The following is an op-ed that ran in the SF Chronicle last week, and I think it's important to set the record straight about how our partnerships are protecting our parks and programs.
Partnerships are Protecting SF Parks
by Phil Ginsburg
SF Chronicle, August 10, 2011
A few loud voices have been promoting a myth that the San Francisco Recreation and Park Department is restricting access to parks and facilities through the use of public-private partnerships.
They even introduced a poorly vetted ballot measure that precluded new leases, entry fees and even permits for birthday parties and weddings. Strangely, the measure included no new public funding for parks. Thankfully, it wilted under public scrutiny and the co-sponsors of the measure had the maturity and good sense to yank it from the ballot.
The ballot measure was misguided, but angst over park funding issues is not. Rec and Park has faced staggering cuts in recent years. Staffing shortages and deferred maintenance needs abound. We applaud the passionate debate that our funding challenges have prompted, but it's time for a closer look at the myths upon which our critics rely.
Unlike the state of California or other large cities with dismal budget outlooks, we are neither closing parks nor abdicating our responsibility to maintain them. We have creatively relied upon new apprentices, publicly funded job programs and volunteers to augment a shrinking staff that works harder and more effectively than ever.
Some of our attractions and programs do cost money and, yes, we added a few exotic food vendors that many park users enjoy. The revenue we earn plants trees, teaches kids to swim and cleans toilets.
This city is blessed with open space that is social and solitary, active and passive. Our parks may be enjoyed however you choose - on a noisy playground or on a quiet trail. More than 95 percent of the city's park system can be accessed without ever taking out a wallet - including free iconic events like Hardly Strictly Bluegrass and World Cup Soccer.
Through partnerships with community service providers, Rec and Park has successfully managed to keep tiny clubhouses safe and busy with activities without any funding to staff them. In these places, organizations like the Boys and Girls Club and the YMCA have contributed 25,000 hours of free or low-cost programs that serve tots, seniors and at-risk youth. Without funding, the alternative to these partnerships is no activities.
Most clubhouses continue to serve neighbors for parties, meetings and gathering spaces. Last year, we issued permits to 3,000 community events in our facilities.
Privatization? Really?
Public-private partnerships are helping parks and recreation centers thrive despite inadequate public funding. Last year, recreation programs increased by 20 percent and we funded more youth scholarships than ever before. This summer, we are enriching 16,000 kids in 60 different camps, including new experiences for autistic children and at-risk teens.
Park maintenance scores are at an all-time high. Improved ball fields, playgrounds, gardens and trails are the fruit of the philanthropic relationships we have cultivated.
In an era when recreation and parks are critical to keeping our neighborhoods healthy and safe, and in discouraging families from fleeing our city for the suburbs, we confront a challenging choice: Do we sit back and watch our treasured park system continue to erode or find new strategies to preserve it? We proudly choose the latter.
Our parks deserve more public investment. But until that happens, perhaps this ideological battle against public-private partnerships is one this city and our park system cannot afford to indulge.
Posts
