Posted: February 19th, 2008

February 11, 2008

The city Department of Recreation and Parks recently held a meeting in Downtown in which residents and stakeholders were queried about local park preferences. At the gathering, one in a series of sessions being held across Los Angeles, respondents said they wanted more green space and pocket parks, as well as upgrades at existing park facilities.

It’s nice to ask questions, but why in the world is Rec and Parks embarking on this action when most of the information should already be clear to the department, including from two studies that have been completed recently? This is just another misstep from a department that is already in hot water over its mishandling of tens of millions of dollars of Quimby funds.

We are all for involving the stakeholders in decisions about how best to spend public money, but does anyone really think Rec and Parks will respect the public input? Remember that this is a department that continues to pursue creating a park in a part of Downtown that few would patronize. This appears to be another poor choice of the department’s time and resources. The word sham comes to mind.

It is difficult to trust Rec and Parks at this point: Last year, the department’s general manager admitted, after a barrage of press coverage, that there is no effective tracking system for Quimby funds, the fees assessed to housing developers for park creation, even though approximately $120 million in Quimby money has been collected. That has prompted an audit, the results of which are due soon.

Meanwhile, the department is exploring purchasing a 1.3-acre lot at 410 Center St., near where the 101 Freeway meets the L.A. River, and creating a park there. It is far from where residential projects are springing up in Downtown Los Angeles, and we fail to see how many people would flock to a park in this ugly, primarily industrial area. Also, it arguably does not match the letter or the spirit of the Quimby ordinance, which was envisioned as a way to make sure the developers paid for green spaces near dense developments.

Then there is the park needs assessment study itself, which the department announced after the Quimby furor erupted. “When in doubt, study it, delay it, talk about it,” seems to be the panicky reaction of the Parks department.

Additionally, a study completed last year appears to provide much of this information; the Green Visions Plan for 21st Century Southern California, created by local land conservancies and a USC department, extensively chronicles what is available park-wise across the area, and touts neighborhoods in need of recreation facilities and green space. A 2006 study by The City Project also covers some of the same ground.

How closely has Rec and Parks looked at these documents? Is information already gathered being needlessly and expensively replicated? Hopefully something new and groundbreaking is being added.

However, this just seems like more of the same from Recreation and Parks.

www.downtownnews.com/articles/2008/02/11/news/opinion/edit01.txt