Philadelphia Daily News, October 29, 2008
E-MAILS pinging around the Internet warn of a land grab from Fairmount Park if voters Tuesday finally approve rational park governance.
But the viral expansion of the fear-mongering demonstrates why it's so misplaced. The e-mails say that a city-charter-change proposal to abolish the Fairmount Park Commission will give "politicians" on City Council the power to sell off parkland for development. Here's a bulletin: City Council already has the power to sell parkland, which it has used almost never.
There's a reason for that. As evidenced by the e-mails, selling off parkland is a deeply unpopular thing to do, and politicians, more than anyone else, want to be popular.
For years, opponents of creating a Cabinet-level city Department of Parks and Recreation have tried to instill the fear of "politics" in the park to make their case. Here's another bulletin: Politics already is a part of Fairmount Park — but it's politics for worse, not better. So, for hopefully the last time, here's a rundown on the rumors — and the reality:
Fear: Giving control of the park to City Hall would bring partisan politics into its governance.
Fact: Partisan politics already plays a major role. Park commissioners are appointed to five-year terms in a secret meeting of the Common Pleas Board of Judges, who are quite responsive to their political party, using criteria they do not have to explain. That's why many commissioners have little or no expertise running city parks.
Fear: This gives too much power to the mayor.
Fact: It imposes responsibility on the mayor to go with the power of the purse that he already wields. In cities where parks are part of a city department, the mayor is directly responsible for their operation — at the ballot box. Nobody can be held responsible for the failures of the Fairmount Park Commission — and no one has been.
Fear: Politicians would make sweetheart deals with their friends to use parkland.
Fact: There are no established guidelines to acquire or dispose of parkland. A new advisory commission, with members appointed by the mayor, to be established as part of the realignment of parks and recreation, would establish those guidelines. And it would require community input, something that isn't required now.
Fear: New budget constraints will force Mayor Nutter to cut the increase in funds he promised, and tempt Council to see Fairmount Park as a source of income to balance the budget.
Fact: A budget shortfall could result in funding cuts for the park regardless of whether the commission or the city runs it. If other cities like Chicago and San Francisco don't pawn their park jewels for quick cash, why would Philly?
But the viral expansion of the fear-mongering demonstrates why it's so misplaced. The e-mails say that a city-charter-change proposal to abolish the Fairmount Park Commission will give "politicians" on City Council the power to sell off parkland for development. Here's a bulletin: City Council already has the power to sell parkland, which it has used almost never.
There's a reason for that. As evidenced by the e-mails, selling off parkland is a deeply unpopular thing to do, and politicians, more than anyone else, want to be popular.
For years, opponents of creating a Cabinet-level city Department of Parks and Recreation have tried to instill the fear of "politics" in the park to make their case. Here's another bulletin: Politics already is a part of Fairmount Park — but it's politics for worse, not better. So, for hopefully the last time, here's a rundown on the rumors — and the reality:
Fear: Giving control of the park to City Hall would bring partisan politics into its governance.
Fact: Partisan politics already plays a major role. Park commissioners are appointed to five-year terms in a secret meeting of the Common Pleas Board of Judges, who are quite responsive to their political party, using criteria they do not have to explain. That's why many commissioners have little or no expertise running city parks.
Fear: This gives too much power to the mayor.
Fact: It imposes responsibility on the mayor to go with the power of the purse that he already wields. In cities where parks are part of a city department, the mayor is directly responsible for their operation — at the ballot box. Nobody can be held responsible for the failures of the Fairmount Park Commission — and no one has been.
Fear: Politicians would make sweetheart deals with their friends to use parkland.
Fact: There are no established guidelines to acquire or dispose of parkland. A new advisory commission, with members appointed by the mayor, to be established as part of the realignment of parks and recreation, would establish those guidelines. And it would require community input, something that isn't required now.
Fear: New budget constraints will force Mayor Nutter to cut the increase in funds he promised, and tempt Council to see Fairmount Park as a source of income to balance the budget.
Fact: A budget shortfall could result in funding cuts for the park regardless of whether the commission or the city runs it. If other cities like Chicago and San Francisco don't pawn their park jewels for quick cash, why would Philly?