I agree with the other commentators - if gov't has a park it should pay for it, or get rid of it, if it doesn't have the money.
Or find the money elsewhere or convince the voters that taxes need to be raised - what's the point of government if it can't govern?
This is NOT a good proposal.
We pay about the highest taxes in the country.
They expect you to pay to fix the sidewalk that's destroyed by government-owned trees. They charge you $1,000 for an ambulance ride when you have a heart attack. They charge you $1,000 to sweep up the glass if you're in an accident.
But when the cops need to buy a box of bullets or they need gas for the fire truck, we're supposed to have a bake sale and a car wash to raise the money.
WHERE IS OUR TAX MONEY GOING?
I would be very cautious before embracing any proposal to have non-profits care for state parks. The history of California is replete with examples where non-profits were used to co-opt genuine community groups. And where, pray tell, are the non-profits going to get their money? From government of course. Next there will be a bill floated in the legislature to unionize the non-profit employees and we're back to square zero.
In the City of Pasadena where I live there are 1,000 non-profits, 99 percent of which are dependent on government money in one form or another. I would hardly consider glorify them as what Alexis de Tocqueville experienced when he visited America.
The legislators could use non-profits as a subterfuge to keep funding for state parks, many of which should be closed as unaffordable. This is the problem when there is no market component to state parks and too many of them are built to buy votes but end up without enough funding to support them.
Public policy requires choices. Would you fund chemotherapy for a needy cancer patient that might put their cancer into remission or would you fund a little used, but otherwise panoramic, state park?