Hey, there! Log in / Register
World Class City Watch: Parks
By adamg on Thu, 05/09/2013 - 7:26am
City Councilor Sal LaMattina (East Boston, North End) warns our status as a world-class city is threatened by inadequate funding for our parks:
I know that we recognize that protecting, preserving and improving our parks is vital to continuing to grow Boston's population and maintaining our status as a world class city.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
A Park
Is no good if its overrun by criminals.. And we need the police to do that.
You decide..
Police, Fire, Teachers, Schools, Roads or Parks.
We're broke folks.. broke broke broke, stop trying to spend money we really don't have.
We're broke folks
People keep saying this, but I’m not sure how we mesh the fact that we are one of the wealthiest, smartest states, while also having the most wealth in our history, with “being broke”. So, how are we broke, when were also the richest we’ve ever been? Someone care to explain how we are unable to do the things our fathers and forefathers did? Add up out assets and we’re very, very, very far from being broke.
Honestly, I don’t think it’s a problem of cost. It’s a problem of priority.
I don’t buy into the austerity lies that seem to keep being repeated in different forms. A great example is our investment (that cost the taxpayer) into Education and Higher Education that creates $5 billion annually for this state in GDP. A investment with a pretty wicked return that doesn’t even account for all the business leaping over themselves to set up shop In the Commonwealth (Biotech, Net-Tech, Healthcare, Finance, ect). Nebraska is dirt cheap and doesn’t have a regulation they haven’t decided to throw out, but businesses are not moving there.
We're not broke - we spend too much
Consider - in 2003 (earliest records available on-line), we spent about $76k per employee in total personnel costs using the oft reported "70% of the budget is personnel costs". By 2014 using the mayor's proposed budget, that rises to $109k per employee or a 43% increase. Given the rise in health care and pension costs, it's actually probably a little more than that - I'd guess personnel costs as a percent of the budget are now slightly higher than 11 years ago.
Anybody out there get a 43% increase in your comp package without a promotion in the last 11 years? Probably not. Most of us are lucky to have a job (headcount at the city is down 300 but up 500-600 from post crash lows).
And as for our parks are in good shape - remember - many of the downtown parks - Greenway of Course, PO Square of course as well as the Public Garden and the Comm Ave Mall, Clarendon Street Playground among others are funded mostly by private funds through Friends groups. The city cuts the grass and empties the trash cans and that's about it (not knocking the Parks department - they do A LOT on a very small budget and they are pleasant to deal with). But they're not paying for all those tulips in the Public Garden and the Dutch Elm treatments for the trees.
History says otherwise
Taxes are less than they have been in modern memory - certainly less than when we built (and actually bothered to maintain) infrastructure.
We don't spend too much - we spend too little and try to kick the can down the line as long as possible.
That would be a nice story if it were true swirly
City property taxes are up 69% in the last 11 years - that's 130% greater than the rate of inflation - and the city has only grown its housing and population by about 10%. The city also collects taxes that didn't even exist 11 years ago and has dramatically ramped up collection of PILOT payments. CITY taxes and expenditures relative to almost any measure are off the charts. The only thing that has modestly restrained the growth of the budget is a cut in net state aid and modest, inflation level increases in other revenue categories.
Not really relative to parks, but the state actually is probably on a fairly even keel. I haven't been able to find any good comparative stats on state spending relative to state GDP. If you find them I'd be interested.
Federal spending (not taxes) has just recently come off of historical highs as a percentage of GDP (save for a very brief spike during WW II). We have NEVER been in a long term situation with this kind of spending. Federal tax collections are also reasonably off their lows even before the Jan 1 increases as a percentage of GDP and now stand 5-10% shy of historical and sustainable averages.
So you are dead wrong on city and Federal - let me know if you find anything good on state spending.
Basic math would tell you
Basic math would tell you that 43% increase is a 3.3% raise every year, hardly a horrid increase when you consider that health care costs went up double digits each year for many businesses.
As a small business owner, I can tell you, my cost per employee went up by more than 43% over the last 10 years due to benefits, despite keeping salaries largely in line with CPI increase of ~28% over that time.
I think our parks are doing just fine...
They all look good to me. Let's take a look at the one's in this councilor's ward: Christopher Columbus, Paul Revere Mall, Copp's Hill Park, East Boston Greenway, Constitution Beach, Piers Park, and more. They're all amazing.
Let's not forget Paul Revere Park, the Greenway (which sucks, but not for a lack of money), Public Garden, Post Office Square, Comm Ave Mall, etc...
So really, where can we spend more money? And more importantly, why should it even be spend [over other priorities]?
the condition of Franklin
the condition of Franklin Park is shameful, especially when you consider the amount of revenue generated within its borders. Is that money going to subsidize the touristy parks named above?
Why don't our parks have more revenue generating devices? It sure would awesome to grab a sandwich and an ice cream cone and sit by jamaica pond, duck into the boathouse and buy an umbrella when i'm stuck in the rain, sunscreen when the sun comes out unexpectedly. There is some of this at the esplanade, the common and now the greenway. But still, there are plenty of other parks that are absolutely mobbed on the weekends, and there are plenty of ways to pull dollars out of pockets
Part of the charm of most Boston parks
Is that I'm not bombarded by advertisement or shopping opportunities while I'm enjoying them.
If the sun comes out unexpectedly on the Esplanade, it's simple enough to exit the Esplanade and find the nearest of the 20 million CVS Pharmacies ready willing to serve you.
that's where we differ i
that's where we differ i guess; for me parks are enhancement to, rather than escape from, urban life. Have a beer and a pretzel under the moonlight at the English Garden in Munich, drink a cafe con leche in the Retiro, hit one of the 24 hour kiosks every couple hundred feet along the Rio waterfront, have a dynamo donut at crissy field..... you may come around
Depending on the Park
This sounds like a good idea in the right park. I would not mind seeing kiosks selling appropriate items in a park such as the Common, or by the boathouse and concert dome on the Esplanade. But I would not place a retailer anywhere else on the Esplanade or anywhere in the Public Garden. A kiosk at Jamaica Pond at the boathouse again selling snowballs or ice cream might add but anywhere else around the Pond detracts.
One thing that deserves mention though is the native beauty of Boston's parks. Jamaica Pond is nothing short of miracle in a city as dense as Boston. That the Pond is virtually a next door neighbor to the Arboretum is a home run of park design.
And how much revenue is
And how much revenue is generated in Franklin Park? You seem to know.
I don't know the amount, but
I don't know the amount, but one can plainly see large revenue generators that are unique to Franklin Park (at least in this area).
It costs about $60 to play 18 holes with a cart, and I see alot of golfers there.
And I don't know the ownership/lease/operations terms of the zoo, but it is technically in the park
Revenue?!
Although I am sure that the golf course generates some amount of revenue, it is unlikely a slush fund of money. That $60.00 tee fee goes to maintaining the golf course and club house (well I might add) which is incredibly expensive. As for the Zoo, the Zoo is a state funded organization and is HORRIBLY under-funded. The entrance fees at the zoo are paltry and state funding for the zoo was actually cut substantially a couple of years ago. Moreover, like the golf course, the fees collected go to maintaining the zoo, which is hugely expensive. The zoo would be very well served to enter into private partnerships to fund its expansion and maintenance, as the Chicago Zoo, and I belive the Bronx Zoo, both have. All of this said, Franklin Park is shamefully maintained, particularly considering that is one of Olmstead's jewels in the Emerald Necklace and is used by tens of thousands of people each year in an area of the City much in need of green space. The area behind White Stadium is effectively left to rot and turned over to vagrants and substance abusers who make it feel unsafe, to say the least. The area directly next to the zoo entrance was once the cite of an Olmstead-designed concession stand which was bulldozed (accidentally!!) in the 1970s. Its remains lie in place, left to rot and collect trash. The walks and paths through the woods are simply a shambles. Clearly this has got me on a tare, so I will leave it at that.
I have never seen sadder animals
than the ones in Franklin Park Zoo. Flamingos should not live in brackish water. Tigers need more than a 10 x 10 space to roam. Tropical creatures don't need to interact with local field mice. And those condom wrappers lying around near the giraffe exhibit? I'm pretty sure the giraffes weren't the ones who used them.
Franklin Park is being improved
I mean, have you actually been there. I run the circuit, and last fall they did a lot of work on the sidewalks. Over by White Stadium they resod the fields. The entrance by Blue Hill Ave and American Legion Highway was also worked on.
Sure, the parking by the Devine Golf Course needs some work, but the playground, the ball fields, the picnic area, they're in good shape.
This is not to say that the Parks Department doesn't need help, but still, Franklin Park is in okay shape.
I see you left Boston Common
I see you left Boston Common off the list...intentional? If you were to see the patchwork of broken asphalt that greets tourists at the start of the Freedom Trail outside the Visitors Center, as well as the other areas of the park with powdery patches of dust instead of grass, broken and bent iron posts, and poor trash clean up, you may agree with the councilor. The Common gets far more use than any of these other parks, but the budget given towards it clearly does not reflect that. Just visit the Soldiers and Sailors Monument after any given summer night - its nothing less than embarrassing. Given that the city adamantly refuses to accept any private funding for the Common, the money must be found elsewhere.
Guilty as charged...
Okay, you caught me. I initially forgot the Common, but then left it off when I did think of it. I wouldn't say it's bad, but it certainly is unusually below par for Boston. It is being fixed up, however. Thew new fountain is great, and the sweeping view up to the State House via the two redone pathways.
I think anything else can primarily be taken care of by shifting excessive spending from other parks. And by controlling the crowds of super-bums (they're not your typical bum, they're flat out assholes) that congregate there.
Again - private funds
That is being done mostly if not exclusively with private $$$.
The city has a very specific strategy - they know that if they ignore the parks, especially near wealthy neighborhoods, the neighbors will kick in money or they can justify commercializing parts of the parks (like the Earl of Sandwich on the Common or the sponsored advertising proposal). Then they can spend the money elsewhere.
Here's a concrete and sad example. The city provides mulch every year for the Clarendon Street playground right before the mayor comes. Last year he didn't come - so they didn't bring any mulch for the garden area (I think maybe they got some after months of begging the parks department). this year he's coming and I heard one of the playground mom exclaim - Yay - we'll get some mulch for the garden.
Don't get me wrong - they've
Don't get me wrong - they've done a great job in getting the fountain restored, and I see they are replacing a lot of the curbing along the Charles Street side, but that being said, a lot still needs to be done. This is the most prominent park in the city, visited by thousands of tourists. The vagrant problem is terrible, but it is a public park and people cannot be told to leave. However, the city must take steps to mitigate this by increased police patrols and trash clean up, so others may continue to enjoy the Common as well.
Private funding for Boston Common
How sad. Here on my planet we have a Boston Common too, where a private organization, the Friends of the Public Garden, just spent two million dollars on the park, including the renovation of the Brewer Fountain area and a lot of tree care.
Sorry, meant to say corporate
Sorry, meant to say corporate funding or sponsorship. Not belittling the Friends contribution, which I would imagine is donation based from multiple private sources.
Michelle Wu will fix it all
Michelle Wu's website says:
Fun: Bostonians of all ages should have places, spaces, and venues for fun. Whether playing sports in safe, clean and green parks, listening to music or enjoying food on the streets, gathering and creating art in galleries or on the sidewalk, residents should be free to develop and share their talents in welcoming, creative public spaces. These exchanges and this sense of fun are what make cities vibrant centers for living, learning and working, and what will continue to make our diverse city the Hub of the universe.
All Sal has to do is wait for Michelle and she will put in safe, clean and green parks. Too bad Mayor Menino and Sal couldn't have thought that up for themselves. Not even Sam Yoon could think of that!
Fun is the one thing that
Fun is the one thing that money can't buy.
Boston.con just last week
Boston.con just last week rated cities on a fun index they developed. Boston rated very high for fun. Boston also rated very high on hipster cred. These two indexes more than made up for the low rating of the City on public schools and Boston was rated as a great place to live on balance.
"hipster cred" In other words
"hipster cred"
In other words 'fun' for rich privileged 20 somethings. Not so much for everyone else -particularly if they have families with children.
Families with children
have lots of fun in Boston. There are activities throughout the city every weekend, including sport, art, and other recreations. There are more than a dozen youth baseball leagues in action right now, with so many teams and games, that there is hardly a field anywhere in the city that isn't continuously in use on weekends and weeknights. And the city is actively upgrading these fields, resodding, installing new dugout benches, etc. Boston is a fantastic place for family recreation.