The Sacramento Bee—which inexplicably, does not like Gibson Ranch Park being operated as a forprofit, even though it is now open and being highly utilized by area residents, whereas before it was closed—ran an editorial yesterday, entitled “Back at Gibson Ranch, little county oversight”, which is apparently not quite accurate, as the response in the comments section from Doug Ose notes:
His response.
“Dear Pia -
“Once again you nitpick based on ignorance. You really should just pick up the phone and call me if you have questions.
“First and foremost, the County has received a monthly statement detailing all income and expenses including the names and amounts paid for all checks issued. The information forwarded to the County contains a precise breakdown of the monies collected for the Equestrian Trust Fund as well as a detailed listing to the penny of any expenditures made therefrom. This is precisely what was agreed to when the lease was executed. The reporting being provided dwarfs by orders of magnitude any reporting being provided to the County under any other existing County park lease with any of your beloved nonprofit organizations. I request that you cease and desist from impugning my character by suggesting that I am engaged in financial shenanigans.
“Second, the park is open every day, something that was not occurring prior to April 1, 2011. I fail to understand why you continue to object to the park being open.
“Third, the park is clean, the grass is mowed, the bathrooms are clean. I wonder how that compares to the parks you are operating.
“Your comments regarding the open ditches reflect the fact that you still have not visited Gibson Ranch since my team took it over. Prior to April 1, under the supervision of the former Parks Director, the irrigation ditches were dredged by the County, significantly enlarging the ditches and turning them into public hazards. The project being contemplated would eliminate the public hazard while preserving the ability to irrigate the pastures on the property. There are no marshlands within the area being irrigated by the ditches in question.
“The main challenge to local government remains that their obligations exceed their revenues. At Gibson Ranch, the County was budgeting over $200,000 per year to keep the park closed. The lease with me requires the County to pay up to $100,000 per year to correct deferred maintenance that accumulated prior to April 1, 2011. That is a net savings to the County of over $100,000 per year. And, the park is open. And, the accumulated deferred maintenance is being repaired.
“When we had lunch at the Crocker Art Museum prior to the Board's action to approve the proposed lease, I asked you what was the plan you wished to propose as an alternative to the one I was proposing. I appreciated your candor in admitting that you had no plan and that it was not your responsibility to create a solution that opens the park. Six months later, it is clear now that your only plan has been to use the bullhorn of the Sacramento Bee Editorial Page to advocate for new taxes dedicated to parks maintenance and operations on the November 2012 ballot. It must be frustrating for you to see my team PROVING EVERY DAY THAT NO SUCH NEW TAXES ARE NEEDED.
“Have a nice day..”
Showing posts with label Parks. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Parks. Show all posts
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Friday, October 21, 2011
Think Local Management
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.”
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.”
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Compassion & Principles
I watched the City Council meeting on tv last night about the Occupy Sacramento folks who want permission to camp out 24/7 at Cesar Chavez Park.
This is an important issue for the Parkway because if that permission was given it would also have to be granted to the homeless folks who want the same permission to camp 24/7, which would result in even more camping in the Parkway than is now happening.
Mayor Johnson chaired the meeting and he exhibited one of the best examples of compassion while sticking to principle that I have seen from a politician.
This article from the Sacramento Bee reports on the meeting.
An excerpt.
“Two weeks have passed since Occupy Sacramento protesters first took hold of downtown's Cesar Chavez Plaza. They have set up small shelters and a first-aid station, created a bank of laptop computers linked to the Internet and conducted several rallies.
“What they still don't have is a common call for grand social change.
“As the Occupy Wall Street movement persists around the nation and spreads to other countries, demonstrations have morphed into a canvas of disparate protests with distinctly local flavors. In Phoenix, the issue is immigration; in Atlanta, small business.
“And in Boston, a hub of higher learning, it's the lack of jobs for college graduates.
“There is no single global or economic cause unifying the Sacramento movement. However, by demanding to remain in the park at all hours, protesters have waded into a local political issue that predates their demonstration by years: the fight by homeless activists against the city's anti-camping ordinances.
"Our issue? We want to be able to stay here overnight," said Sean Thompson, 27, who recently dropped out of Sacramento City College to help coordinate Occupy Sacramento's presence in the park. "After that's resolved, then we'll start to talk."
“That demand appears unlikely to be granted anytime soon. Despite the calls of protesters who waved signs inside City Hall and set up vigil outside the building, the Sacramento City Council decided Tuesday night to continue enforcing the city's anti-camping rules and to not grant a permit allowing protesters to remain in a city park past closure hours.
“City police will keep clearing out the park across the street from City Hall at 11 p.m. on weeknights and midnight on the weekends.
“Councilman Steve Cohn had proposed to allow the protesters to keep their gear in the park overnight, but that plan was not moved forward by the council.
“Mayor Kevin Johnson said he would meet with protest organizers over the next few days and listen to their "thoughts and concerns."
"No one here disagrees with your right to protest and have your voices heard in a real way," the mayor said.
“City officials worry that if they allow the Occupy Sacramento people to camp at the park, they would have to make a similar exception for Safe Ground Sacramento, the group of homeless people and their advocates that has been pushing for a sanctioned spot where the homeless can camp at night.”
This is an important issue for the Parkway because if that permission was given it would also have to be granted to the homeless folks who want the same permission to camp 24/7, which would result in even more camping in the Parkway than is now happening.
Mayor Johnson chaired the meeting and he exhibited one of the best examples of compassion while sticking to principle that I have seen from a politician.
This article from the Sacramento Bee reports on the meeting.
An excerpt.
“Two weeks have passed since Occupy Sacramento protesters first took hold of downtown's Cesar Chavez Plaza. They have set up small shelters and a first-aid station, created a bank of laptop computers linked to the Internet and conducted several rallies.
“What they still don't have is a common call for grand social change.
“As the Occupy Wall Street movement persists around the nation and spreads to other countries, demonstrations have morphed into a canvas of disparate protests with distinctly local flavors. In Phoenix, the issue is immigration; in Atlanta, small business.
“And in Boston, a hub of higher learning, it's the lack of jobs for college graduates.
“There is no single global or economic cause unifying the Sacramento movement. However, by demanding to remain in the park at all hours, protesters have waded into a local political issue that predates their demonstration by years: the fight by homeless activists against the city's anti-camping ordinances.
"Our issue? We want to be able to stay here overnight," said Sean Thompson, 27, who recently dropped out of Sacramento City College to help coordinate Occupy Sacramento's presence in the park. "After that's resolved, then we'll start to talk."
“That demand appears unlikely to be granted anytime soon. Despite the calls of protesters who waved signs inside City Hall and set up vigil outside the building, the Sacramento City Council decided Tuesday night to continue enforcing the city's anti-camping rules and to not grant a permit allowing protesters to remain in a city park past closure hours.
“City police will keep clearing out the park across the street from City Hall at 11 p.m. on weeknights and midnight on the weekends.
“Councilman Steve Cohn had proposed to allow the protesters to keep their gear in the park overnight, but that plan was not moved forward by the council.
“Mayor Kevin Johnson said he would meet with protest organizers over the next few days and listen to their "thoughts and concerns."
"No one here disagrees with your right to protest and have your voices heard in a real way," the mayor said.
“City officials worry that if they allow the Occupy Sacramento people to camp at the park, they would have to make a similar exception for Safe Ground Sacramento, the group of homeless people and their advocates that has been pushing for a sanctioned spot where the homeless can camp at night.”
Friday, October 14, 2011
Funding Parks
With the current funding problems with California state parks and locally with county and city parks, this report from the Property and Environment Research Center about using private management—as is successfully being done locally with Gibson Ranch Park—is timely.
The summary enclosed and, full pdf report here.
“Some state park systems rely on tax dollars provided through state general funds. When state budgets are tight, park funding is a lower priority than projects such as schools and hospitals. Hence park budgets are quick to hit the chopping block, leading to threats of park closures or reduced services.
“Rather than ride the roller coaster of state budgets, some parks have leased their operational activities to private managers. These private entities have proven they can operate the parks more efficiently, and sites that were once a drain on agency funds are now generating revenue.
“Private management can provide consistent, quality stewardship as well as more customer service.”
The summary enclosed and, full pdf report here.
“Some state park systems rely on tax dollars provided through state general funds. When state budgets are tight, park funding is a lower priority than projects such as schools and hospitals. Hence park budgets are quick to hit the chopping block, leading to threats of park closures or reduced services.
“Rather than ride the roller coaster of state budgets, some parks have leased their operational activities to private managers. These private entities have proven they can operate the parks more efficiently, and sites that were once a drain on agency funds are now generating revenue.
“Private management can provide consistent, quality stewardship as well as more customer service.”
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
Monday, September 19, 2011
Building a Park
This is a wonderful story from the Sacramento Bee of how a neighborhood, building upon a fortuitous infusion of tax payer supported grant funding, has been able to help create a new park.
Hopefully, given the dire situation with funds available for park maintenance, the community will be able to sustain the effort into the future, which the County currently cannot.
An excerpt.
“Not long ago, a stretch of land in the middle of a Carmichael neighborhood was largely inaccessible with its expanse of trees and brush and, of course, weeds.
“At 10 a.m. Saturday, the property between Jan and Salmaan drives will open as Carmichael's newest neighborhood park – Jan Park.
“The park, built for under $500,000, was financed in large measure by a $410,000 grant from Proposition 84, approved by state voters in 2006.
“But the park is larger than originally proposed – 13.6 acres instead of about 9 – thanks to an effort involving neighborhood residents and local donors who joined forces with the Carmichael Recreation and Park District.
"We were able to build the park and to keep it natural," said Tracy Kerth, recreation services manager for the district. "It's lovely."
“Resident Joyce Carroll, who lives less than a block from the site, said neighbors were disappointed that the district would have to sell 4.5 acres of the land to finance park creation. About 28 months ago, she said, she decided to rally neighbors to save the whole site.
“Carroll printed about 700 fliers with a proposal to "meet on my lawn." She walked the neighborhood to distribute them, she said.
“About 65 people showed up and voted to form a neighborhood association with the focus of saving the entire site for Jan Park.
“Carroll's description of the effort sounds easy. It wasn't.
"It was truly grass-roots," she said.
“A civil engineer volunteered a large share of his time to rework the original park master plan.
“The community held rummage sales.
“There were cash donations from groups such as the Active 20/30 Club of Sacramento, from individuals and from area businesses.
“The new Barrett Hills Neighborhood Association raised more than $30,000 in contributions, Carroll said, and the civil engineer invested perhaps that much more in in-kind work.”
Hopefully, given the dire situation with funds available for park maintenance, the community will be able to sustain the effort into the future, which the County currently cannot.
An excerpt.
“Not long ago, a stretch of land in the middle of a Carmichael neighborhood was largely inaccessible with its expanse of trees and brush and, of course, weeds.
“At 10 a.m. Saturday, the property between Jan and Salmaan drives will open as Carmichael's newest neighborhood park – Jan Park.
“The park, built for under $500,000, was financed in large measure by a $410,000 grant from Proposition 84, approved by state voters in 2006.
“But the park is larger than originally proposed – 13.6 acres instead of about 9 – thanks to an effort involving neighborhood residents and local donors who joined forces with the Carmichael Recreation and Park District.
"We were able to build the park and to keep it natural," said Tracy Kerth, recreation services manager for the district. "It's lovely."
“Resident Joyce Carroll, who lives less than a block from the site, said neighbors were disappointed that the district would have to sell 4.5 acres of the land to finance park creation. About 28 months ago, she said, she decided to rally neighbors to save the whole site.
“Carroll printed about 700 fliers with a proposal to "meet on my lawn." She walked the neighborhood to distribute them, she said.
“About 65 people showed up and voted to form a neighborhood association with the focus of saving the entire site for Jan Park.
“Carroll's description of the effort sounds easy. It wasn't.
"It was truly grass-roots," she said.
“A civil engineer volunteered a large share of his time to rework the original park master plan.
“The community held rummage sales.
“There were cash donations from groups such as the Active 20/30 Club of Sacramento, from individuals and from area businesses.
“The new Barrett Hills Neighborhood Association raised more than $30,000 in contributions, Carroll said, and the civil engineer invested perhaps that much more in in-kind work.”
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.”
Tuesday, September 06, 2011
Studying Tax Increase for Parks
The direction the County Supervisors took, to further study the issue of how to take care of our parks rather than immediately sign on to the tax increase strategy offered by the Grassroots Working Group—which our organization opposes—is appropriate.
The recent article in the Sacramento Bee opposing further study and encouraging the County Supervisors to immediately accede to the Grassroots Working Groups plan contains its own negation, in that generally, whenever a group stresses immediacy over further study, it’s because they suspect their plan won't stand up to that study, which it won't.
Taxpayers love their parks but realize that increasing taxes so essentially the same strategies can continue, is not just a bad idea, it’s a horrible idea.
The best solutions for the regional parks we’ve seen proposed are those offered by Doug Ose, and for the Parkway in particular we suggest our strategy.
An excerpt from the Bee article.
“Sacramento County's Board of Supervisors and county executive dealt another crushing blow to the operating budget of their Regional Parks system in June. What is the future of parks, trails and open space in this region? Is there a path to stable, secure funding and governance of Regional Parks?
“While city and county park agencies have faced extreme challenges during the four-plus years of the economic downturn, the only governance structure faring well is the special district. Because they receive a set percentage of property taxes, their operating budget fluctuates very little compared with the more than 50 percent cuts facing city and county park agencies. Could special district governance with a secure and stable funding source rescue Sacramento County Regional Parks?
“The groundwork for this shift has already been accomplished. For more than a year, the Grassroots Working Group, an organization of community leaders and park advocates have worked tirelessly and raised private funds to have the Trust for Public Land study options for funding and governance for Sacramento County's regional park system. Polling was also done as a companion to their study. All of this clearly pointed to the recommendation for a ballot measure to create a regional special district for parks and fund the district with a 0.1 of 1 percent sales tax increase….
“Unfortunately, the Board of Supervisors and the county executive want to spend another six months studying various options with community stakeholders, most of whom have been involved in the Grassroots Working Group effort over the past year. New options or "business models" do not exist if this community wants free, accessible, safe, protected, well-managed and commercial-free parks, trails and open space.”
The recent article in the Sacramento Bee opposing further study and encouraging the County Supervisors to immediately accede to the Grassroots Working Groups plan contains its own negation, in that generally, whenever a group stresses immediacy over further study, it’s because they suspect their plan won't stand up to that study, which it won't.
Taxpayers love their parks but realize that increasing taxes so essentially the same strategies can continue, is not just a bad idea, it’s a horrible idea.
The best solutions for the regional parks we’ve seen proposed are those offered by Doug Ose, and for the Parkway in particular we suggest our strategy.
An excerpt from the Bee article.
“Sacramento County's Board of Supervisors and county executive dealt another crushing blow to the operating budget of their Regional Parks system in June. What is the future of parks, trails and open space in this region? Is there a path to stable, secure funding and governance of Regional Parks?
“While city and county park agencies have faced extreme challenges during the four-plus years of the economic downturn, the only governance structure faring well is the special district. Because they receive a set percentage of property taxes, their operating budget fluctuates very little compared with the more than 50 percent cuts facing city and county park agencies. Could special district governance with a secure and stable funding source rescue Sacramento County Regional Parks?
“The groundwork for this shift has already been accomplished. For more than a year, the Grassroots Working Group, an organization of community leaders and park advocates have worked tirelessly and raised private funds to have the Trust for Public Land study options for funding and governance for Sacramento County's regional park system. Polling was also done as a companion to their study. All of this clearly pointed to the recommendation for a ballot measure to create a regional special district for parks and fund the district with a 0.1 of 1 percent sales tax increase….
“Unfortunately, the Board of Supervisors and the county executive want to spend another six months studying various options with community stakeholders, most of whom have been involved in the Grassroots Working Group effort over the past year. New options or "business models" do not exist if this community wants free, accessible, safe, protected, well-managed and commercial-free parks, trails and open space.”
Friday, September 02, 2011
Rails to Trails
A great national effort, as reported by the New York Times, and our local Rails to Trails organization is also involved with some important projects.
An excerpt from the New York Times article.
“The High Line park, built on an elevated railway trestle in Manhattan, has become both a symbol and a catalyst for an explosion of growth in the meatpacking district and the Chelsea neighborhood.
“Now cities around the country, including Chicago, Philadelphia and St. Louis, are working up plans to renovate their aging railroad trestles, tracks and railways for parkland. Cities with little public space are realizing they badly need more parks, and the High Line has taught that renovating an old railway can be the spark that helps improve a neighborhood and attract development.
“The High Line’s first and second sections cost $153 million, but have generated an estimated $2 billion in new developments. In the five years since construction started on the High Line, 29 new projects have been built or are under way in the neighborhood, according to the New York City Department of City Planning. More than 2,500 new residential units, 1,000 hotel rooms and over 500,000 square feet of office and art gallery space have gone up.
“Cities recognize parks are good for their economies. They’re no longer a nice thing to have, but a must,” said Will Rogers, president and chief executive of the Trust for Public Land, a national conservation group in San Francisco.
“The area around the park, sprinkled with small offices under 200,000 square feet, has become a draw for start-ups and creative companies.
“I think the High Line is a big attraction. It’s created a lot more buzz to the area,” said Matthew Bergey, first vice president at the commercial brokerage firm CB Richard Ellis in New York. “Like with any destination, people will come if it’s cool and has buzz.”
“Though plans in many cities have a long way to go before becoming reality, a point in favor of reuse is that it can be cheaper to renovate old rail structures than to tear them down. The Reading Viaduct, an old elevated railway line in Philadelphia, would cost $50 million to demolish versus $36 million to retrofit, according to the Center City District, a business improvement group.
“In Chicago, where a 2.65-mile elevated rail line slices through four residential areas, tearing down the line would be prohibitively costly. With 37 bridges and large earthen embankments, the Bloomingdale Trail, as it is now called, snakes east to west across Chicago and is simply too big to go.
“If you’ve driven around Chicago, you’ll have seen it,” said Beth White, director of the Chicago office of the Trust for Public Land, which is helping to build the trail.
“As with other, similar rail lines around the country, passenger and freight trains have not operated on the Chicago line in at least 10 years. The only traffic most of these lines see is an occasional runner or bike rider, even though trespassing is usually forbidden.”
An excerpt from the New York Times article.
“The High Line park, built on an elevated railway trestle in Manhattan, has become both a symbol and a catalyst for an explosion of growth in the meatpacking district and the Chelsea neighborhood.
“Now cities around the country, including Chicago, Philadelphia and St. Louis, are working up plans to renovate their aging railroad trestles, tracks and railways for parkland. Cities with little public space are realizing they badly need more parks, and the High Line has taught that renovating an old railway can be the spark that helps improve a neighborhood and attract development.
“The High Line’s first and second sections cost $153 million, but have generated an estimated $2 billion in new developments. In the five years since construction started on the High Line, 29 new projects have been built or are under way in the neighborhood, according to the New York City Department of City Planning. More than 2,500 new residential units, 1,000 hotel rooms and over 500,000 square feet of office and art gallery space have gone up.
“Cities recognize parks are good for their economies. They’re no longer a nice thing to have, but a must,” said Will Rogers, president and chief executive of the Trust for Public Land, a national conservation group in San Francisco.
“The area around the park, sprinkled with small offices under 200,000 square feet, has become a draw for start-ups and creative companies.
“I think the High Line is a big attraction. It’s created a lot more buzz to the area,” said Matthew Bergey, first vice president at the commercial brokerage firm CB Richard Ellis in New York. “Like with any destination, people will come if it’s cool and has buzz.”
“Though plans in many cities have a long way to go before becoming reality, a point in favor of reuse is that it can be cheaper to renovate old rail structures than to tear them down. The Reading Viaduct, an old elevated railway line in Philadelphia, would cost $50 million to demolish versus $36 million to retrofit, according to the Center City District, a business improvement group.
“In Chicago, where a 2.65-mile elevated rail line slices through four residential areas, tearing down the line would be prohibitively costly. With 37 bridges and large earthen embankments, the Bloomingdale Trail, as it is now called, snakes east to west across Chicago and is simply too big to go.
“If you’ve driven around Chicago, you’ll have seen it,” said Beth White, director of the Chicago office of the Trust for Public Land, which is helping to build the trail.
“As with other, similar rail lines around the country, passenger and freight trains have not operated on the Chicago line in at least 10 years. The only traffic most of these lines see is an occasional runner or bike rider, even though trespassing is usually forbidden.”
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Yes, Tax Increases as a Default Solution
Which is the answer to the question the Sacramento Bee editorial poses “is anything sadder than padlocked pools”.
The other answer presented by the editorial, to give money to the government nonprofit, doesn’t work so well since people have became somewhat questioning with government’s ability to manage money and public services efficiently.
What is instead called for here, and noted in the editorial, is an encouragement of local groups—nonprofit, profit, or otherwise—to adopt local parks and recreational facilities and, according to their ability and resources and still provided a certain baseline funding from government, take care of valuable recreational resources for the enjoyment of the adjacent community of support.
An excerpt from the editorial.
“Swim time is almost over at Sacramento's public pools.
“Only six of 13 city pools opened this summer, and they'll all be closed for the season by Labor Day. Next summer, only three pools are to open. In a city of 466,000, that's a disgrace even in these hard times.
“City Hall needs all the help it can get to keep pools open. But by not asking loudly enough and by not making donations easier, the city is missing out on a potential lifeline.
“Jonathan Rewers, chairman of the city's Parks and Recreation Commission, says the city needs to do a better job of telling the community that public pools are a "vital service." They are also smart policy: If kids aren't frolicking in pools, they could be getting in trouble on the street.
“This is a prime opportunity for a civic-minded corporation to make a sizable gift that would buy priceless good will. Some feelers have gone out, but with no success.
“The city also ought to have a formal matching donation program. If a neighborhood association raises a significant sum – say at least half the $100,000 it costs to run a city pool for a year – the city should come up with the rest.
“Rewers says the city needs to better publicize the donation programs that do exist.
“Gifts to Share, the city's 26-year-old nonprofit partner, is the conduit through which residents, businesses and community groups can support parks and recreation, cultural, education and neighborhood improvement projects. More than $1.2 million went through it last year….
“Rewers and other parks advocates are pushing for a citywide property tax assessment for parks maintenance, including pools, on the 2012 ballot. Residents would get to decide how important keeping up parks and keeping open pools is to them.”
A rather devastating response is within this letter to the Sacramento Bee editor today.
"First, cut pool costs
"According to the city, it costs $22,000 per season to operate a wading pool. Water, electricity and chemicals account for $8,000. It costs $14,000 to train and provide a lifeguard, based on 35 hours a week.
"Before asking neighborhood groups to raise funds for pools, a reality check is in order. My swimming pool is eight times the size of a city wading pool and it costs $2,000 for pool service and electricity for a year. With the average pay of a lifeguard at $12 per hour, a season's pay is less than $3,500. There seems to be exceptionally high management overhead.
"I'd love to contribute, but would think twice if the city set the fundraising bar at inflated costs. The city needs a new management model before asking the community to chip in to fund the costs of pool operations.
– Cecily Hastings, Sacramento"
The other answer presented by the editorial, to give money to the government nonprofit, doesn’t work so well since people have became somewhat questioning with government’s ability to manage money and public services efficiently.
What is instead called for here, and noted in the editorial, is an encouragement of local groups—nonprofit, profit, or otherwise—to adopt local parks and recreational facilities and, according to their ability and resources and still provided a certain baseline funding from government, take care of valuable recreational resources for the enjoyment of the adjacent community of support.
An excerpt from the editorial.
“Swim time is almost over at Sacramento's public pools.
“Only six of 13 city pools opened this summer, and they'll all be closed for the season by Labor Day. Next summer, only three pools are to open. In a city of 466,000, that's a disgrace even in these hard times.
“City Hall needs all the help it can get to keep pools open. But by not asking loudly enough and by not making donations easier, the city is missing out on a potential lifeline.
“Jonathan Rewers, chairman of the city's Parks and Recreation Commission, says the city needs to do a better job of telling the community that public pools are a "vital service." They are also smart policy: If kids aren't frolicking in pools, they could be getting in trouble on the street.
“This is a prime opportunity for a civic-minded corporation to make a sizable gift that would buy priceless good will. Some feelers have gone out, but with no success.
“The city also ought to have a formal matching donation program. If a neighborhood association raises a significant sum – say at least half the $100,000 it costs to run a city pool for a year – the city should come up with the rest.
“Rewers says the city needs to better publicize the donation programs that do exist.
“Gifts to Share, the city's 26-year-old nonprofit partner, is the conduit through which residents, businesses and community groups can support parks and recreation, cultural, education and neighborhood improvement projects. More than $1.2 million went through it last year….
“Rewers and other parks advocates are pushing for a citywide property tax assessment for parks maintenance, including pools, on the 2012 ballot. Residents would get to decide how important keeping up parks and keeping open pools is to them.”
A rather devastating response is within this letter to the Sacramento Bee editor today.
"First, cut pool costs
"According to the city, it costs $22,000 per season to operate a wading pool. Water, electricity and chemicals account for $8,000. It costs $14,000 to train and provide a lifeguard, based on 35 hours a week.
"Before asking neighborhood groups to raise funds for pools, a reality check is in order. My swimming pool is eight times the size of a city wading pool and it costs $2,000 for pool service and electricity for a year. With the average pay of a lifeguard at $12 per hour, a season's pay is less than $3,500. There seems to be exceptionally high management overhead.
"I'd love to contribute, but would think twice if the city set the fundraising bar at inflated costs. The city needs a new management model before asking the community to chip in to fund the costs of pool operations.
– Cecily Hastings, Sacramento"
Monday, August 29, 2011
Public/Private Partnerships
We believe strongly in the efficient governing of public lands and waters, as expressed in this editorial in the Sacramento Bee; but rather than defaulting to government solutions, efficient governing can also be obtained by partnering with business, as we are seeing with the new partnership between Sacramento County and Gibson Ranch Park LLC, which we noted previously.
Perhaps the public lands lease program can be contracted out more efficiently than managed in-house.
An excerpt from the Bee editorial.
“The people of California own the waters and beds of the state's rivers, streams, lakes, bays and estuaries. They own the waters and tidelands along the 1,100-mile coastline, out to three miles offshore. And they own lands granted by the federal government in 1853 to benefit public education.
“The State Lands Commission – composed of the current lieutenant governor (Gavin Newsom), controller (John Chiang) and finance director (Ana Matosantos) – manages these public lands.
“Some lands bring in considerable revenue from leases – $426.5 million last year. But, as a recent Bureau of State Audits report shows, they could bring in even more.
“Though California halted new offshore drilling leases after the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill, existing leases continue to be the big revenue-generator for State Lands – $402 million in 2010-11. Most of the rest comes from marine terminals, industrial wharves, commercial marinas and pipelines.
“Yet the time lag between expiration of old leases and finalization of new leases means outdated rents can go on for years, a loss to the state.
“California's aggressive safety program – better than Texas and Louisiana – causes some of the lag; the state doesn't renew a lease without comprehensive environmental analysis. But, as the state auditor points out, expiring leases should have provisions for rent updates, so that delays in the lease renewal process don't cost the state revenue.
“For example, at the Tesoro Amorco and Avon marine oil terminals at Martinez, which have complicated issues, rent reviews have been approved and rent is up to date, though new leases aren't yet in place. Do this consistently.”
Perhaps the public lands lease program can be contracted out more efficiently than managed in-house.
An excerpt from the Bee editorial.
“The people of California own the waters and beds of the state's rivers, streams, lakes, bays and estuaries. They own the waters and tidelands along the 1,100-mile coastline, out to three miles offshore. And they own lands granted by the federal government in 1853 to benefit public education.
“The State Lands Commission – composed of the current lieutenant governor (Gavin Newsom), controller (John Chiang) and finance director (Ana Matosantos) – manages these public lands.
“Some lands bring in considerable revenue from leases – $426.5 million last year. But, as a recent Bureau of State Audits report shows, they could bring in even more.
“Though California halted new offshore drilling leases after the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill, existing leases continue to be the big revenue-generator for State Lands – $402 million in 2010-11. Most of the rest comes from marine terminals, industrial wharves, commercial marinas and pipelines.
“Yet the time lag between expiration of old leases and finalization of new leases means outdated rents can go on for years, a loss to the state.
“California's aggressive safety program – better than Texas and Louisiana – causes some of the lag; the state doesn't renew a lease without comprehensive environmental analysis. But, as the state auditor points out, expiring leases should have provisions for rent updates, so that delays in the lease renewal process don't cost the state revenue.
“For example, at the Tesoro Amorco and Avon marine oil terminals at Martinez, which have complicated issues, rent reviews have been approved and rent is up to date, though new leases aren't yet in place. Do this consistently.”
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Full Parks Access for Disabled
This is a very important national process and it is very good to hear that it is moving along, as this story from the Philadelphia Inquirer reports.
An excerpt.
“TRENTON, N.J. - The new federal directive has a progressive goal: giving "mobility disabled" residents a better chance to enjoy public parklands by letting them use motorized vehicles on trails.
“And park supervisors can bar such access only if they document that conditions are too rough on a given trail and publicly post the results of that study.
“But those seemingly simple changes to the Americans with Disabilities Act have New Jersey and county parklands staff scrambling to assess thousands of miles of trails. And they are rubbing up against the state's ban on motorized vehicles in environmentally sensitive lands.
“In total, officials say, they face a logistical nightmare with wide-ranging consequences.
"This is not something we can do instantly," says Larry Ragonese, spokesman for the state Department of Environmental Protection. "We have thousands of acres and miles of trails in New Jersey. And it's not as simple as putting up a sign and saying, 'Motor through.'"
“The ADA is a 1990 federal civil rights law that bans discrimination against the disabled. The changes to the act's Title II, initiated by the Department of Justice, went into effect on March 15. As of that date, if an official study hasn't certified that a publicly accessed trail is unfit for such traffic, that trail is open to all individuals with mobility disabilities who operate "other power-driven mobility devices." And that's regardless of whether the publicly accessed trail crosses privately or publicly owned land….
“Parkland stewards note that the ADA changes provide no specific definitions of "other power-driven mobility device" , whether it can be a motorized wheelchair, golf cart, an ATV or even a pickup truck. And that's resulted in confusion. Staffers at several parklands in North Jersey who were surveyed by The Record were unaware of the changes. And for residents who want to know the status of official assessments, there are few Web sources.
“Before the new ADA directives, most combustion-motor vehicles were banned on most trails on the national, state and county level because of pollution factors and the risk of damaging fragile trails and ecosystems. That concern has long been a source of conflict between motor-sport activists and environmental preservationists. Now, the new law states that a blanket ban on all motor vehicles will no longer suffice.
"We face imminent danger of a fundamental alteration to our backcountry trails, including the Appalachian Trail," the Appalachian Trail Conservancy, a trail advocacy organization, said in a letter to the Department of Justice.
"Reading the rule," the letter continued, "one can see that these people are very well-meaning but, for the most part, unfamiliar with the commitment of the silent self-propelledÂ’ users, as citizens, to a conservation land ethic on our nation's national forests and parks particularly in primitive, backcountry settings like the Appalachian Trail."
An excerpt.
“TRENTON, N.J. - The new federal directive has a progressive goal: giving "mobility disabled" residents a better chance to enjoy public parklands by letting them use motorized vehicles on trails.
“And park supervisors can bar such access only if they document that conditions are too rough on a given trail and publicly post the results of that study.
“But those seemingly simple changes to the Americans with Disabilities Act have New Jersey and county parklands staff scrambling to assess thousands of miles of trails. And they are rubbing up against the state's ban on motorized vehicles in environmentally sensitive lands.
“In total, officials say, they face a logistical nightmare with wide-ranging consequences.
"This is not something we can do instantly," says Larry Ragonese, spokesman for the state Department of Environmental Protection. "We have thousands of acres and miles of trails in New Jersey. And it's not as simple as putting up a sign and saying, 'Motor through.'"
“The ADA is a 1990 federal civil rights law that bans discrimination against the disabled. The changes to the act's Title II, initiated by the Department of Justice, went into effect on March 15. As of that date, if an official study hasn't certified that a publicly accessed trail is unfit for such traffic, that trail is open to all individuals with mobility disabilities who operate "other power-driven mobility devices." And that's regardless of whether the publicly accessed trail crosses privately or publicly owned land….
“Parkland stewards note that the ADA changes provide no specific definitions of "other power-driven mobility device" , whether it can be a motorized wheelchair, golf cart, an ATV or even a pickup truck. And that's resulted in confusion. Staffers at several parklands in North Jersey who were surveyed by The Record were unaware of the changes. And for residents who want to know the status of official assessments, there are few Web sources.
“Before the new ADA directives, most combustion-motor vehicles were banned on most trails on the national, state and county level because of pollution factors and the risk of damaging fragile trails and ecosystems. That concern has long been a source of conflict between motor-sport activists and environmental preservationists. Now, the new law states that a blanket ban on all motor vehicles will no longer suffice.
"We face imminent danger of a fundamental alteration to our backcountry trails, including the Appalachian Trail," the Appalachian Trail Conservancy, a trail advocacy organization, said in a letter to the Department of Justice.
"Reading the rule," the letter continued, "one can see that these people are very well-meaning but, for the most part, unfamiliar with the commitment of the silent self-propelledÂ’ users, as citizens, to a conservation land ethic on our nation's national forests and parks particularly in primitive, backcountry settings like the Appalachian Trail."
Monday, August 15, 2011
Retool the Message?
In this editorial from the Sacramento Bee, the proponents of a regional parks district to take over the parks that Sacramento County has not been able to take care of for years (to be funded by a sales tax increase) are urged to retool their message, which is apparently not yet resonating with taxpayers.
Our advice, on the other hand, would be to drop this adventure in futility—extracting yet more taxes from an already over-taxed public during one of the worst economic times in memory—and instead examine the real-world success of the type of innovative parks management noted by Doug Ose in a recent article, which we blogged on, and visit Gibson Ranch.
Here is the response from Doug Ose to the current editorial on the comments page:
“As often as the editorial board opines on the issue of regional parks in Sacramento County, they have yet to visit Gibson Ranch and see the success that private management has achieved. The editorial board of the Bee has consistently opined about what an evil turn of events it is that private management was given the opportunity to operate Gibson Ranch. Now, the editorial board argues that the only way to preserve regional parks is to adopt an operating system developed for the Bay Area. The editorial board does not talk about creating revenue by offering programs and services that the public wants and thereby having the park system support itself. The editorial board does not talk about reforming maintenance practices. The editorial board does not talk about revamping work rules that dictate narrow job classifications and employee compensation far in excess of what is paid in the private economy. The editorial board only talks about increasing taxes so as to give more money to a new governmental bureaucracy probably run by the very same people who proved incapable of sustaining the parks in the first place.
“Let's just review the facts. Gibson Ranch Regional Park was closed by the County Parks Department the day after Labor Day 2010. Prior to that, it was open only on Saturdays and Sundays, except on summer Fridays when the Rio Linda Elverta Recreation and Parks District stepped in and operated the facility. Little if any maintenance was performed and the facility deteriorated almost beyond repair. Rental cabins and camping spaces and the swim hole were closed to the public. The Ranch House was closed. No programs or services were offered to the general public. The bathrooms weren't being cleaned for weeks on end. The garbage sat moldy and uncollected in the garbage cans from months previous. The grass was being cut about every five weeks. The pastures were unkempt. The Hmong community moved their cultural events to another location. Country in the Park relocated to Capitol Mall. A new $400,000 entry gate was installed. The public was not able to use the park.
“Compare that with now. The park is open every day. The bathrooms are cleaned every day. The garbage is collected and removed every day. The grass is regularly cut. Camping is slowly growing into an everyday occurrence. Civil War Days is back and thriving with over 3,000 people attending on May 21/22. The Hmong community has returned and held a large cultural event on July 9/10 that attracted about 18,000 people over two days. The Midnight Mass Car Show was held on July 30 and attracted over 12,000 people. Country in the Park will be held at Gibson Ranch on September 11. In addition, companies are holding their annual picnics at Gibson Ranch. Families are holding reunions at Gibson Ranch. Birthday parties abound. BBQs every weekend. The rental cabins are on the verge of being completely remodeled after 15 years of no use. The lake has been stocked with trout and people are pulling fish out every day. The contrast is startling from just over four months ago to today.
“The plan adopted by the Board of Supervisors is working at Gibson Ranch. Under the lease arrangement approved by the Board, the County manages a contract. Services and programs are funded and delivered by a private operator subject to certain performance standards. The park is open and people are using it.
“The editorial board is getting ready to "sell" you on the need for new taxes and a new governmental bureaucracy. There is no need for either. Come to Gibson Ranch and see for yourself.” (highlighting added)
Doug Ose August 12, 2011 @ 1:04 AM
Our advice, on the other hand, would be to drop this adventure in futility—extracting yet more taxes from an already over-taxed public during one of the worst economic times in memory—and instead examine the real-world success of the type of innovative parks management noted by Doug Ose in a recent article, which we blogged on, and visit Gibson Ranch.
Here is the response from Doug Ose to the current editorial on the comments page:
“As often as the editorial board opines on the issue of regional parks in Sacramento County, they have yet to visit Gibson Ranch and see the success that private management has achieved. The editorial board of the Bee has consistently opined about what an evil turn of events it is that private management was given the opportunity to operate Gibson Ranch. Now, the editorial board argues that the only way to preserve regional parks is to adopt an operating system developed for the Bay Area. The editorial board does not talk about creating revenue by offering programs and services that the public wants and thereby having the park system support itself. The editorial board does not talk about reforming maintenance practices. The editorial board does not talk about revamping work rules that dictate narrow job classifications and employee compensation far in excess of what is paid in the private economy. The editorial board only talks about increasing taxes so as to give more money to a new governmental bureaucracy probably run by the very same people who proved incapable of sustaining the parks in the first place.
“Let's just review the facts. Gibson Ranch Regional Park was closed by the County Parks Department the day after Labor Day 2010. Prior to that, it was open only on Saturdays and Sundays, except on summer Fridays when the Rio Linda Elverta Recreation and Parks District stepped in and operated the facility. Little if any maintenance was performed and the facility deteriorated almost beyond repair. Rental cabins and camping spaces and the swim hole were closed to the public. The Ranch House was closed. No programs or services were offered to the general public. The bathrooms weren't being cleaned for weeks on end. The garbage sat moldy and uncollected in the garbage cans from months previous. The grass was being cut about every five weeks. The pastures were unkempt. The Hmong community moved their cultural events to another location. Country in the Park relocated to Capitol Mall. A new $400,000 entry gate was installed. The public was not able to use the park.
“Compare that with now. The park is open every day. The bathrooms are cleaned every day. The garbage is collected and removed every day. The grass is regularly cut. Camping is slowly growing into an everyday occurrence. Civil War Days is back and thriving with over 3,000 people attending on May 21/22. The Hmong community has returned and held a large cultural event on July 9/10 that attracted about 18,000 people over two days. The Midnight Mass Car Show was held on July 30 and attracted over 12,000 people. Country in the Park will be held at Gibson Ranch on September 11. In addition, companies are holding their annual picnics at Gibson Ranch. Families are holding reunions at Gibson Ranch. Birthday parties abound. BBQs every weekend. The rental cabins are on the verge of being completely remodeled after 15 years of no use. The lake has been stocked with trout and people are pulling fish out every day. The contrast is startling from just over four months ago to today.
“The plan adopted by the Board of Supervisors is working at Gibson Ranch. Under the lease arrangement approved by the Board, the County manages a contract. Services and programs are funded and delivered by a private operator subject to certain performance standards. The park is open and people are using it.
“The editorial board is getting ready to "sell" you on the need for new taxes and a new governmental bureaucracy. There is no need for either. Come to Gibson Ranch and see for yourself.” (highlighting added)
Doug Ose August 12, 2011 @ 1:04 AM
Friday, August 12, 2011
Parks Tax
The Sacramento Bee got this story on the ongoing negotiations a little more right than their previous reporting, which we blogged about, but the actual story is much better.
The supervisors have—if the state legislature agrees—given themselves the option to ask Sacramento County voters to approve a sales tax increase for parks, if, the new advisory committee they have charged staff with creating, decides that is the best way to go, which, in this economic environment, is very hard to imagine.
A major improvement is that the advisory committee, rather than the incestuous make-up, (see Progress Report # 1, page 5, at the jump) and tax increase default position of the Grassroots Working Group (GWG), other members of the advisory committee will include business interests and a wider representation of other community interests, giving the supervisors a more balanced analysis, and hopefully, if any survey are conducted, full transparency on the process and method, about which many questions have been raised concerning the GWG’s survey.
An excerpt from the Bee story.
“The Sacramento County Board of Supervisors will seek state legislation that would give the county the option of pursuing a 0.1 percent sales tax increase to generate revenue for parks.
“Supervisors and members of the Grass Roots Working Group, which backs forming a new regional park district, stressed that the legislation would simply allow the board to put such a tax measure before county voters….
“The Grass Roots Working Group urged the board to pursue the special legislation because surveys have shown voters would support a 0.1 percent increase.
“If approved by two-thirds of county voters, the tax would raise an estimated $17 million annually to support the county's 32 regional parks, including the American River Parkway.
“Rob Leonard, Sacramento County's municipal services agency administrator, said county staff members will recruit people to serve on an ad hoc committee to advise the county executive on matters related to the future of regional parks, including long-term funding, governance and a business model for maintenance and operation.
“The panel is to include representatives of the county Recreation and Parks Commission, Dry Creek Parkway Advisory Committee, American River Parkway Advisory Committee, American River Parkway Foundation, the Grass Roots Working Group, the Sacramento Metro Chamber of Commerce, the golf community and supervisorial districts.”
The supervisors have—if the state legislature agrees—given themselves the option to ask Sacramento County voters to approve a sales tax increase for parks, if, the new advisory committee they have charged staff with creating, decides that is the best way to go, which, in this economic environment, is very hard to imagine.
A major improvement is that the advisory committee, rather than the incestuous make-up, (see Progress Report # 1, page 5, at the jump) and tax increase default position of the Grassroots Working Group (GWG), other members of the advisory committee will include business interests and a wider representation of other community interests, giving the supervisors a more balanced analysis, and hopefully, if any survey are conducted, full transparency on the process and method, about which many questions have been raised concerning the GWG’s survey.
An excerpt from the Bee story.
“The Sacramento County Board of Supervisors will seek state legislation that would give the county the option of pursuing a 0.1 percent sales tax increase to generate revenue for parks.
“Supervisors and members of the Grass Roots Working Group, which backs forming a new regional park district, stressed that the legislation would simply allow the board to put such a tax measure before county voters….
“The Grass Roots Working Group urged the board to pursue the special legislation because surveys have shown voters would support a 0.1 percent increase.
“If approved by two-thirds of county voters, the tax would raise an estimated $17 million annually to support the county's 32 regional parks, including the American River Parkway.
“Rob Leonard, Sacramento County's municipal services agency administrator, said county staff members will recruit people to serve on an ad hoc committee to advise the county executive on matters related to the future of regional parks, including long-term funding, governance and a business model for maintenance and operation.
“The panel is to include representatives of the county Recreation and Parks Commission, Dry Creek Parkway Advisory Committee, American River Parkway Advisory Committee, American River Parkway Foundation, the Grass Roots Working Group, the Sacramento Metro Chamber of Commerce, the golf community and supervisorial districts.”
Monday, August 01, 2011
Tax Increase Fixation
As a believer in strong government and a strong private sector working together to benefit and serve the public, it was somewhat sad for me to watch the hearings before the County Board of Supervisors Tuesday July 19th about increasing the sales tax to pay for parks.
Sad because there was no evidence coming from the public comments supporting the tax that there was any other way to deal with this issue, with the single exception from the comments by Doug Ose, who is showing that there is another way with his private sector management of Gibson Ranch Park.
It is also sad to see the Sacramento Bee, our hometown newspaper, with such a great history in our fair city, also fail to report, with any degree of balance that there is another way other than tax increases to take care of our parks, as they consistently do and repeat in this editorial.
An excerpt.
“It is no big surprise that, two years after its 50th anniversary, Sacramento County's regional park system is in deep trouble.
“The question that remains is whether the county and parks advocates, facing a budget crisis, can put aside differences and find common ground on a secure funding source and governance structure that everyone can live with.
“It was clear at Tuesday's Board of Supervisors meeting that all sides agree funding is the top priority. That's the good news. It is also encouraging that polling suggests that county voters would support a small tax hike to provide a dedicated source of revenue for parks.
“But now comes the tough part. As Supervisor Roberta MacGlashan rightly noted at the beginning of the meeting, funding for the parks and governance of the tax revenue cannot be separated. "If you put a tax before the voters," she said, "that question has to be settled."
“Supervisors will have to work hard to keep a coalition together – and to narrow options to what really is feasible.
“Three were discussed:
• An independent regional parks district, with an elected board of directors. The volunteer Grassroots Working Group, formed at the county's urging, recommended this.
• A Community Services District, with an elected board of directors. County staff recommended further study of this option, although countywide community services districts are uncommon.
• A Community Facilities District, with county supervisors as the governing body. Staff recommended further study of this option, too. It would require approval by city councils as well as county supervisors. Landowners (who would get one vote per acre of land) would have to approve a tax to fund the district.
“Supervisors seemed to agree that on funding options, seeking a sales tax from voters is preferable to a parcel tax. Certainly, it's cheaper for residents, since visitors would contribute to the revenue. To generate $10 million a year from a parcel tax would require a flat $21 tax on the county's 471,000 parcels. In contrast, a 1/16th cent sales tax for parks would generate $12 million a year, costing $8.89 each year for an average household.
“Proposals for auto rental and hotel taxes are nonstarters. That's going too far in assessing visitors for an amenity we all enjoy.
“In the end, supervisors voted unanimously to seek legislation that would give them an option to place a 1/10 cent sales tax for parks on the ballot. That's progress.”
Sad because there was no evidence coming from the public comments supporting the tax that there was any other way to deal with this issue, with the single exception from the comments by Doug Ose, who is showing that there is another way with his private sector management of Gibson Ranch Park.
It is also sad to see the Sacramento Bee, our hometown newspaper, with such a great history in our fair city, also fail to report, with any degree of balance that there is another way other than tax increases to take care of our parks, as they consistently do and repeat in this editorial.
An excerpt.
“It is no big surprise that, two years after its 50th anniversary, Sacramento County's regional park system is in deep trouble.
“The question that remains is whether the county and parks advocates, facing a budget crisis, can put aside differences and find common ground on a secure funding source and governance structure that everyone can live with.
“It was clear at Tuesday's Board of Supervisors meeting that all sides agree funding is the top priority. That's the good news. It is also encouraging that polling suggests that county voters would support a small tax hike to provide a dedicated source of revenue for parks.
“But now comes the tough part. As Supervisor Roberta MacGlashan rightly noted at the beginning of the meeting, funding for the parks and governance of the tax revenue cannot be separated. "If you put a tax before the voters," she said, "that question has to be settled."
“Supervisors will have to work hard to keep a coalition together – and to narrow options to what really is feasible.
“Three were discussed:
• An independent regional parks district, with an elected board of directors. The volunteer Grassroots Working Group, formed at the county's urging, recommended this.
• A Community Services District, with an elected board of directors. County staff recommended further study of this option, although countywide community services districts are uncommon.
• A Community Facilities District, with county supervisors as the governing body. Staff recommended further study of this option, too. It would require approval by city councils as well as county supervisors. Landowners (who would get one vote per acre of land) would have to approve a tax to fund the district.
“Supervisors seemed to agree that on funding options, seeking a sales tax from voters is preferable to a parcel tax. Certainly, it's cheaper for residents, since visitors would contribute to the revenue. To generate $10 million a year from a parcel tax would require a flat $21 tax on the county's 471,000 parcels. In contrast, a 1/16th cent sales tax for parks would generate $12 million a year, costing $8.89 each year for an average household.
“Proposals for auto rental and hotel taxes are nonstarters. That's going too far in assessing visitors for an amenity we all enjoy.
“In the end, supervisors voted unanimously to seek legislation that would give them an option to place a 1/10 cent sales tax for parks on the ballot. That's progress.”
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Supervisor’s Park Tax Increase
I watched the entire hearing on the tax increase proposal last Tuesday and contrary to this story in the Sacramento Bee, all the Supervisors agreed to was to ask staff to draft language which they could discuss and vote on in August, to determine if they would ask the state to pass legislation allowing them to put a tax increase on the ballot.
An excerpt.
“Sacramento County officials on Tuesday agreed to support a sales tax increase to fund the regional park system.
“The Board of Supervisors unanimously agreed to seek state legislation to allow a November 2012 election for a 0.1 percent sales tax increase.
“If approved by two-thirds of county voters, the tax would raise $17 million annually to support the county's 32 regional parks, including the popular American River Parkway.
“Such a tax would add 1 cent to a $10 purchase.
“The move came after a four-hour hearing, at which park advocates warned that the state legislative session offers only a small window this summer to move the proposed bill.
“There was also general agreement about the desire for a fix before another disastrous county budget cycle next year.
"The sense of urgency, I think, is palpable," said Supervisor Phil Serna.
“Support for the sales tax hike marks a partial victory for a group of park advocates that proposed the tax.
“The coalition, calling itself the Grassroots Working Group, also wants the county to support forming a new regional park district, with an independently elected board, to take over and manage the parks.
“Supervisors, however, were not willing to go that far yet. The board wants more time to study other governance options, as well as the specific structure of a new independent district, if that is the final path.”
An excerpt.
“Sacramento County officials on Tuesday agreed to support a sales tax increase to fund the regional park system.
“The Board of Supervisors unanimously agreed to seek state legislation to allow a November 2012 election for a 0.1 percent sales tax increase.
“If approved by two-thirds of county voters, the tax would raise $17 million annually to support the county's 32 regional parks, including the popular American River Parkway.
“Such a tax would add 1 cent to a $10 purchase.
“The move came after a four-hour hearing, at which park advocates warned that the state legislative session offers only a small window this summer to move the proposed bill.
“There was also general agreement about the desire for a fix before another disastrous county budget cycle next year.
"The sense of urgency, I think, is palpable," said Supervisor Phil Serna.
“Support for the sales tax hike marks a partial victory for a group of park advocates that proposed the tax.
“The coalition, calling itself the Grassroots Working Group, also wants the county to support forming a new regional park district, with an independently elected board, to take over and manage the parks.
“Supervisors, however, were not willing to go that far yet. The board wants more time to study other governance options, as well as the specific structure of a new independent district, if that is the final path.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)