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