View
1
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Lauren Vanatsky
Professor McLaughlin
ENG 1001
22 April 2016
Very Little Funding, A Whole Lot of Frustration
Every child has her or her own memories of a park from an early age. It was where
imagination first started to blossom, giving each child the capacity to be anything and everything
all at once. It was where that child fell and skinned his or her knee, and sat wailing on the mulch
until mom or dad came to ease the pain with a gentle touch. As that child grew older, the parks
were no longer about playgrounds and racing across monkey bars, but rather a place to walk and
enjoy a leisurely day with friends. Perhaps it was the location of a first date, or even a high
school reunion. Then, one day, the child is fully grown with a child of their own, spending time
creating memories together at the park.
Merriam-Webster dictionary defines the word park as: a large public green area in a
town, used for recreation. As the definition dictates, parks can encompass a large variety of
characteristics regardless of its exact location or size. Merely just the word recreation itself can
hold a multitude of interpretations depending on each individual and his or her experiences. Jane
E. Myers, a researcher on the effects of nature on the human mind from the Journal of
Humanistic Counseling, reported that, “Many interdisciplinary researchers have explored how
exposure to natural environments, such as green spaces, can positively affect human wellness”
(Myers 63). The results of the interdisciplinary research showed a direct correlation between
nature and human wellness. With such tremendous health and wellness benefits offered by parks
(and nature itself), it is a shame that recent budget cuts haven taken place in the national and
Vanatsky 1
state economies, leaving parks with
very little funding, and a whole lot of
frustration. The reduced funding for
parks has made it more difficult for
park administrators to afford
maintenance, improvements, and
growth within the natural community.
Such decreased funding is unfortunate
because, “nonhuman nature has many effects on holistic wellness, including restoration from
mental fatigue, the prompting of deep reflection, opportunities for nurturing, and the restoring of
inherent connections human beings have had with nature their evolutionary history” (Lewis 4).
Based on Lewis’s research, it is no surprise that today’s medicine cannot cure everything, no
matter how doctors try. The human body was designed for the outdoors. Therefore, the more
that the government and local agencies decrease the funding of parks, both nationally and
locally, the amount of physical and mental health problems will continue to grown in humans
across cities, as well as the nation.
In the past few years, Cincinnati has become a prime example of a local government that
limits the resources for parks around the city. It was for this reason that Issue 22 was proposed
in early 2015 in order to gather enough funds to give the parks a constant, set supply of money
every year, regardless of which budget cuts took place along side of it. The State Issue 22 was a
permanent property tax levy that would create permanent funding for city parks through raising
$5.5 million a year. The money itself was proposed to be used for improving 16 Cincinnati
parks in the short term, which would overall effect up to 27 neighborhoods (Coolidge 1). The
Vanatsky 2
effect the property tax would have on tax-payers was compared to the statistic of a $100,000
home owner paying $35 a year, an amount that is affordable and insignificant to most. So, on
the surface, Issue 22 looked like the perfect solution for the city’s park funding. A WCPO
editorial in favor of the parks levy wrote that, “[the levy] would guarantee a long-term
investment in Cincinnati’s public spaces, and provide a source of badly needed money for
development to put life into Cincinnati’s neighborhoods beyond Over-the-Rhine and Downtown”
(WCPO Editorial Board 2). There are very few Cincinnatians that would disagree with this
statement, because most people want to see the parks flourish, and want to savor the nature that
Cincinnati has to offer. Unfortunately, the levy was not directly promising to use the money to
pay for all of the maintenance throughout the years. As the CITYBEAT staff pointed out
towards the end of 2015, “supporters of the mayor’s proposal point out that 25 percent of the $5
million raised annually by the levy would be used for park maintenance. But, here again, the
amendment’s language is tricky, and there are no guarantees offered. The language stipulates
only that the 25 percent mentioned not go to servicing debt taken on by the Park Board, freeing it
up for any other use” (CITYBEAT 3). Therefore, although the levy appeared to be proposing
great additions to Cincinnati, it was hard for voters to truly believe that their money was going to
be directed toward reasonable decisions.
For example, a Cincinnati political veteran, Marian Spencer, wrote a letter to the parks
director in September of 2015 saying that she could no longer support the charter amendment
because of its bad policy. Spencer wrote that, “This action is difficult for me because when
asked for my support last June, I was unaware that this would be a charter amendment rather
than a normal property tax levy, or that its income would be used only for capital projects”
(CITYBEAT 30). Spencer was not the only usual park’s supporter to turn a nose up at the
Vanatsky 3
proposed tax levy, which was clear after the, “initial absentee ballot counts had the measure
down nearly 2-to-1” (LaFleur 1). Although it appears to have been a good idea to vote against
Issue 22 and its park levy, there is still an issue at hand of what to do about Cincinnati park’s
funding. It has been no surprise that other institutions throughout the city such as Preschool
Promise and Metro have become a more-worthy cause for the city’s finances. Though there are
certainly reasons that both of these institutions are needed, that does not mean that the park’s
funding should be ignored.
In February of 2016 five long-time middle and upper lever managers at Great parks of
Hamilton County (Cincinnati park employees) were laid off from jobs they had worked for 18 to
28 years. Great Parks Executive Director Jack Sutton said it was, “because of state funding cuts
that went into effect this year. This had nothing to do with job performance. It’s hard on
everyone…but it does put us in good fiscal health” (Smith 1). The tangible personal property tax
itself began to dwindle away in 2005 when the state was working towards a more business-
friendly real estate tax system. The cut turned out to be about $667,000 a year for the Great
Parks of Cincinnati, hence the firing of employees which saves the park district $739,594 a year.
The selection of employees to let go was
determined by, “which positions had ‘least
impact on our guests’” (Smith 1).
However, with the 15-year levy coming to
a close in December of 2017, the hope for
voters to lean towards a property levy that
will aid the parks department is great.
Vanatsky 4
Often times many voters do not automatically attribute parks to sharing characteristics
with therapy, but one of the major benefits to spending time at parks is actually increased mental
health. There have been numerous studies done, especially in the past twenty years, that list
outdoor settings as a significant basis for promoting mental health, group cohesion, and positive
self-esteem. Similarly, many counselors and therapists strongly believe in the power of the
outdoors to heal mental challenges, and use local parks as a part of their client’s rehabilitation
and therapeutic resources. In fact, the Xavier University Health Association reported that
Greater Cincinnati depression rates have risen by 22% in the past ten years, which is about the
same amount of time that the parks funding started to dramatically decrease. Furthermore, the
Journal of Humanistic Counseling reported that, “some theorists have suggested that nature is an
inextricable component of the human self; despite such an assertion, this portion of the human
self has been excluded from wellness models and research in counseling” (Lewis 2). But what
exactly is nature? To some it could be a community park with a playground and a walking trail.
To someone else it could be a roaring river surrounded by pine trees and a light snowfall. And to
another individual nature could simply be the plants on a window sill in a city apartment.
Regardless, each breath of live provided by the nature can offer assistance and positive energy to
the human mind.
Research shows that exposing humans to nature has been associated with, “increases in
concentration, improvements in student test scores, decreases in the time it takes to recover from
surgery, decreases in symptoms of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in children, decreases
in aggressive behaviors, and decreases in stress” (Lewis 3). With nature such positive effects on
the human health, it is a surprise that the government takes so much money away from local and
national parks when the benefits completely outweigh the costs.
Vanatsky 5
Additionally, one of the most common use of local and national parks is contributed to
physical activity. The outdoor, serene environment offers a much more entertaining place to
exercise rather than an indoor facility with the changing scenery. Research has shown that the
more access people have to outdoor spaces (specifically those that are safe and well maintained),
the more likely they will be to exercise often, which lowers obesity rates. However, often times
people overlook the benefits in outdoor exercise and end up missing out on a more natural and
healthy manor of burning calories, rather than spending hours in an air conditioned room going
back and forth on an elliptical or treadmill. A 2013 Greater Cincinnati Health Status Survey
report showed that, “more than 6 in 10 adults (65%) in the Greater Cincinnati area are
overweight or obese (Sriggs 1). Though Cincinnati has a great deal of parks in the area already,
perhaps the lack of funding is causing lack of education on the location and benefits of the park,
as well as general maintenance issues that affects visitors.
With the increase in obesity rates and sedentary lifestyles in not only the United States,
but Cincinnati specifically, a large sum of chronic diseases such as cancer, heart disease, sleep
disorders, and diabetes are linked to this increase. Reports from Washington (DC): Institute of
Medicine claim that, “projections indicate that millions of Americans will be newly diagnosed
with preventable chronic disease over the next 20 years at an estimated cost ranging from $48
billion to $66 billion per year” (Barrett 1). The amount of money that could be spent on
improving the standards of local parks, as well as educating the public about their uses, would be
dramatically smaller in comparison to the amount spent on curing preventable diseases such as
diabetes or heart disease. Unfortunately, rather than increasing parks’ budgets, the governments
are lowering the budgets in attempt to aid in the increase in health care costs.
Vanatsky 6
For example, the Cincinnati Parks Levy offered up the figure of fifty-five million dollars
that was needed to improve the standards for local parks in order to not only repair many safety
hazards, Issue 22, but also to maintain the parks, and make them more accessible to all people.
The main reason for such a large amount of money needed was due to the fact that Cincinnati is
ranked as one of America’s largest cities when it comes to highest parks spending per capita. A
recent 2016 report by Carrie Blackmore Smith of the Cincinnati Enquirer said that the Cincinnati
Park’s System currently includes, “75 neighborhood and regional parks, thirty-four nature
preservatives, five parkways, many city gateways, and small green spaces and roughly 80,000
street trees” (Blackmore 2). Unfortunately, this figure was denied, just like it has been the past
few years, and this loss of
state funding has left not just
Cincinnati, but a large
percentage of Ohio parks,
with a deferred maintenance
backlog. The city of
Cincinnati claimed that the
use of the money towards the
parks was not a top priority in comparison to other local issues at hand for the year of 2016.
Enhanced park use and activity can not only benefit mental and physical health, but also
to the economy and society in general. For example, in the mid-ninetieth century, one of the
American Parks Movement founders, Fredrick Law Olmsted, had designed a large amount of
parks, “with societal inclusion in mind as a place for members of all socioeconomic strata to
enjoy and build community through shared aesthetic experience” (Barrett 1). Olmsted believed
Vanatsky 7
that the proximity to parks for all people would generally lower depression, violence, social ties,
and the quality of life. While he made a valid point, evidence has shown that there are fewer
parks in poorer communities, and those that exist are not kept in good condition. Most of the
funding that goes toward parks, especially in Cincinnati, are directed towards the historical
parks, or the most popular and well known. Daphne Miller, MD of the University of California
San Francisco Parks and Health Department, claimed that, “populations with low socioeconomic
status in urban settings are likely to be deprived of such access, and contact with nature has the
potential to disproportionately improve health outcomes for these populations” (Barrett 2).
Therefore, perhaps if funding was high enough to be directed towards a wider variety of local
parks, then the health in those areas could also improve along with the community status.
However, with the constant denial the Cincinnati parks have received the past few years, such
thoughts look hopeless in the near future.
Each individual has his or her own connection to parks. Whether it is a National Park
like the Rocky Mountains National Park, or Yellowstone National Park, or a simple park with a
swing set and a small bench to overlook the swans perched on the side of the pond, parks have
generally had a personal impact for most people. The problem is, the average individual does
not associate the care, funding, and maintenance of
the parks as a personal responsibility. Often times
there is little focus directed to voting for an
increased funding from local governments due to the
lack of money that the parks have to spend on media
promotions. Therefore, private businesses and donors are left to provide the media attention
needed out of their own pockets and fundraisers.
Vanatsky 8
The need for increased funding for local and national parks is about more than just
planting trees and growing flowers. It is about the increased societal and personal benefits that
come to each person while spending time at the parks. The outdoor experience of exercise not
only makes it more enjoyable, but it has been proven to keep people in a routine that they enjoy.
The exposure to a calming environment with beautiful surroundings and fresh air can lower
stress rates and decrease chronic illness in humans, especially those that effect the mind.
Furthermore, parks are a place for people of all cultures and backgrounds to come together and
enjoy something in common, without social barriers. The funding spent on parks will not be
wasted because in the long run it will lower not only medical costs, but also improve human
lives.
With the recent rejection of Issue 22, there comes a call for a new proposal to be made in
order to guarantee the parks some funding in the up and coming years, but with a specific outline
of what the money will go towards, and what percentage may be used for outside projects other
than maintenance. Furthermore, the financial decisions could be decided upon by other members
of the community other than the current proposed five-member park board, all of which are
selected by the mayor himself. By allowing the voters to feel like they have a say in what the
money is going towards, the overall consensus is bound to be a more positive one than the
outcome of Issue 22. There are parks all over Cincinnati like Burnet Woods who suffer from, “a
sewer overflow problem, weed choked paths and the perception of danger” (WCPO Editorial
Board 1). Parks should be a positive environment where Cincinnatians, and visitors, and go to
escape, relax, and enjoy their time. With the increasing health benefits of spending time at parks,
along with the financial growth that accompanies the park’s funding status, there is a deep need
for a new proposed tax levy to make its way onto the voting ballot once again. But this time, the
Vanatsky 9
right kind of tax levy. There are currently no major corporations or organizations that have
publically announced a new proposal to aid in the Cincinnati Park’s funding, mainly because the
city has recently concluded its voting. Once voting season peaks over the horizon, there is a
strong possibility, and hope, that a reasonable tax levy will make its way back onto the voting
ballot.
Vanatsky 10
Works Cited
Barrett, Meredith A. "Parks and Health: Aligning Incentives to Create Innovations in
Chronic Disease Prevention." Preventing Chronic Disease 11.2 (2014): 1-4. Web. 20
Feb. 2016.
"Beating stress outdoors? Nature group walks may improve mental health." Mental Health
Weekly Digest 13 Oct. 2014: 57. Expanded Academic ASAP. Web. 25 Feb. 2016
Blackmore Smith, Carrie. "Cincinnati Parks Seeks More Money, but for What?" Cincinnati.com.
25 Jan. 2016. Web. 24 Feb. 2016.
"CITYBEAT: No on Issue 22." CITYBEAT: No on Issue 22. N.p., 28 Oct. 2015. Web. 07 Apr.
2016.
Coolidge, Sharon. "Primer: Cincinnati City Issue 22 (parks Levy)." Cincinnati.com. 20 Oct.
2015. Web. 05 Apr. 2016.
"Editorial: Support Issue 22, the Cincinnati Parks Levy." WCPO. N.p., 06 Oct. 2015. Web. 07
Apr. 2016.
Fleur, Pat. "Issue 22: Voters Reject Proposed Tax to Bolster City Parks Projects." WCPO. 04
Nov. 2015. Web. 07 Apr. 2016.
Lewis, Todd F., and Jane E. Meyers. "Relationship Between Nature Relatedness and Holistic
Wellness: An Exploratory Study." Journal of Humanistic Counseling 53.1 (2014): 63-
77. Web. 23 Feb. 2016.
Smith, Carrie Blackmore. "County Parks District Lays off Longtime Employees."
Cincinnati.com. 19 Feb. 2016. Web. 16 Mar. 2016.
Vanatsky 11
Srigg, Susan, comp. "Few Adults Eat Recommended Amount of Fruits, Vegetables." Interact
For Health 2013.July (2013): 1-2. Greater Cincinnati Community Health Status Survey.
01 Feb. 2016.
Waldon, George. "Park funding." Arkansas Business 11 Dec. 2006: 9. Business Insights:
Global. Web. 25 Feb. 2016.
Vanatsky 12
Recommended