for their efforts and money? A very modest rendition of the company logos included at the bottom of interpretive signs in the parks.

Would this amount of corporate identity be acceptable to park goers? Would this open the floodgates for corporate lobbyists to apply pressure to legislators for ever increasing corporate identity? Or could we put a program together with explicit restrictions that would insure that the parks identity with corporate sponsors be clearly identified, and that corporations and the park-going public would both be happy--and our parks saved?

A letter or email to your legislator just might carry some weight. Read the entire Times opinion piece here.