Who should pay for playgrounds in public parks?
Plus: Reasons to be skeptical of 1,000 Hours Outside
A Massachusetts town is exploring the idea of charging day cares and preschools for using the playgrounds at public parks. The fees could range between $3,000 and $5,000 for regular use, and would likely be passed on to parents in tuition fees.
Per the local CBS news station, the city’s Parks and Recreation department claims that they have “received numerous complaints from residents about overuse of the space, and that the extra usage was leading to more wear and tear costs for the city.”
“The thought process is that these are private organizations using public facilities as part of their daily or regular curriculum in a manner which could exclude public use,” Parks and Recreation Director Joe Connelly said.
Wow. “Could” is doing a lot of work there.
First of all, the cost of childcare is already really high. A recent survey found that families are spending 27 percent of their household income on childcare, when 7 percent is considered affordable by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. There is a very good case to be made that the United States should have public child care, but right now, we don’t.
But, these playgrounds are public. Parents have already paid for these playgrounds in their taxes. Who else would be using these playgrounds if not these children?! Overuse? This is what playgrounds are for. Are you telling me only stay-at-home parents or families who can afford round-the-clock nannies should be allowed to use public playgrounds? That doesn’t seem right..
And no, it is not the same as a little league team paying for the use of a baseball field. As one redditor pointed out, “The key thing here when talking about charging youth sports leagues for their usage comes with the exclusive use of those fields by those leagues for those times. So it isn’t so much they are paying to use the fields, but you could say they are paying to keep everyone else off the fields during their games and practices…if daycares get charged to use the parks, will they also get exclusive access to the parks during those hours just like those sports leagues? Will other town residents be told they can not use the park while the paying customers are there?”
Ok, so—if these playgrounds are being used (as they should be) and consequently need upkeep (as might be expected) and the city needs to scare up some cash to cover it, it sounds like there’s a budget deficit, or at least a parks budget deficit. This is not a new problem, although I don’t think it’s getting written about enough. The last big picture/national story I could find1 on the topic was a 2011 article in CityLab (long before it was acquired by Bloomberg).
“Most everyone agrees that specialized recreation services justify a fee, whether you’re talking about campsites or boat ramps or sports leagues,” Rich Dolesh, the then-chief public policy officer for the National Recreation and Park Association, told Dena Levitz. “Where it gets gray, though, is charging for access to public parks and other general-use public places.”
Some of the examples of fees for public parks and other spaces mentioned in the article included:
San Francisco charging non-residents for access to parks, including the Botanical Gardens in Golden Gate Park2
Charging dog walkers or fitness trainers who use public parks in London
Charging users of indoor recreation facilities in Denver
Selling annual passes for use of state parks in Washington State
“One of my fears is that if you privatize public recreation programs so heavily all that matters is the bottom line,” Dolesh said. “But with a pay-to-play scenario how can equity be assured so that everyone has access to parks?”
How indeed!
In conclusion (for now): Public parks (and playgrounds) are public goods and should be paid for collectively, by the people—by all the people. Nickel-and-diming the people who visit public parks means a disproportionate share of costs will fall on the people who really need these public spaces, while the wealthy spend their dollars on private outdoor spaces: private schools with private playgrounds, private clubs and recreation spaces, private parks.
I strenuously object to the idea that there’s not enough money for parks—or for playgrounds. (Might I suggest checking police and military budgets?) I think we should actively push back on the privatization of public spaces or pay-to-play schemes wherever they rear their ugly head.
So much more to say (and report!) on this topic, but so little time—for this post at least.
What I’m reading
Virginia Sole-Smith did a deep dive on 1,000 Hours Outside and the woman who started it—which won’t stop me from tracking my time outside this year, but I’ll do it with an even healthier dose of skepticism. I will also be ignoring Ginny’s opinion that tent-time doesn’t count. (Burnt Toast)
Looking for a career-change? Consider going to tree-climbing school so you can become a pine cone collector. (Noah Thomas for Oregon Public Broadcasting)
The end of winter, continued: “A small, locally owned ski area west of the Rocky Mountain Front community of Choteau announced Thursday that it’s closing for the remainder of the 2023-2024 season, citing dismal snowfall, warm temperatures and the financial repercussions of holding out for more wintery weather.” (Amanda Eggert for Montana Free Press)
Granted this was just in one night of searching, and Google is getting worse, so who knows what else is out there..
Wish the botanic gardens were free for residents in NYC!
Yes!
Charging for parking motor vehicles on streets would bring in tons of revenue and encourage people to use other forms of transportation. Public transportation walking biking. A lot to be said about this issue.