The Pros and Cons of Privatizing Central Park

During his State of the County address on Monday, Scott Walker held up Central Park in Manhattan as the model for privatization of urban parks. According to Walker, “If it takes a coffee shop in every park to keep them open, then I'm all for it. If it works in Central Park, we should do it here." In actuality, Central Park has done far more than open a few coffee shops in the last 25 years—it has privatized 85 percent of its operation.

Xoff makes a very good point when he comments: “There's a little more traffic in New York's Central Park than in Juneau Park, but you gotta think big, I guess.” Part of what makes Central Park a privatized success, at least in appearance, is its ability to not only draw large numbers of people on a daily basis to its restaurants, coffee shops, and other facilities, but also raise millions of dollars in donations to keep up with maintenance and other park services. I can’t think of a single park in Milwaukee that can stand up to that.

But let’s just entertain Walker’s dream for a moment and imagine the best case scenario—the Milwaukee County Parks are transformed in the image of Central Park.

What exactly does that entail?

In the 1970s, New York City hit upon tough financial times in much the same way Milwaukee County is facing a fiscal crisis today. The public service that felt the brunt of the budgetary troubles in New York was the parks, just like here in Milwaukee today. As a result, Central Park suffered—full-time employees were axed, seasonal work crews were cut, supplies went unordered, maintenance went undone, trash wasn’t picked up (any of these cuts sound familiar?). Suffice to say, Central Park largely went into the toilet during the 1970s.

At the end of the 1970s, an influential group convinced the city to privatize as a means for revitalizing Central Park. In 1980, the non-profit Central Park Conservancy was formed to manage Central Park privately under contract with the city. To make a long story short, the park was revitalized to its current form under the control of the Conservancy, which generated funds through individual, corporate, and charitable foundation donations. All in all, the Conservancy has raised over $300 million to date.

Through the revitalization, Central Park has rebuilt many of its monumental treasures, established two successful upscale restaurants, and hosted hundreds of youth and community programs each year. All good, right? Not completely.

Before the fiscal crisis of the 1970s, Central Park was a flourishing public park that served as the site for numerous oppositional political and social movements. Women suffrage activists met there in the early twentieth century, gay and lesbian activists used the park to march as part of their liberation movement in the 1960s, and numerous “love-ins,” “be-ins,” and “fat-ins” took place in Central Park during the sixties to challenge conventional norms in a public venue.

Since the Conservancy took over in 1980, however, public meetings such as these have not taken place. Instead there are fences surrounding green spaces and rules regulating noise levels and activities. The effect is that the number of places in New York City to meet publicly for political purposes or to challenge social norms has severely decreased since Central Park was privatized. As much as some social conservatives may cringe at the thought of the 1960s, that decade undoubtedly brought this country many of the freedoms and ideals we cherish today.

And political activity and social experimentation are not the only attributes of the old pubic Central Park that have disappeared. With the privatization of Central Park, the citizens of New York also lost faith in their government to do what it takes to provide for the public good. As historians Roy Rosenzweig and Elizabeth Blackmar conclude in their history of Central Park, The Park and the People: “What was gained in the 1980s was a very tangible improvement in the physical condition of Central Park. What was lost was a very intangible -- but still real -- sense of commitment to the public provision of recreational resources for all New Yorkers.”

With the eerie similarities between the fiscal crisis facing the New York City Parks Department in the 1970s and the one facing the Milwaukee County Parks today, it’s useful to consider the totality of the effects of privatizing Central Park—going beyond just the pretty pictures of the Manhattan park.

There are pros and cons that come along with the privatization of something as traditionally public as parks. These should be heavily considered and debated before any action is taken. After all, privatization isn’t the only answer to the fiscal crisis facing the Milwaukee County Parks, just like it wasn’t the only option for revitalizing Central Park. The question remains, will Scott Walker give us any say in the matter?

------------------------------------

UPDATE: In the interest of accuracy, I should note that the ultimate control over granting permits for Central Park events--including political demonstrations--is still in the hands of New York City. The deal with the conservancy is intended to be a strictly management agreement. However, due to the wide control over the structure of Central Park given to the Conservancy through its management deal, the Conservancy has the ability to shape how the park is used. In fact, local New Yorkers have frequently sparred with the Conservancy--and lost--regarding its responsiveness to how the public would like to use Central Park.

A NY Times article (sub. req.) had this to say about the situation:

"The Central Park Conservancy gets the bulk of its money from foundations, corporations and wealthy individuals, many of whom live near the park. Over the last decade, the conservancy has focused on restoring the park's architectural and landscape treasures, but recently it has increasingly concentrated on maintaining and managing the park.

'The conservancy is an efficient, money-raising capital machine,' said Elizabeth Starkey, co-chairwoman of the parks committee of Community Board 7 on the West Side of Manhattan. 'But sometimes, the public's voice falls on deaf ears.'

While praising the conservancy's impact on helping to restore a park that was near collapse two decades ago, Ms. Starkey said she worried that the group has ignored the concerns of many city residents. In recent years, the conservancy has battled with local groups over issues ranging from directional signs to playground design.

'There's a lot of concern about making the park look beautiful,'' she said, 'but not much about the needs of people who want to play softball or soccer on the Great Lawn.'"