The following article was originally published in the Ohio Capital Journal and published on News5Cleveland.com under a content-sharing agreement.
In order to pay for tax breaks favoring the wealthy, the budget that Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine signed on June 30 denied resources to improve state parks. A panel of Ohio economists unanimously said those parks are themselves an economic resource that should be protected.
After the state controversially undertook the unpopular measure of allowing fracking in the state parks, the parks themselves were supposed to get some of the money. Specifically, they were to get $30 million for facilities improvement.
But under the new state budget, Ohio now has to pay for a $1.1 billion-a-year flat tax. The wealthiest 20% of households — those making more than $138,000 a year — will reap 96% of the benefit, according to Policy Matters Ohio.
As a partial “pay-for,” the $30 million in fracking money that was to improve parks will now go to operate them and free up as much in general-fund spending.
The move has not only prompted accusations that it uses money from fracking public lands to subsidize the wealthy, it also prompted fears that the boom-and-bust nature of fracking could jeopardize future state-park operations by making it dependent on them.
In a survey shortly after DeWine signed the budget, a panel of Ohio economists couldn’t have been any clearer: State parks are a wise investment.
They were asked by Scioto Analysis if they agreed that, “Public spending on state parks is an efficient strategy for producing goods for Ohio residents like recreation, environmental quality, and health.”
All 19 said yes.
In the comment section of the survey, Kevin Egan of the University of Toledo said Ohio is relatively poor in parklands, and if fracking is to be allowed, it needs to be taxed.
“Ohio only has 0.77% of its land as state park and ranks 34th in the nation for federal or state lands,” he wrote. “The worst part is possibly reducing funding due to taxing fracking less. It is efficient to tax activities that cause pollution more, and then using those tax dollars for public parks is a ‘double dividend.'”
The economists were also asked about potential disinvestment in Ohio parks.
They were asked if they agreed that “Reducing funding for state parks will lead to long-term deterioration of natural assets that will reduce the future economic potential of those areas.”
Fourteen agreed, two disagreed and three were uncertain.
“Obviously if investment spending has any positive effect, and you reduce it, then assets will not be as good in the future,” commented Jonathan Andreas of Bluffton University.
