Making a park system that works

Andrew Johnson was president when Philadelphia's Fairmount Park Commission was created.

That's 1867, to be exact, when the Pennsylvania Legislature established a 16-member board that would oversee the thousands of acres of parkland in the city. And today, nearly 140 years later, some of the paths that run through Fairmount Park look like they have not been tended to since -- just one more sign that the city must fix a system that clearly is not getting the job done.

Don't let the name fool you, the Fairmount Park Commission actually oversees 62 parks in Philadelphia in addition to its most famous namesake. And don't confuse those with the 77, including Clark Park near campus, which fall under the jurisdiction of the Philadelphia Department of Recreation.

See the problem here?

What could be a more prefect example of the disjointedness and inefficiency of city government in Philadelphia? That is not the half of it, though. The Fairmount Park Commission is not even technically part of the city government. Ten of its members are appointed -- not by the mayor, but by common pleas judges. And it's not as if these are full-time positions. Most of the directors have day jobs as lawyers. The other six are ex-officio members, including Mayor John Street and City Council President Anna Verna.

This is certainly not a system with built-in accountability. There is no one in charge, so to speak, and thus it comes as no surprise that little gets done.

Of course, it does not have to be this way. Two members of City Council floated a proposal last summer to merge the parks and recreation departments into one cohesive unit that would resemble those found in most big-city governments.

It works in New York and in Chicago and in Washington. And Councilmembers Darrell Clarke and Blondell Reynolds Brown think it will work here.

They are right to some extent, but the proposal they introduced has come under heavy fire recently at public hearings.

The problem with the current plan in Council is not that it will radically reorganize the park system and create bureaucracy. The major flaw with the proposed plan is that it is not radical enough. It is engineered as a measure aimed at eliminating overlapping and redundant programs. While it's nice to see someone at City Hall looking out for the bottom line, they are missing the point.

As David Thornburgh, head of the Pennsylvania Economy League, pointed out in testimony before the Council in December, that the park system needs "an independent and entrepreneurial steward to initiate and encourage partnerships and develop the resources to build and sustain excellence in the parks."

So there's more to it than patching the sidewalks and picking up trash.

What Philadelphia needs is a real parks department with a real commissioner. Fill this position with someone who has a vision for what the park system could become in the 21st century. Have this position appointed by the mayor like in most cities or, here's a thought, make it an elected post.

Big projects get done when they have leadership at the top. Look at what Joseph Torsella did at the National Constitution Center as an example. That is not the kind of leadership we are seeing now at the Fairmount Park Commission, and a large part of that is due to its large and convoluted structure.

Both sides of this debate, though, would be quick to tell you that neither a combined nor separate system can be effective and bring about improvements with the current level of city funding. For this, Council offers few answers. Robert Nix, the commission's president, testified before the body that the city spends about $1,500 per acre on parks, compared to $40,000 in Chicago.

But Nix, who is understandably concerned about his own job if the departments were merged, does not acknowledge the benefits that would come from a unified plan for the parks system as a whole and its combined power when it comes to snatching dollars from the city trough.

That's just the municipal side. A combined parks/recreation group would be better positioned to raise funds from outside sources, one of the key objectives in the park's existing plan for the future.

Reorganizing the parks system makes sense, but Council's current measure does not, and that's why more than 130 groups have joined with the Philadelphia Parks Alliance in opposing the bill. While the advocacy group does not necessarily favor dissolving the Fairmount Park Commission, it suggests the best course for now is a serious public discussion.

There are few things more serious in a city which continues to lose jobs and residents than one of its most important attractions. What is needed now is a way to take advantage of this 9,100-acre asset.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.