The argument for local management of local parks—such as the Joint Powers Authority & nonprofit management we advocate for the Parkway—is examined in this article from the Property & Environment Research Center.
An excerpt.
“Proponents of free market environmentalism do not usually invoke government as part of the solution to environmental problems. But when they do, free market environmentalists promote governance by the smallest entity possible. PERC, for example, advocates using land trusts or endowment boards to help manage public lands. Arguments for smaller government imply that local control will produce better environmental policy because representatives are closer to their constituents and, therefore, more responsive. It is also argued that competition between multiple smaller governments leads to better policy outcomes. When governments compete, constituents win.
“Is Local Always Better?
“There are typically three arguments given for local representation offering better solutions to environmental problems. First, local governments better represent local interests; and there might be shared values between local interests and the interests of free market environmentalists. Regarding the management of the Grand Staircase–Escalante National Monument, for example, many locals preferred less governmental supervision of the land and free market environmentalists were recommending an administrative trust arrangement. But this alignment of interests ought to be thought of as subject to change, or even accidental. Moreover, this representation of local interests might instead facilitate overexploitation.
“Consider the case of a fishing stock shared by two localities. Each local jurisdiction might, depending on the alignment of interests, have the incentive to overexploit at the expense of the other jurisdiction. Clearly this would be the case if both local governments represented fishers. Each would have the incentive to overfish—to snag the fish before the other locality could do so. Thus, with public good problems that cross political boundaries, the tragedy of the commons brought about by individual decisions can simply be replicated by the decisions of local governments. Consequently, this reasoning should be put aside as a convenient but ultimately unconvincing argument for local control.
“The second, and more compelling, argument for local control is that representation of local interests produces better environmental outcomes. Favorable environmental outcomes might come about because of superior local understanding and knowledge of an environmental situation. This is the reasoning invoked by arguments against “one-size-fits-all” command-and-control solutions to environmental problems. For example, residents might know where the spawning grounds of the fishery are and be able to encourage the local government to limit fishing in those grounds. Nobel laureate Elinor Ostrom argues that, for small common pool resources, this localized knowledge plays an important role in designing the appropriate institutions to govern and enforce the rules regarding the resource.
“Given the role of localized knowledge, it seems clear that a more appropriate argument than to simply prefer local over state control and state over national control is to match the size of the government to the size of the environmental problem. If the size of government was infinitely customizable to each issue, it should be no larger than the size of the problem. Governments of various sizes, however, are costly to set up, so choices must often be made from a discrete set of levels. With this consideration in mind, optimal jurisdiction size can actually be larger than the scope of the problem since it might be necessary to choose federal over state management for a regional problem.
“The third argument for local government as preferable to larger governments is that multiple jurisdictions can facilitate competition, even for public goods. As the Tiebout model explains, people can choose which jurisdiction they prefer by voting with their feet. This process encourages local governments to provide quality public goods. This is perhaps easiest to see in the market for houses near high-quality public schools, but it also seems to hold in the environmental arena. Economist and PERC fellow Spencer Banzhaf and his colleague Randall Walsh recently found that areas around large industrial facilities with high levels of pollution experienced population decline, while neighborhoods that cleaned up gained population. This movement of people, and potential voters, gives local governments the incentive to provide public goods.”
Showing posts with label Nonprofit Management. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nonprofit Management. Show all posts
Friday, October 21, 2011
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Nonprofits Struggle
As with any business organization, and nonprofit corporations are still essentially that, adapting to the business—philanthropic—environment is crucial for survival, and those noted in this article from the Sacramento Bee have done a good bit of marketing getting their work and financial needs front page coverage.
As far as their work goes, one I know of, the American River Conservancy, has done some good with its trail building program, but the money for that should come exclusively from private philanthropy rather than the tax payers.
An excerpt.
“Nonprofit conservation groups have preserved tens of thousands of acres of land in California – wild places where both hikers and animals roam. Now, some of them say the economic slump could force them to scale back.
“Others say lean budgets make it harder for them to scrutinize land use proposals for environmental effects – a key role such groups play in the state's push-pull development process.
“Most groups don't like to talk about their financial difficulties, but one, the American River Conservancy, recently took the unusual step of going public. In an email to members and supporters, the group confessed that "times are hard" and it needs to raise $250,000 by year-end or it will be forced to cut programs in 2012.
"What is happening to our organization is happening to a lot of organizations. We're just being honest about it," said Alan Ehrgott, the conservancy's executive director.
“A major factor is the squeeze on government programs that provide money for land acquisition and education. In addition, private foundations that give grants to environmental groups have seen their endowments shrink substantially as the stock market has struggled.
"Every group really has got to focus on what they do well, what their core priorities are," said Tim Little, executive director of the Oakland-based Rose Foundation, which donates to environmental groups and is also helping coach them through tough times.
“Like a number of other land groups operating in the Sacramento region, the American River Conservancy has worked on setting aside land for both recreation and wildlife habitat.
“The conservancy has helped preserve 12,000 acres in the American River watershed, particularly along the south fork in the Coloma area. Among these projects was the acquisition last year of Gold Hill Ranch, site of the Wakamatsu Colony, the first Japanese settlement in North America.
“It also has built more than 27 miles of public recreation trails, including the new South Fork American River Trail, which opened last year between Salmon Falls Road and Highway 49.”
As far as their work goes, one I know of, the American River Conservancy, has done some good with its trail building program, but the money for that should come exclusively from private philanthropy rather than the tax payers.
An excerpt.
“Nonprofit conservation groups have preserved tens of thousands of acres of land in California – wild places where both hikers and animals roam. Now, some of them say the economic slump could force them to scale back.
“Others say lean budgets make it harder for them to scrutinize land use proposals for environmental effects – a key role such groups play in the state's push-pull development process.
“Most groups don't like to talk about their financial difficulties, but one, the American River Conservancy, recently took the unusual step of going public. In an email to members and supporters, the group confessed that "times are hard" and it needs to raise $250,000 by year-end or it will be forced to cut programs in 2012.
"What is happening to our organization is happening to a lot of organizations. We're just being honest about it," said Alan Ehrgott, the conservancy's executive director.
“A major factor is the squeeze on government programs that provide money for land acquisition and education. In addition, private foundations that give grants to environmental groups have seen their endowments shrink substantially as the stock market has struggled.
"Every group really has got to focus on what they do well, what their core priorities are," said Tim Little, executive director of the Oakland-based Rose Foundation, which donates to environmental groups and is also helping coach them through tough times.
“Like a number of other land groups operating in the Sacramento region, the American River Conservancy has worked on setting aside land for both recreation and wildlife habitat.
“The conservancy has helped preserve 12,000 acres in the American River watershed, particularly along the south fork in the Coloma area. Among these projects was the acquisition last year of Gold Hill Ranch, site of the Wakamatsu Colony, the first Japanese settlement in North America.
“It also has built more than 27 miles of public recreation trails, including the new South Fork American River Trail, which opened last year between Salmon Falls Road and Highway 49.”
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
ARPPS Letter Published in Bee Today
Donors can rescue parks
Re "Private donors' role in parks rises" (Capitol & California, Sept. 27): The nationwide trend of nonprofits helping parks is one that needs application in Sacramento, especially with our signature park, the American River Parkway.
We advocate forming a Joint Powers Authority of parkway- adjacent communities. The JPA would create a nonprofit organization for daily management and supplemental fundraising for the parkway.
It is a model with increasing resonance, especially in a time of severe public funding difficulty.
– David H. Lukenbill, senior policy director, American River Parkway Preservation Society
Re "Private donors' role in parks rises" (Capitol & California, Sept. 27): The nationwide trend of nonprofits helping parks is one that needs application in Sacramento, especially with our signature park, the American River Parkway.
We advocate forming a Joint Powers Authority of parkway- adjacent communities. The JPA would create a nonprofit organization for daily management and supplemental fundraising for the parkway.
It is a model with increasing resonance, especially in a time of severe public funding difficulty.
– David H. Lukenbill, senior policy director, American River Parkway Preservation Society
Friday, September 16, 2011
Arizona’s State Parks & Nonprofits
Arizona nonprofits and local governments are working together to save their parks during the budget difficulties all states are facing, as reported in this article from the Arizona Republic.
An excerpt.
“In the depths of the recession, state budget cuts made it seem almost certain that the gates to many Arizona parks would remain padlocked.
“But local communities and non-profit organizations have banded together to keep 14 of the state's most financially vulnerable parks open by providing more than $820,000 to the cash-strapped Arizona State Parks agency.
“For example, the Friends of Tonto Natural Bridge State Park and the towns of Payson and Star Valley are helping provide $35,000 in funding to the namesake park in Gila County.
“Through a contract with Santa Cruz County, the Tubac Historical Society is helping keep Tubac Presidio State Historic Park's doors open by providing both funding and operational support.
“Red Rock State Park in Sedona is being aided by Yavapai County and the Benefactors of Red Rock State Park.
“All but one of the state's other 13 parks remain open, albeit seasonally in some cases, because they take in enough revenue to stay in the black and fund their own operations.
“Local authorities and non-profits say they decided to cast a financial lifeline to the more vulnerable parks because they recognize their value - their rich history, intense beauty and, perhaps most importantly, their economic impact.
“Today, less than two years after major closures seemed certain, 26 of Arizona's 27 parks are open, although many have abbreviated schedules.”
An excerpt.
“In the depths of the recession, state budget cuts made it seem almost certain that the gates to many Arizona parks would remain padlocked.
“But local communities and non-profit organizations have banded together to keep 14 of the state's most financially vulnerable parks open by providing more than $820,000 to the cash-strapped Arizona State Parks agency.
“For example, the Friends of Tonto Natural Bridge State Park and the towns of Payson and Star Valley are helping provide $35,000 in funding to the namesake park in Gila County.
“Through a contract with Santa Cruz County, the Tubac Historical Society is helping keep Tubac Presidio State Historic Park's doors open by providing both funding and operational support.
“Red Rock State Park in Sedona is being aided by Yavapai County and the Benefactors of Red Rock State Park.
“All but one of the state's other 13 parks remain open, albeit seasonally in some cases, because they take in enough revenue to stay in the black and fund their own operations.
“Local authorities and non-profits say they decided to cast a financial lifeline to the more vulnerable parks because they recognize their value - their rich history, intense beauty and, perhaps most importantly, their economic impact.
“Today, less than two years after major closures seemed certain, 26 of Arizona's 27 parks are open, although many have abbreviated schedules.”
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Sacramento Zoo
As reported by the Sacramento Bee, it is one public facility that is enhancing its efforts rather than cutting back, and that is because it is managed by a nonprofit corporation under contract to the city, the arrangement similar to the one we are advocating for the American River Parkway.
An excerpt.
“The big animals take up a lot of space in our imaginations when we think about going to the zoo.
“But sometimes, it's the smaller animals that keep zoo visitors captivated.
“Saturday marked the grand opening of the new "Splash!" exhibit at the Sacramento Zoo, showcasing an enlarged and improved North American river otter habitat.
“As one of the zoo's oldest exhibits, the river otter den was in need of improvement, said the zoo's educational specialist, Chris Llewellyn.
"The only thing that comes from the original exhibit is the pool," Llewellyn said. "Everything else is new."
“Renovations to the river otter habitat took about three months to complete, starting in June, according to Llewellyn.
“Costing about $160,000, the project at the nonprofit zoo received significant donations from fundraisers, private donors and the companies working on the construction.
"There are so many people who have helped to make this project a reality," said Zoo Director Mary Healy, "and we are grateful to every one of them."
An excerpt.
“The big animals take up a lot of space in our imaginations when we think about going to the zoo.
“But sometimes, it's the smaller animals that keep zoo visitors captivated.
“Saturday marked the grand opening of the new "Splash!" exhibit at the Sacramento Zoo, showcasing an enlarged and improved North American river otter habitat.
“As one of the zoo's oldest exhibits, the river otter den was in need of improvement, said the zoo's educational specialist, Chris Llewellyn.
"The only thing that comes from the original exhibit is the pool," Llewellyn said. "Everything else is new."
“Renovations to the river otter habitat took about three months to complete, starting in June, according to Llewellyn.
“Costing about $160,000, the project at the nonprofit zoo received significant donations from fundraisers, private donors and the companies working on the construction.
"There are so many people who have helped to make this project a reality," said Zoo Director Mary Healy, "and we are grateful to every one of them."
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Saving Our Parks
As we struggle to save our parks from the ruin caused by a lack of effective management and limited public funding, the examples of other cities that have taken a new tact might be of some help, as reported by this article from City Journal.
An excerpt focusing on Central Park, a model ARPPS promotes for use by the Parkway.
“Central Park in spring may be the most glorious public space on Earth. Flowering dogwoods and lilacs scent the air as children, sprung from being cooped up all winter, pack the playgrounds. Bicyclists and runners swirl around the six-mile grand loop, battling through the steep hills of Harlem to take in the skyline views farther south. High-end food carts sell waffles and organic fare. It’s hard to believe that 30 years ago, tourists would stand on 59th Street staring north, afraid to venture into the park. New York City’s green spaces are “certainly at a modern high point,” says Adrian Benepe, commissioner of the Department of Parks and Recreation (who started his career in 1979 as a park ranger and thus “worked in the parks system at its low point,” too).
“But perhaps the most amazing thing about Central Park is how little tax money goes into maintaining it. Though it is still ultimately the city’s responsibility, the park has been managed since the 1980s by the nonprofit Central Park Conservancy, and it relies on private donations for most of its budget. The marriage between the city and the Conservancy has been a fruitful one. Can this model, known as a public-private partnership, restore and invigorate all of New York’s green spaces, including neighborhood parks in less affluent areas? It’s an important question, not only as the city faces tough fiscal times but as urban planners increasingly view parks as tools of economic development and public health.
“New York has always been innovative with its green spaces. Looking north from a high floor in midtown, a visitor might think that city planners carved Central Park out of the skyscrapers. But the park was there first, opening in the 1850s. As architect and urbanist Witold Rybczynski once put it, Central Park was “out of scale with the needs of the time,” but Frederick Law Olmsted, who designed it and other city parks as well, was “looking ahead and seeing that the city’s going to grow around them and they’re really going to be necessary.” The same went for playgrounds. Seeing that children needed safe spaces for exercise and imagination in an era when child labor was still widespread, New York City opened the country’s first municipally built playground in Seward Park in 1903. The city now maintains more than 1,000 playgrounds.
“These parks and playgrounds were once generously staffed. Steven Cohen, now executive director of Columbia University’s Earth Institute, grew up in Brooklyn in the 1950s and 1960s and remembers that “every park of any size had a building with a ‘parkie’ in it to give out equipment” and function as “the eyes and ears of the place.” That changed during the fiscal crisis of the 1970s, as the city went broke and cut its payroll. What happened next was a textbook case of the Broken Windows theory of crime: fewer “eyes and ears” and reduced park maintenance sent vandals, other criminals, and the homeless the message that no one would care if they populated the parks. At the same time, of course, New York was suffering a massive crime epidemic.
“People who lived in New York in the 1970s and early 1980s still remember how forbidding the parks were in those dark days. Douglas Blonsky, now head of the Central Park Conservancy and thus Central Park’s administrator, recalls that when he started working there in 1985, most of the benches were broken and most surfaces sported layers of graffiti. “The Great Lawn was a dust bowl,” he says, at least when the weather was dry; when it rained, seas of mud meant that “you could barely walk through the park for days.” Benepe recalls landmarks like Belvedere Castle as “burned-out shells.”
“Of course, Central Park wasn’t the total nightmare of popular imagination, with muggers around every corner. On sunny days, sunbathers used the meadows. David Beld, a competitive runner who moved to New York City in 1981 and now leads tours of Central Park, would jog around the loops. But he knew people whose bicycles had been stolen—and not in the usual way; rather, a thief would “knock a person off his bike and then steal the bike.” And this in a park that stretched through some of the country’s richest zip codes. Other parks, like those in Harlem and parts of Brooklyn and the Bronx, fared even worse, becoming so crime-ridden and overgrown that sensible parents figured that their children were better off inside watching TV.
“But where “government had given up,” Benepe says, citizens stepped in. In 1980, landscape designer Elizabeth Barlow Rogers and others founded the Central Park Conservancy, whose original purpose was to raise money, stop the park’s decline, and restore several of its major landmarks. The city eventually gave the Conservancy the lion’s share of day-to-day control of the park. Because its workers weren’t organized into public-sector unions, the Conservancy had a great deal of freedom to institute private management practices—above all, emphasizing accountability. The park is now divided into 49 sections, with a master gardener responsible for the condition of each. About 85 percent of the Conservancy’s annual budget comes from private donations, mostly from people who live within a ten-minute walk of the park. “Obviously, it’s an incredible backyard, and look what it does to your real-estate values,” says Blonsky.”
An excerpt focusing on Central Park, a model ARPPS promotes for use by the Parkway.
“Central Park in spring may be the most glorious public space on Earth. Flowering dogwoods and lilacs scent the air as children, sprung from being cooped up all winter, pack the playgrounds. Bicyclists and runners swirl around the six-mile grand loop, battling through the steep hills of Harlem to take in the skyline views farther south. High-end food carts sell waffles and organic fare. It’s hard to believe that 30 years ago, tourists would stand on 59th Street staring north, afraid to venture into the park. New York City’s green spaces are “certainly at a modern high point,” says Adrian Benepe, commissioner of the Department of Parks and Recreation (who started his career in 1979 as a park ranger and thus “worked in the parks system at its low point,” too).
“But perhaps the most amazing thing about Central Park is how little tax money goes into maintaining it. Though it is still ultimately the city’s responsibility, the park has been managed since the 1980s by the nonprofit Central Park Conservancy, and it relies on private donations for most of its budget. The marriage between the city and the Conservancy has been a fruitful one. Can this model, known as a public-private partnership, restore and invigorate all of New York’s green spaces, including neighborhood parks in less affluent areas? It’s an important question, not only as the city faces tough fiscal times but as urban planners increasingly view parks as tools of economic development and public health.
“New York has always been innovative with its green spaces. Looking north from a high floor in midtown, a visitor might think that city planners carved Central Park out of the skyscrapers. But the park was there first, opening in the 1850s. As architect and urbanist Witold Rybczynski once put it, Central Park was “out of scale with the needs of the time,” but Frederick Law Olmsted, who designed it and other city parks as well, was “looking ahead and seeing that the city’s going to grow around them and they’re really going to be necessary.” The same went for playgrounds. Seeing that children needed safe spaces for exercise and imagination in an era when child labor was still widespread, New York City opened the country’s first municipally built playground in Seward Park in 1903. The city now maintains more than 1,000 playgrounds.
“These parks and playgrounds were once generously staffed. Steven Cohen, now executive director of Columbia University’s Earth Institute, grew up in Brooklyn in the 1950s and 1960s and remembers that “every park of any size had a building with a ‘parkie’ in it to give out equipment” and function as “the eyes and ears of the place.” That changed during the fiscal crisis of the 1970s, as the city went broke and cut its payroll. What happened next was a textbook case of the Broken Windows theory of crime: fewer “eyes and ears” and reduced park maintenance sent vandals, other criminals, and the homeless the message that no one would care if they populated the parks. At the same time, of course, New York was suffering a massive crime epidemic.
“People who lived in New York in the 1970s and early 1980s still remember how forbidding the parks were in those dark days. Douglas Blonsky, now head of the Central Park Conservancy and thus Central Park’s administrator, recalls that when he started working there in 1985, most of the benches were broken and most surfaces sported layers of graffiti. “The Great Lawn was a dust bowl,” he says, at least when the weather was dry; when it rained, seas of mud meant that “you could barely walk through the park for days.” Benepe recalls landmarks like Belvedere Castle as “burned-out shells.”
“Of course, Central Park wasn’t the total nightmare of popular imagination, with muggers around every corner. On sunny days, sunbathers used the meadows. David Beld, a competitive runner who moved to New York City in 1981 and now leads tours of Central Park, would jog around the loops. But he knew people whose bicycles had been stolen—and not in the usual way; rather, a thief would “knock a person off his bike and then steal the bike.” And this in a park that stretched through some of the country’s richest zip codes. Other parks, like those in Harlem and parts of Brooklyn and the Bronx, fared even worse, becoming so crime-ridden and overgrown that sensible parents figured that their children were better off inside watching TV.
“But where “government had given up,” Benepe says, citizens stepped in. In 1980, landscape designer Elizabeth Barlow Rogers and others founded the Central Park Conservancy, whose original purpose was to raise money, stop the park’s decline, and restore several of its major landmarks. The city eventually gave the Conservancy the lion’s share of day-to-day control of the park. Because its workers weren’t organized into public-sector unions, the Conservancy had a great deal of freedom to institute private management practices—above all, emphasizing accountability. The park is now divided into 49 sections, with a master gardener responsible for the condition of each. About 85 percent of the Conservancy’s annual budget comes from private donations, mostly from people who live within a ten-minute walk of the park. “Obviously, it’s an incredible backyard, and look what it does to your real-estate values,” says Blonsky.”
Friday, September 09, 2011
Public Private Partnerships
These are generally very good arrangements, allowing the public sector to maintain ownership—and ultimate control—over the commons, while having the private sector, either a forprofit or nonprofit, manage it.
However, some see problems with this, but those expressed in this article from My South End in Boston, are not problems to most people, but solutions that increase public safety, which most park visitors probably applaud.
An excerpt.
“It’s lunchtime on a beautiful spring day in Boston. You sit on a bench in a park right in the middle of the city. You check out the buildings around you and marvel at how much they are worth thanks to the protected green space where you are sitting. Everyone loves this space.
“While you sit happily, enjoying the sun, it might bother you to learn that the land on which you bask is publicly owned -- but privately controlled. The City handed it to a private development group to build an underground garage topped with this park. The renowned private Friends group that keeps the park beautiful and decides who can use it is actually this for-profit development group, and their enormously profitable 1400-car garage is exempt from City property taxes, enjoying a tax break about ten times the amount of the park’s maintenance costs.
“While you ponder those troubling facts, don’t plan a protest: free speech and free assembly are prohibited in the park. Private surveillance cameras surround the park, and parents playing ball with a child, casual musicians, citizens collecting political signatures or distributing political information, groups of visitors, people wielding cameras and persons lying on benches or appearing to be asleep - don’t sit with your eyes closed sunning your face! -- may be asked to leave.
“Sound like something from George Orwell’s 1984? Or maybe you misunderstood and it’s a private garden?
“Nope. Welcome to the "public" Post Office Square Park, operated privately for the enjoyment of, well, desirable people, mainly the employees and clients of the nearby office-tower owners , and customers of the park’s up-scale cafe.
“Boston’s famed Post Office Square Park is a poster-child of public-realm philanthropy. It is a privately managed open space that has vastly enhanced the property values of its founding abutters, who otherwise faced the competition of a new tower on that site. The Park’s creators have won the trust and good will of public officials and city residents, who laud its manicured upkeep. But the City agreement anticipated $300,000 a year in profit-sharing to benefit other parks; none of that has materialized, because Park costs but not garage profits are attributed to the Friends.”
However, some see problems with this, but those expressed in this article from My South End in Boston, are not problems to most people, but solutions that increase public safety, which most park visitors probably applaud.
An excerpt.
“It’s lunchtime on a beautiful spring day in Boston. You sit on a bench in a park right in the middle of the city. You check out the buildings around you and marvel at how much they are worth thanks to the protected green space where you are sitting. Everyone loves this space.
“While you sit happily, enjoying the sun, it might bother you to learn that the land on which you bask is publicly owned -- but privately controlled. The City handed it to a private development group to build an underground garage topped with this park. The renowned private Friends group that keeps the park beautiful and decides who can use it is actually this for-profit development group, and their enormously profitable 1400-car garage is exempt from City property taxes, enjoying a tax break about ten times the amount of the park’s maintenance costs.
“While you ponder those troubling facts, don’t plan a protest: free speech and free assembly are prohibited in the park. Private surveillance cameras surround the park, and parents playing ball with a child, casual musicians, citizens collecting political signatures or distributing political information, groups of visitors, people wielding cameras and persons lying on benches or appearing to be asleep - don’t sit with your eyes closed sunning your face! -- may be asked to leave.
“Sound like something from George Orwell’s 1984? Or maybe you misunderstood and it’s a private garden?
“Nope. Welcome to the "public" Post Office Square Park, operated privately for the enjoyment of, well, desirable people, mainly the employees and clients of the nearby office-tower owners , and customers of the park’s up-scale cafe.
“Boston’s famed Post Office Square Park is a poster-child of public-realm philanthropy. It is a privately managed open space that has vastly enhanced the property values of its founding abutters, who otherwise faced the competition of a new tower on that site. The Park’s creators have won the trust and good will of public officials and city residents, who laud its manicured upkeep. But the City agreement anticipated $300,000 a year in profit-sharing to benefit other parks; none of that has materialized, because Park costs but not garage profits are attributed to the Friends.”
Wednesday, September 07, 2011
Nonprofits & Parks
The move by the state to more easily allow nonprofits, as reported by Southern California Public Radio, to manage state parks is a welcome one.
An excerpt.
“Legislation intended to keep more California state parks open is one step closer to becoming law. The State Senate approved AB 42 Wednesday, a bill that would allow nonprofit organizations to keep parks running.
“California already has this year due to budget cuts.
“Democratic Assemblyman Jared Huffman wrote the bill and says it would alleviate the ailing park system. It passed the Senate vote by a margin of 32-2.
“This may save a dozen, potentially more parks from closure where there’s a nonprofit group that could step up and enter into an operating agreement to keep things going," Huffman said.
“The state is already authorized to partner with local governments and private concession companies within the parks system. Huffman's bill would make the process easier.”
An excerpt.
“Legislation intended to keep more California state parks open is one step closer to becoming law. The State Senate approved AB 42 Wednesday, a bill that would allow nonprofit organizations to keep parks running.
“California already has this year due to budget cuts.
“Democratic Assemblyman Jared Huffman wrote the bill and says it would alleviate the ailing park system. It passed the Senate vote by a margin of 32-2.
“This may save a dozen, potentially more parks from closure where there’s a nonprofit group that could step up and enter into an operating agreement to keep things going," Huffman said.
“The state is already authorized to partner with local governments and private concession companies within the parks system. Huffman's bill would make the process easier.”
Friday, August 05, 2011
Social Service Programs Ruin Neighborhood?
That is what the future neighbors of this homeless program’s planned move to their neighborhood are saying in Washington, and it is a question being asked in our city also.
The dividing line seems to be, that if a program is vigorously helping people get out of homelessness, then it is probably more welcome than one that is merely providing domestic services to the homeless making it easier to be homeless.
Also the latter can be seen as potentially attracting more homeless, than the former which is encouraging the development of personal responsibility towards change.
Making it easy to be homeless rather than demanding the homeless make the hard choices necessary to create positive change, will, unfortunately, generally be more popular with the homeless; as will the parallel concerning, maintaining the status quo or moving towards change, with any personal or social problem.
The country-wide discussion goes on, as reported in this story from the Washington City Paper.An excerpt.
“It's as predictable as the sunrise, from Petworth to Congress Heights to Truxton Circle to Hill East: A social services organization tries to locate a facility in a neighborhood, the neighbors feel blindsided, and the battle is joined. This time, the drama is about to play out again in the heart of Anacostia's business district, where Calvary Women's Services is redeveloping a 14,000-square-foot building as a women's shelter.
“The 28-year-old organization bought the property, in a former Elks Lodge right across from the Department of Housing and Community Development on Good Hope Road SE, for $950,000 in December. It's a $3 million project, and after landing a $175,000 gift from the Cafritz Foundation, organizers are hoping to raise another $750,000 by the end of the year to make the numbers work. When it's operational, the facility will house 50 women at night and serve meals to 100 per day, along with providing other supportive services.
“Despite the fact that it's been in the works for seven months now, lots of people in the area found out about it just last week, in an email blast from Council Chairman Kwame Brown. Today, Advisory Neighborhood Commissioner Greta Fuller fired off a letter to the relevant agency directors complaining that the area was already overburdened with homeless services and drug treatment programs; there are four others within a few blocks of Calvary's site.
"It's a very frustrating process, because the community wants so desperately to move forward, and when services like this are on every block in our neighborhood, it makes it difficult to promote the neighborhood," says Charles Wilson, president of the Historic Anacostia Block Association. "You can tell that some people have been maneuvering behind the scenes to move this process forward...you just get a sense that politicians have made it possible for them to make the transition to Good Hope Road."
The dividing line seems to be, that if a program is vigorously helping people get out of homelessness, then it is probably more welcome than one that is merely providing domestic services to the homeless making it easier to be homeless.
Also the latter can be seen as potentially attracting more homeless, than the former which is encouraging the development of personal responsibility towards change.
Making it easy to be homeless rather than demanding the homeless make the hard choices necessary to create positive change, will, unfortunately, generally be more popular with the homeless; as will the parallel concerning, maintaining the status quo or moving towards change, with any personal or social problem.
The country-wide discussion goes on, as reported in this story from the Washington City Paper.An excerpt.
“It's as predictable as the sunrise, from Petworth to Congress Heights to Truxton Circle to Hill East: A social services organization tries to locate a facility in a neighborhood, the neighbors feel blindsided, and the battle is joined. This time, the drama is about to play out again in the heart of Anacostia's business district, where Calvary Women's Services is redeveloping a 14,000-square-foot building as a women's shelter.
“The 28-year-old organization bought the property, in a former Elks Lodge right across from the Department of Housing and Community Development on Good Hope Road SE, for $950,000 in December. It's a $3 million project, and after landing a $175,000 gift from the Cafritz Foundation, organizers are hoping to raise another $750,000 by the end of the year to make the numbers work. When it's operational, the facility will house 50 women at night and serve meals to 100 per day, along with providing other supportive services.
“Despite the fact that it's been in the works for seven months now, lots of people in the area found out about it just last week, in an email blast from Council Chairman Kwame Brown. Today, Advisory Neighborhood Commissioner Greta Fuller fired off a letter to the relevant agency directors complaining that the area was already overburdened with homeless services and drug treatment programs; there are four others within a few blocks of Calvary's site.
"It's a very frustrating process, because the community wants so desperately to move forward, and when services like this are on every block in our neighborhood, it makes it difficult to promote the neighborhood," says Charles Wilson, president of the Historic Anacostia Block Association. "You can tell that some people have been maneuvering behind the scenes to move this process forward...you just get a sense that politicians have made it possible for them to make the transition to Good Hope Road."
Monday, July 25, 2011
Parks Innovation by Ose
What Doug Ose has been able to accomplish at Gibson Ranch Park is exactly the type of innovation needed to be part of any discussion around other regional parks, including the American River Parkway.
His recent article in the Sacramento Bee is a must read.
An excerpt.
“For the past year, observers from the Grassroots Working Group to the editorial board of The Bee have consistently suggested that there are significant operational problems within the Sacramento County Department of Regional Parks and Open Space. I couldn't agree more.
“The primary argument has been that there is inadequate funding being allocated by the Board of Supervisors to the parks department to properly maintain the parklands under their control, and voters should therefore pass an increase in local sales taxes dedicated to parks. I couldn't agree less.
“In my view, the essential problem is that the world has changed and the parks department hasn't. Years ago, the department's charter was to acquire land and provide services funded by the county's general fund. In the last few years, it has become apparent that such an approach is not sustainable. The department has been slow to change – or actively resisted it – and now is in a financial corner. On top of that fiscal challenge, the department is saddled with work rules that constrain how it can respond to changing conditions.
“Here are the basic facts. The department controls more than 15,000 acres. Some years ago, a policy decision was made that county parklands shall not be allowed to have any commercial activities within their boundaries. Subsequent public outcry in favor of golf courses and raft rentals and the like has caused that policy to evolve over time, so we now have a hybrid policy where certain commercial activities are allowed but others aren't.
“Why are some commercial activities allowed and others not? If a proposal to develop a portion of the 15,000 acres noted above were to generate significant net revenue to Sacramento County, would that be a good thing or a bad thing?
“This is the crux of the problem.
"Somebody" determined that accumulating vast acreages of land is a good thing.
"Somebody" determined that revenue-generating enterprises located within publicly owned parklands is a bad thing.
“Now, "somebody" is struggling with how to fund the maintenance and operations of these vast acreages.
“Fortunately, there is a path out of this morass.
“First, stop making the problem larger. Place an immediate moratorium on further parkland acquisition/development or acceptances of parkland donations, which cost the county money.
“Second, decide what you want to be as a parks department. Given the long-term challenges of funding for collective bargaining agreements, health care and pensions, the department should evolve into a contract manager of partnerships with third-party operators that meet defined operating standards.
“Third, determine on a case-by-case basis which currently owned parklands are meeting a minimum level of active and passive recreational use by the public. Use actual numbers rather than estimates. Don't game the system to favor "treasured icons." Categorize each property as high-cost/low-use, low-cost/low-use, high-cost/high-use or low-cost/high-use. Keep the low-cost/high-use properties. If you have a property that is not meeting expectations, then get rid of it.
“Fourth, use proceeds from the sale of underutilized properties to fund the necessary repairs and/or maintenance for the retained properties. Concurrently, seek out a partner or partners who can operate the properties more efficiently – the agreement covering Effie Yeaw can serve as a model for such partnerships – and make a business deal with those partners.”
His recent article in the Sacramento Bee is a must read.
An excerpt.
“For the past year, observers from the Grassroots Working Group to the editorial board of The Bee have consistently suggested that there are significant operational problems within the Sacramento County Department of Regional Parks and Open Space. I couldn't agree more.
“The primary argument has been that there is inadequate funding being allocated by the Board of Supervisors to the parks department to properly maintain the parklands under their control, and voters should therefore pass an increase in local sales taxes dedicated to parks. I couldn't agree less.
“In my view, the essential problem is that the world has changed and the parks department hasn't. Years ago, the department's charter was to acquire land and provide services funded by the county's general fund. In the last few years, it has become apparent that such an approach is not sustainable. The department has been slow to change – or actively resisted it – and now is in a financial corner. On top of that fiscal challenge, the department is saddled with work rules that constrain how it can respond to changing conditions.
“Here are the basic facts. The department controls more than 15,000 acres. Some years ago, a policy decision was made that county parklands shall not be allowed to have any commercial activities within their boundaries. Subsequent public outcry in favor of golf courses and raft rentals and the like has caused that policy to evolve over time, so we now have a hybrid policy where certain commercial activities are allowed but others aren't.
“Why are some commercial activities allowed and others not? If a proposal to develop a portion of the 15,000 acres noted above were to generate significant net revenue to Sacramento County, would that be a good thing or a bad thing?
“This is the crux of the problem.
"Somebody" determined that accumulating vast acreages of land is a good thing.
"Somebody" determined that revenue-generating enterprises located within publicly owned parklands is a bad thing.
“Now, "somebody" is struggling with how to fund the maintenance and operations of these vast acreages.
“Fortunately, there is a path out of this morass.
“First, stop making the problem larger. Place an immediate moratorium on further parkland acquisition/development or acceptances of parkland donations, which cost the county money.
“Second, decide what you want to be as a parks department. Given the long-term challenges of funding for collective bargaining agreements, health care and pensions, the department should evolve into a contract manager of partnerships with third-party operators that meet defined operating standards.
“Third, determine on a case-by-case basis which currently owned parklands are meeting a minimum level of active and passive recreational use by the public. Use actual numbers rather than estimates. Don't game the system to favor "treasured icons." Categorize each property as high-cost/low-use, low-cost/low-use, high-cost/high-use or low-cost/high-use. Keep the low-cost/high-use properties. If you have a property that is not meeting expectations, then get rid of it.
“Fourth, use proceeds from the sale of underutilized properties to fund the necessary repairs and/or maintenance for the retained properties. Concurrently, seek out a partner or partners who can operate the properties more efficiently – the agreement covering Effie Yeaw can serve as a model for such partnerships – and make a business deal with those partners.”
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Park Tax Increase Support Perplexing
I am always somewhat perplexed when a private enterprise, which I assume the Sacramento Bee still is, insist the only answer to helping parks is more taxes rather than exploring other options, like the public/private partnerships which have been done with Gibson Ranch Park and the Effie Yeaw Nature Center recently, and the Sacramento Zoo sometime ago; but that is what the Bee, in this editorial is insisting, increasing taxes.
Increasing taxes was appropriate decades ago when local, state, and national governments were growing to serve the basic public priorities of public safety, transportation infrastructure, public safety nets, etc.; but as has been all too well documented—by the Sacramento Bee about the number of county retirees with six figure retirements while still young enough to take on new jobs while drawing their retirement benefits, and by City Journal about the retirement benefits problem nationally—government has gotten so bloated that feeding it any more taxes has become counter productive.
An excerpt from the editorial.
“Over a period of years, the elected Sacramento County Board of Supervisors has allowed the regional park system, including the American River Parkway, to undergo a slow, steady decline.
“Finally, supervisors reached the point where they were considering zeroing out parks from the county budget. The county could not guarantee safe, clean and properly maintained parks. It could not develop long-held parklands, which have limited or no public access. It could not prepare a park and trail system for the population of the future.
“Per-resident general fund spending on regional parks dropped from $5.44 per year a decade ago to a paltry $1.33 in 2009-10. Today, the general fund provides just 19 percent of the regional parks budget, with fees providing 41 percent and other sources providing the balance.
“Supervisors did the right thing last May, committing to study governing and financing alternatives with the aim of placing a measure on the ballot in November 2012. They vowed to keep the parks budget at bare bones until then. So now comes decision time.
“The Grassroots Working Group charged with studying alternatives met once a week for a year. It raised private funds to hire the Trust for Public Land to study five options and commissioned a firm to do scientific polling of likely voters.
“At the backdrop were two major failures: An unsuccessful effort in 2007 to create a joint powers authority for the American River Parkway and an unsuccessful effort in 1994 to create a dependent parks district with county supervisors as the governing board and funding from $10 a year in property taxes.
“Voters clearly indicated they want something other than the current failed model, with county supervisors running the show, and they don't want property owners alone sharing the burden for parks.
“So the Grassroots Working Group recommended an independent parks district, based on the East Bay Regional Parks model, to run the parks, with its own elected board.
“It would be funded by a sales tax, so people outside the county who visit parks would pay, too. Twenty-five percent of the funds would go to the 17 special parks districts and four city park systems, including Sacramento, Folsom, Galt and Isleton, and not just to the county's regional park system.”
Increasing taxes was appropriate decades ago when local, state, and national governments were growing to serve the basic public priorities of public safety, transportation infrastructure, public safety nets, etc.; but as has been all too well documented—by the Sacramento Bee about the number of county retirees with six figure retirements while still young enough to take on new jobs while drawing their retirement benefits, and by City Journal about the retirement benefits problem nationally—government has gotten so bloated that feeding it any more taxes has become counter productive.
An excerpt from the editorial.
“Over a period of years, the elected Sacramento County Board of Supervisors has allowed the regional park system, including the American River Parkway, to undergo a slow, steady decline.
“Finally, supervisors reached the point where they were considering zeroing out parks from the county budget. The county could not guarantee safe, clean and properly maintained parks. It could not develop long-held parklands, which have limited or no public access. It could not prepare a park and trail system for the population of the future.
“Per-resident general fund spending on regional parks dropped from $5.44 per year a decade ago to a paltry $1.33 in 2009-10. Today, the general fund provides just 19 percent of the regional parks budget, with fees providing 41 percent and other sources providing the balance.
“Supervisors did the right thing last May, committing to study governing and financing alternatives with the aim of placing a measure on the ballot in November 2012. They vowed to keep the parks budget at bare bones until then. So now comes decision time.
“The Grassroots Working Group charged with studying alternatives met once a week for a year. It raised private funds to hire the Trust for Public Land to study five options and commissioned a firm to do scientific polling of likely voters.
“At the backdrop were two major failures: An unsuccessful effort in 2007 to create a joint powers authority for the American River Parkway and an unsuccessful effort in 1994 to create a dependent parks district with county supervisors as the governing board and funding from $10 a year in property taxes.
“Voters clearly indicated they want something other than the current failed model, with county supervisors running the show, and they don't want property owners alone sharing the burden for parks.
“So the Grassroots Working Group recommended an independent parks district, based on the East Bay Regional Parks model, to run the parks, with its own elected board.
“It would be funded by a sales tax, so people outside the county who visit parks would pay, too. Twenty-five percent of the funds would go to the 17 special parks districts and four city park systems, including Sacramento, Folsom, Galt and Isleton, and not just to the county's regional park system.”
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Funding for Parks
Volunteers and nonprofit groups able to tap into philanthropic funding, is exactly the type of approach signature parks facing funding problems, like Land Park, can do, and they are taking the appropriate steps, as reported in the Sacramento Bee.
An excerpt.
“As City Hall steadily cuts back its funding for parks maintenance, many of Sacramento's neighborhoods have mobilized armies of volunteers to prune, weed and pick up trash.
“Along with neighborhood watches and community center programming, it's another case of neighborhoods shouldering the load for a city government that no longer provides the services it once did.
“Over the past four years, the budget for parks maintenance in the city has been cut by more than 50 percent. With so little remaining, city officials have come to rely on volunteers.
“As a result, the number of organized volunteer groups helping with park maintenance has exploded, from five to more than 40 in the past five years. Several more groups are expected to debut in the coming months, city officials said.
"Without them," said Dave Mitchell, the operations manager for the city's Department of Parks and Recreation, "you might see the lawn get mowed, but that's basically it."
“Before budget cuts hammered park funding, the city could get by with its own workers and the help of service organizations such as Kiwanis and the Boy Scouts. Soon, that wasn't enough.
“Mitchell said the influx of volunteers began with people living across from parks and a handful of neighborhood associations. It eventually became much more organized.
“Nowhere is the reliance upon a structured volunteer group more evident than in William Land Park, the city's largest.
“Neighborhood residents organized a volunteer corps last May after the number of full-time parks workers dedicated to the park fell from more than 50 to six. Now, the Land Park Volunteer Corps has a roster of 300 workers and has taken in nearly $25,000 in donations, sponsorships and grants from local elected officials.
"When you look at Sacramento, you will see that parks are the focal points of so many of our neighborhoods," said Craig Powell, the president of the Land Park Volunteer Corps. "They really are our community centers and the center of our neighborhood identities."
“The Land Park Volunteer Corps, which is applying for 501(c)3 status, works once a month. Volunteers prune, weed and provide fresh planting – chores the city no longer can afford to do itself.”
An excerpt.
“As City Hall steadily cuts back its funding for parks maintenance, many of Sacramento's neighborhoods have mobilized armies of volunteers to prune, weed and pick up trash.
“Along with neighborhood watches and community center programming, it's another case of neighborhoods shouldering the load for a city government that no longer provides the services it once did.
“Over the past four years, the budget for parks maintenance in the city has been cut by more than 50 percent. With so little remaining, city officials have come to rely on volunteers.
“As a result, the number of organized volunteer groups helping with park maintenance has exploded, from five to more than 40 in the past five years. Several more groups are expected to debut in the coming months, city officials said.
"Without them," said Dave Mitchell, the operations manager for the city's Department of Parks and Recreation, "you might see the lawn get mowed, but that's basically it."
“Before budget cuts hammered park funding, the city could get by with its own workers and the help of service organizations such as Kiwanis and the Boy Scouts. Soon, that wasn't enough.
“Mitchell said the influx of volunteers began with people living across from parks and a handful of neighborhood associations. It eventually became much more organized.
“Nowhere is the reliance upon a structured volunteer group more evident than in William Land Park, the city's largest.
“Neighborhood residents organized a volunteer corps last May after the number of full-time parks workers dedicated to the park fell from more than 50 to six. Now, the Land Park Volunteer Corps has a roster of 300 workers and has taken in nearly $25,000 in donations, sponsorships and grants from local elected officials.
"When you look at Sacramento, you will see that parks are the focal points of so many of our neighborhoods," said Craig Powell, the president of the Land Park Volunteer Corps. "They really are our community centers and the center of our neighborhood identities."
“The Land Park Volunteer Corps, which is applying for 501(c)3 status, works once a month. Volunteers prune, weed and provide fresh planting – chores the city no longer can afford to do itself.”
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Sacramento Explores More Contracting
As well it should, and the benefits are obvious, as this article from the Sacramento Bee reports.
A related article from Governing Magazine looks at the issues involved in ensuring diversity in contracting out.
An excerpt from the Bee article.
“For 23 years Frank Acosta has tended the grass on Sacramento's public golf courses. He earns about $60,000 a year, plus a city pension and health benefits.
“It's a good living, but it's one that officials say the city can no longer afford. As part of their effort to cut costs and plug a $39 million budget deficit, the Sacramento City Council voted last month to outsource maintenance jobs at city-owned golf courses.
“If finalized this fall, the move will result in 38 city workers losing their jobs, but will save the city an estimated $500,000 a year, according to city budget officials.
"I sit at home and think, 'Man, I have to look for another job after 23 years,' " Acosta said. "I never thought of that, but I guess I should have."
“The agreement would mark the first time the city has laid off workers to hire a private contractor, according to labor union officials.
“It was a decision watched closely by many.
“There was a sense among city officials that golf maintenance would serve as a good barometer of the City Council's appetite for contracting out jobs historically held by public employees. If the council wouldn't outsource a service for a so-called elite sport, there was no sense trying to expand the concept.
“But now that the council has approved the move, city officials say privately that it could open the door to other contract proposals. Solid waste collection and park maintenance could be next.
“That has the city's labor unions concerned.
"We're all nervous, and we should be," said Marcia Mooney, a business representative with Local 39, City Hall's largest labor union. "Private contractors are not in it to be nonprofits. Eventually they will have to raise their fees, and the city is at the mercy of that contract."
“Political patronage
“With budget deficits dogging cities across California and the nation, more are trying to save money by hiring private companies to perform work traditionally done by public employees. While many local governments already outsource garbage collection and water treatment, more are looking at expanding the concept.
“Budget officials argue that contracting with private firms greatly reduces labor costs and, in some cases, can increase the quality of services by using expert firms.”
A related article from Governing Magazine looks at the issues involved in ensuring diversity in contracting out.
An excerpt from the Bee article.
“For 23 years Frank Acosta has tended the grass on Sacramento's public golf courses. He earns about $60,000 a year, plus a city pension and health benefits.
“It's a good living, but it's one that officials say the city can no longer afford. As part of their effort to cut costs and plug a $39 million budget deficit, the Sacramento City Council voted last month to outsource maintenance jobs at city-owned golf courses.
“If finalized this fall, the move will result in 38 city workers losing their jobs, but will save the city an estimated $500,000 a year, according to city budget officials.
"I sit at home and think, 'Man, I have to look for another job after 23 years,' " Acosta said. "I never thought of that, but I guess I should have."
“The agreement would mark the first time the city has laid off workers to hire a private contractor, according to labor union officials.
“It was a decision watched closely by many.
“There was a sense among city officials that golf maintenance would serve as a good barometer of the City Council's appetite for contracting out jobs historically held by public employees. If the council wouldn't outsource a service for a so-called elite sport, there was no sense trying to expand the concept.
“But now that the council has approved the move, city officials say privately that it could open the door to other contract proposals. Solid waste collection and park maintenance could be next.
“That has the city's labor unions concerned.
"We're all nervous, and we should be," said Marcia Mooney, a business representative with Local 39, City Hall's largest labor union. "Private contractors are not in it to be nonprofits. Eventually they will have to raise their fees, and the city is at the mercy of that contract."
“Political patronage
“With budget deficits dogging cities across California and the nation, more are trying to save money by hiring private companies to perform work traditionally done by public employees. While many local governments already outsource garbage collection and water treatment, more are looking at expanding the concept.
“Budget officials argue that contracting with private firms greatly reduces labor costs and, in some cases, can increase the quality of services by using expert firms.”
Friday, June 17, 2011
Nonprofit Management of Parkway
The model used by us and many others (San Francisco & Pittsburgh for instance) in their strategic planning discussions and implementations, for having a nonprofit manage their signature parks, is the Central Park Conservancy, which has been managing Central Park in New York City for years—raising 85% of the money the park needs—under contract with New York City.
In this recent article from the New York Times, the strategy to renew their fund raising presence is unveiled (and it gives a sense of what could be done here for the Parkway if our strategy was implemented) as our Parkway is surely as loved by us as is Central Park by New Yorkers.
An excerpt from the Times article.
“The nonprofit organization that manages, maintains and raises money for Central Park is using a new campaign to embrace a new identity.
“The campaign got under way early this month. The theme declares that the organization, the Central Park Conservancy, is “Central to the park.”
“The campaign seeks to rebrand the organization, which was founded in 1980, by spotlighting a new logo. Echoing the word play in the theme, the logo is being called a “park mark”; it is a bright-green rectangle, in the shape of Central Park, set against a white background.
“The campaign is being created by a team at the conservancy working with McGarryBowen in New York, part of the Dentsu West unit of Dentsu. McGarryBowen, which creates ads for marketers like Kraft Foods and Verizon Communications, is volunteering its services for the campaign.
“The media agency for the campaign — Zenith Media, part of the ZenithOptimedia Group division of the Publicis Groupe — is also donating its services.
“The campaign is extensive, appearing in both traditional and nontraditional media.
“On the traditional side, there are print advertisements, direct mail and posters for bus shelters and subway platforms.
“On the nontraditional front, there are ads online; apps for the iPhone and Android; a presence on the conservancy’s Web site, centralparknyc.org; and social media like Facebook (facebook.com/centralparknyc) and Twitter (twitter.com/CentralParkBuzz).
“The campaign is indicative of efforts by nonprofit organizations to stand out amid all the ads from profit-making marketers.
“Once, appealing to the altruistic side of the public was often enough for them to elicit a response. Now, organizations, associations, charities and causes need to do more to get the attention of busy, distracted consumers.
“For the conservancy, the emphasis is on conveying the unusual nature of its mission: keeping up Central Park under the terms of a contract with the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation.
“It’s a challenge,” says Douglas Blonsky, president of the conservancy and the Central Park administrator, because “people are not used to understanding that a private organization could be managing a public park.”
“Of the $37 million annual budget for Central Park, he adds, 85 percent comes from the conservancy.”
In this recent article from the New York Times, the strategy to renew their fund raising presence is unveiled (and it gives a sense of what could be done here for the Parkway if our strategy was implemented) as our Parkway is surely as loved by us as is Central Park by New Yorkers.
An excerpt from the Times article.
“The nonprofit organization that manages, maintains and raises money for Central Park is using a new campaign to embrace a new identity.
“The campaign got under way early this month. The theme declares that the organization, the Central Park Conservancy, is “Central to the park.”
“The campaign seeks to rebrand the organization, which was founded in 1980, by spotlighting a new logo. Echoing the word play in the theme, the logo is being called a “park mark”; it is a bright-green rectangle, in the shape of Central Park, set against a white background.
“The campaign is being created by a team at the conservancy working with McGarryBowen in New York, part of the Dentsu West unit of Dentsu. McGarryBowen, which creates ads for marketers like Kraft Foods and Verizon Communications, is volunteering its services for the campaign.
“The media agency for the campaign — Zenith Media, part of the ZenithOptimedia Group division of the Publicis Groupe — is also donating its services.
“The campaign is extensive, appearing in both traditional and nontraditional media.
“On the traditional side, there are print advertisements, direct mail and posters for bus shelters and subway platforms.
“On the nontraditional front, there are ads online; apps for the iPhone and Android; a presence on the conservancy’s Web site, centralparknyc.org; and social media like Facebook (facebook.com/centralparknyc) and Twitter (twitter.com/CentralParkBuzz).
“The campaign is indicative of efforts by nonprofit organizations to stand out amid all the ads from profit-making marketers.
“Once, appealing to the altruistic side of the public was often enough for them to elicit a response. Now, organizations, associations, charities and causes need to do more to get the attention of busy, distracted consumers.
“For the conservancy, the emphasis is on conveying the unusual nature of its mission: keeping up Central Park under the terms of a contract with the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation.
“It’s a challenge,” says Douglas Blonsky, president of the conservancy and the Central Park administrator, because “people are not used to understanding that a private organization could be managing a public park.”
“Of the $37 million annual budget for Central Park, he adds, 85 percent comes from the conservancy.”
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Parks Funding
This is a very difficult time for government funding for parks, but it is also a time of opportunity to remove the burden of funding from very limited government sources and move to the much more stable funding from philanthropy, especially for those signature parks best suited to be supported philanthropically.
Government is still to be involved of course, as signature parks, like the American River Parkway, are owned by the public, and a certain minimum-base level of funding should remain in place, but the major funding can come from a philanthropic community that realizes the value of the parks they use and will support them, as they already do elsewhere.
The model we always refer to is New York's Central Park, where the Central Park Conservancy raises 85% of needed funding under contact with the city of New York.
This model is being replicated in other parks around the country, including Pittsburgh.
For details on how we envision it working with the Parkway, visit our strategy page on our website, which provides details.
Government is still to be involved of course, as signature parks, like the American River Parkway, are owned by the public, and a certain minimum-base level of funding should remain in place, but the major funding can come from a philanthropic community that realizes the value of the parks they use and will support them, as they already do elsewhere.
The model we always refer to is New York's Central Park, where the Central Park Conservancy raises 85% of needed funding under contact with the city of New York.
This model is being replicated in other parks around the country, including Pittsburgh.
For details on how we envision it working with the Parkway, visit our strategy page on our website, which provides details.
Saturday, May 07, 2011
Open Letter Sent to Supervisors
May 6, 2011
OPEN LETTER TO THE SACRAMENTO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
In relation to the May 4, 2011 story in the Sacramento Bee about your possibly considering asking voters to raise the sales tax to pay for a regional park district, we would offer—not a proposal for all of the regional parks—but a proposal for the largest, the American River Parkway.
We propose that you spearhead the formation of a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) comprised of the adjacent governments, and the JPA creates a new nonprofit organization to provide daily management and supplemental fundraising for the Parkway.
We have offered details on this strategy—including sample agreement language and JPA membership composition—on our website.
The Parkway is a signature park, with a national reputation, and, by conducting a nationwide search for the appropriate executive director of the nonprofit, you will be able to discover someone with the experience and talent to take the American River Parkway into the future with secure and dedicated funding.
This, of course, will eventually provide more available funding for the other parks in the regional parks department.
Sincerely,
Michael Rushford,President
Kristine Lea, Board Officer
David H. Lukenbill,Board Officer
Rebecca Garrison, Board Member
OPEN LETTER TO THE SACRAMENTO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
In relation to the May 4, 2011 story in the Sacramento Bee about your possibly considering asking voters to raise the sales tax to pay for a regional park district, we would offer—not a proposal for all of the regional parks—but a proposal for the largest, the American River Parkway.
We propose that you spearhead the formation of a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) comprised of the adjacent governments, and the JPA creates a new nonprofit organization to provide daily management and supplemental fundraising for the Parkway.
We have offered details on this strategy—including sample agreement language and JPA membership composition—on our website.
The Parkway is a signature park, with a national reputation, and, by conducting a nationwide search for the appropriate executive director of the nonprofit, you will be able to discover someone with the experience and talent to take the American River Parkway into the future with secure and dedicated funding.
This, of course, will eventually provide more available funding for the other parks in the regional parks department.
Sincerely,
Michael Rushford,President
Kristine Lea, Board Officer
David H. Lukenbill,Board Officer
Rebecca Garrison, Board Member
Thursday, May 05, 2011
Sector Shifting
Nonprofit to private, private to nonprofit, government partnering with nonprofits and forprofits—for example the recent partnership between Sacramento County and Gibson Ranch Park LLC—and combinations of all; what matters is the mission (in Gibson Ranch’s case, keeping the park open and vibrant, which they are accomplishing superbly) and the best way to get it done.
In this case, its all about farming and gardening education, as reported by the Tacoma News Tribune from Bellingham, Washington.
An excerpt.
“EVERSON - Cloud Mountain Farm is going through big changes, but they're not yet visible to passers-by.
“Owners Tom and Cheryl Thornton plan to sell their popular business to a yet-to-be-determined entity that will convert their 20-acre farm into a nonprofit center to provide education and hands-on training to new and experienced farmers and gardeners.
“The couple, who started Cloud Mountain as a commercial orchard in 1978, will continue to work and live at the farm, and Cheryl Thornton will sit on the center's new board of directors.
“They're already well-known for offering workshops and other educational programs, and for experimenting with crops and growing techniques, all while diversifying their farm nestled against the western flank of Sumas Mountain.
"It's a continuation and expansion of what we're already doing," Cheryl Thornton said. "The center brings it full circle."
“The transaction is being handled by Whatcom Community Foundation, which manages numerous funds, including at least two geared to helping local agriculture - the Sustainable Whatcom Fund and the Whatcom Farm Incubator Fund.”
In this case, its all about farming and gardening education, as reported by the Tacoma News Tribune from Bellingham, Washington.
An excerpt.
“EVERSON - Cloud Mountain Farm is going through big changes, but they're not yet visible to passers-by.
“Owners Tom and Cheryl Thornton plan to sell their popular business to a yet-to-be-determined entity that will convert their 20-acre farm into a nonprofit center to provide education and hands-on training to new and experienced farmers and gardeners.
“The couple, who started Cloud Mountain as a commercial orchard in 1978, will continue to work and live at the farm, and Cheryl Thornton will sit on the center's new board of directors.
“They're already well-known for offering workshops and other educational programs, and for experimenting with crops and growing techniques, all while diversifying their farm nestled against the western flank of Sumas Mountain.
"It's a continuation and expansion of what we're already doing," Cheryl Thornton said. "The center brings it full circle."
“The transaction is being handled by Whatcom Community Foundation, which manages numerous funds, including at least two geared to helping local agriculture - the Sustainable Whatcom Fund and the Whatcom Farm Incubator Fund.”
Wednesday, May 04, 2011
New Taxes for Parks?
There are so many reasons why this is a bad idea, increasing taxes to support parks, but just a couple should be mentioned.
Taxpayers are already paying for parks, have been for years; and Doug Ose is correct, as quoted in the story, “Ose said. "I don't believe there's a shortage of revenue. I believe there's a shortage of management creativity."
That really says it all, but for a whole lot of other reasons this is a horrible idea, read the comments section of the Bee article.
An excerpt from the Sacramento Bee story.
“Struggling to preserve its parks amid deep budget cuts, Sacramento County will consider a proposal asking voters to boost sales taxes for a new regional park district that would take control of county parkland.
“The annual budget for parks has been slashed in half, to $2.9 million, compared with a decade ago, and more cuts are planned in the new fiscal year. In response, the county already has leased one park property to a nonprofit and another to a for-profit venture.
“Along the American River Parkway, the jewel of the regional park system, services from basic trash pickup to law enforcement patrols are under strain.
“A committee organized by Save the American River Association aims to stabilize the parks with a 2012 ballot measure raising sales taxes by one-tenth of 1 percent, or 10 cents on a $100 purchase.
“The money would bring in $8.5 million annually to fund a new regional park district. A seven-member elected board would oversee the district, which would take over the 32 parks now managed by Sacramento County.
“The proposal followed a year of study and is modeled after the East Bay Regional Park District, a highly regarded Bay Area agency that manages 56 parks in Alameda and Contra Costa counties.
“Bill Davis, who chaired the committee, said the proposal initially arose out of concern for the American River Parkway. But he said the group soon decided a broader approach was needed.
“To take pressure off the parkway, which receives about 8 million visitors annually, the group concluded the county needs to open up more parkland throughout the region. Out of 15,000 acres of county-owned parkland, about 6,000 acres are undeveloped and essentially not available to the public.
"We recognized that unless the rest of (the) system thrives, we're going to be hard-pressed to protect the parkway from overuse," said Davis, a board member of Save the American River Association.
“The committee's members include representatives from Sacramento Area Bicycle Advocates, the Nature Conservancy, the Environmental Council of Sacramento, neighborhood associations and other park groups….
"I think this is the wrong time to be proposing new taxes of any sort whatsoever," Ose said.. "I don't believe there's a shortage of revenue. I believe there's a shortage of management creativity."
Taxpayers are already paying for parks, have been for years; and Doug Ose is correct, as quoted in the story, “Ose said. "I don't believe there's a shortage of revenue. I believe there's a shortage of management creativity."
That really says it all, but for a whole lot of other reasons this is a horrible idea, read the comments section of the Bee article.
An excerpt from the Sacramento Bee story.
“Struggling to preserve its parks amid deep budget cuts, Sacramento County will consider a proposal asking voters to boost sales taxes for a new regional park district that would take control of county parkland.
“The annual budget for parks has been slashed in half, to $2.9 million, compared with a decade ago, and more cuts are planned in the new fiscal year. In response, the county already has leased one park property to a nonprofit and another to a for-profit venture.
“Along the American River Parkway, the jewel of the regional park system, services from basic trash pickup to law enforcement patrols are under strain.
“A committee organized by Save the American River Association aims to stabilize the parks with a 2012 ballot measure raising sales taxes by one-tenth of 1 percent, or 10 cents on a $100 purchase.
“The money would bring in $8.5 million annually to fund a new regional park district. A seven-member elected board would oversee the district, which would take over the 32 parks now managed by Sacramento County.
“The proposal followed a year of study and is modeled after the East Bay Regional Park District, a highly regarded Bay Area agency that manages 56 parks in Alameda and Contra Costa counties.
“Bill Davis, who chaired the committee, said the proposal initially arose out of concern for the American River Parkway. But he said the group soon decided a broader approach was needed.
“To take pressure off the parkway, which receives about 8 million visitors annually, the group concluded the county needs to open up more parkland throughout the region. Out of 15,000 acres of county-owned parkland, about 6,000 acres are undeveloped and essentially not available to the public.
"We recognized that unless the rest of (the) system thrives, we're going to be hard-pressed to protect the parkway from overuse," said Davis, a board member of Save the American River Association.
“The committee's members include representatives from Sacramento Area Bicycle Advocates, the Nature Conservancy, the Environmental Council of Sacramento, neighborhood associations and other park groups….
"I think this is the wrong time to be proposing new taxes of any sort whatsoever," Ose said.. "I don't believe there's a shortage of revenue. I believe there's a shortage of management creativity."
Monday, May 02, 2011
Funding County Parks
The troubling aspects of this editorial from the Sacramento Bee are the assumptions it appears to be based upon.
The problem is largely defined as: “The "system" also has become increasingly fragmented, with myriad nonprofit groups running isolated park units (and, now, even a for-profit business running Gibson Ranch), with few resources devoted to connecting the pieces in an integrated, coherent whole.”
The solution is largely defined as: “There is some reason for hope…. Presented with a hypothetical ballot measure for a 10-year 1/8 cent sales tax to fund regional parks, 73 percent said they would vote "yes." The idea got support from more than 60 percent of voters in each of the five supervisor districts.”
So, if I have this right, the problem is that public/private partnerships of nonprofits working with government and forprofits working with government are running some of the parks and the solution is to raise taxes?!
This is a disjointed line of thought from a major media outlet in a country built upon a creative private sector and an innovative public sector, more often working in harmony than not, especially during a period of such great economic stress.
The fact that these public/private partnerships will quite possibly result in saving and enhancing some of our parks is a fact that should be celebrated rather than criticized.
An excerpt from the Bee editorial.
“The funding decline for parks has been precipitous. In 2001, the regional parks system received a general fund allocation of $6.4 million. A decade later, that has fallen to $2.9 million.
“The park "system" has been reduced to a skeleton staff of rangers and maintenance workers….
“The "system" also has become increasingly fragmented, with myriad nonprofit groups running isolated park units (and, now, even a for-profit business running Gibson Ranch), with few resources devoted to connecting the pieces in an integrated, coherent whole….
“There is some reason for hope. A Feb. 7-13 telephone survey of likely Sacramento County voters, conducted by Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz and Associates, found deep support for the county's parks and parkways.
“Asked to rate "How important would you say the county's regional parks are to the quality of life in Sacramento County?", 62 percent responded "extremely" or "very" important. Half say they visit regional parks several times each month, and 79 percent say they visit several times a year.
“Presented with a hypothetical ballot measure for a 10-year 1/8 cent sales tax to fund regional parks, 73 percent said they would vote "yes." The idea got support from more than 60 percent of voters in each of the five supervisor districts.”
The problem is largely defined as: “The "system" also has become increasingly fragmented, with myriad nonprofit groups running isolated park units (and, now, even a for-profit business running Gibson Ranch), with few resources devoted to connecting the pieces in an integrated, coherent whole.”
The solution is largely defined as: “There is some reason for hope…. Presented with a hypothetical ballot measure for a 10-year 1/8 cent sales tax to fund regional parks, 73 percent said they would vote "yes." The idea got support from more than 60 percent of voters in each of the five supervisor districts.”
So, if I have this right, the problem is that public/private partnerships of nonprofits working with government and forprofits working with government are running some of the parks and the solution is to raise taxes?!
This is a disjointed line of thought from a major media outlet in a country built upon a creative private sector and an innovative public sector, more often working in harmony than not, especially during a period of such great economic stress.
The fact that these public/private partnerships will quite possibly result in saving and enhancing some of our parks is a fact that should be celebrated rather than criticized.
An excerpt from the Bee editorial.
“The funding decline for parks has been precipitous. In 2001, the regional parks system received a general fund allocation of $6.4 million. A decade later, that has fallen to $2.9 million.
“The park "system" has been reduced to a skeleton staff of rangers and maintenance workers….
“The "system" also has become increasingly fragmented, with myriad nonprofit groups running isolated park units (and, now, even a for-profit business running Gibson Ranch), with few resources devoted to connecting the pieces in an integrated, coherent whole….
“There is some reason for hope. A Feb. 7-13 telephone survey of likely Sacramento County voters, conducted by Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz and Associates, found deep support for the county's parks and parkways.
“Asked to rate "How important would you say the county's regional parks are to the quality of life in Sacramento County?", 62 percent responded "extremely" or "very" important. Half say they visit regional parks several times each month, and 79 percent say they visit several times a year.
“Presented with a hypothetical ballot measure for a 10-year 1/8 cent sales tax to fund regional parks, 73 percent said they would vote "yes." The idea got support from more than 60 percent of voters in each of the five supervisor districts.”
Monday, April 25, 2011
Government & Nonprofits
As the Fresno Bee reports, the policy of asking nonprofits to take over certain aspects of local government functions and facilities, is growing, and that is a very good thing.
Instead of completely relying on the coercive tax base of taxpayer funded functions and facilities, being able to access a supplemental philanthropic, voluntary donation base, is good public policy.
It is already being used in Sacramento, with the Effie Yeaw Nature Center and the Sacramento Zoo, both under nonprofit control; and Gibson Ranch Park, which is under forprofit control.
It should be considered for the American River Parkway, which, in our strategy, we advocate to come under the control of a nonprofit contracting with a Joint Power Authority of the adjacent local governments.
An excerpt from the Fresno Bee article.
“A small group of people showed up Wednesday at Fresno City Hall for an informal public meeting on outsourcing the city's remaining "flagship" community centers.
“City Hall has struggled with a budget crisis for several years, and officials about a year ago began looking for community-based organizations to take over operation of the Parks Department's 10 neighborhood centers. Seven of them are now run by outside sources.
“City officials at the time, though, decided to retain operation of the seven larger, so-called "flagship" community centers. However, the city's budget woes continue, and the City Council on April 7 approved outsourcing the operation of a flagship: the Mosqueda Center in southeast Fresno will be run by Reading and Beyond.
“Wednesday's meeting let city officials gauge the interest among nonprofits for the other flagship centers. City officials also hoped representatives from nonprofits would connect and perhaps partner in running the centers.
“City officials said a nonprofit must have solid finances and sound management. A nonprofit also must provide a basic level of service but is encouraged to offer its own services, city officials said.
“Assistant City Manager/Interim Parks Director Bruce Rudd said the offer applies to the Frank H. Ball, Holmes, California/Elm, Ted C. Wills and Romain centers. He said the Dickey Youth Center isn't included, in part because it's home to some Parks administrators.”
Instead of completely relying on the coercive tax base of taxpayer funded functions and facilities, being able to access a supplemental philanthropic, voluntary donation base, is good public policy.
It is already being used in Sacramento, with the Effie Yeaw Nature Center and the Sacramento Zoo, both under nonprofit control; and Gibson Ranch Park, which is under forprofit control.
It should be considered for the American River Parkway, which, in our strategy, we advocate to come under the control of a nonprofit contracting with a Joint Power Authority of the adjacent local governments.
An excerpt from the Fresno Bee article.
“A small group of people showed up Wednesday at Fresno City Hall for an informal public meeting on outsourcing the city's remaining "flagship" community centers.
“City Hall has struggled with a budget crisis for several years, and officials about a year ago began looking for community-based organizations to take over operation of the Parks Department's 10 neighborhood centers. Seven of them are now run by outside sources.
“City officials at the time, though, decided to retain operation of the seven larger, so-called "flagship" community centers. However, the city's budget woes continue, and the City Council on April 7 approved outsourcing the operation of a flagship: the Mosqueda Center in southeast Fresno will be run by Reading and Beyond.
“Wednesday's meeting let city officials gauge the interest among nonprofits for the other flagship centers. City officials also hoped representatives from nonprofits would connect and perhaps partner in running the centers.
“City officials said a nonprofit must have solid finances and sound management. A nonprofit also must provide a basic level of service but is encouraged to offer its own services, city officials said.
“Assistant City Manager/Interim Parks Director Bruce Rudd said the offer applies to the Frank H. Ball, Holmes, California/Elm, Ted C. Wills and Romain centers. He said the Dickey Youth Center isn't included, in part because it's home to some Parks administrators.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)