Should Urban Parks be Cash Registers?

Threats to openness, tranquility,and green spaces take many forms. Locally, LA's urban parks are increasingly under pressure to generate revenue to pay for municipal functions, but at a heavy cost: The loss of the very openness that makes urban parks so valuable.

Nobody likes to pay taxes. Yet municipal governments need money. From parking violations fees to sewer fees, governments seek funds for general purposes. Urban parks have not been immune.

There are many ways to squeeze funds out of urban parks. Some are entry fees, parking fees, and feebased services.

Then there's public-private partnerships, wherein facilities are financed and constructed within the parks by private entities which provide a service, such as an amusement ride, to users. Users pay for these services, and a portion of the revenues make its way to municipal coffers. (Alas, these funds do not necessarily fund the parks themselves. The revenue could go directly to the municipality's general fund.)

The City of Los Angeles has joined the bandwagon on using urban parks as revenue sources. The City's current draft master plan for Griffith Park, the largest urban municipal park in the United States, would, if implemented, accelerate this process.

Illustration courtesy Greg Nocon. 'The Griffith Park draft master plan calls for the relocation of the historic merry-go-round because it 'is difficult to see [and] access is circuitous and confusing for both drivers and pedestrians...' [Built Environment, page 15]

On one hand, the draft master plan claims that its vision for the park embraces protection ('... the Park's range of facilities and recreation areas, open space, natural resources and opportunities for activities and events will be protected...'). But the plan also seeks to 'increase Park revenues and capture revenues generated by Park users.' In the draft's section on Park Management, the perceived benefits of financial partnerships include 'the introduction of marketdriven solutions for service delivery where none currently exist.'

What sorts of 'service delivery'? This statement is an open invitation to privatize park services. Over the nearly 100 years since Griffith Park was donated to the City by Colonel Griffith J. Griffith, various recreational facilities have been constructed. These include the Griffith Observatory, the Greek Theatre, five golf courses, Traveltown, the Zoo, and the Autry Western Heritage Museum. All of these facilities bring in revenue to the City. It's no wonder that some elements in City government view Griffith Park as fertile ground for revenue-enhancing schemes!

Another City park, South Park, located at 51st Street and San Pedro Blvd, has suffered a similar fate over the more than 100 years of its existence. Initially a 19-acre oasis of tranquility, much of this park is limited to revenue generating activities such as soccer fields, a childcare facility, and other facilities not easily accessible to casual users of the Park. Many of the original trees which adorned this beautiful Park have been eliminated. Picnic tables are few, and just try to find a water fountain!

Something is irretrievably lost when openness is traded for revenue enhancement. Urban parks exist to provide the tranquility, quietness, and peace brought about by the very avoidance of frenetic activities usually associated with 'revenue enhancements.' People need the solitude of parks, and urban residents even more so. Urban Parks should be a place of refuge from hectic city life, not sources of income for the municipalities.