By Ed Lowe
Senior writer
Participatory democracy at its best involves people in making decisions that affect their lives. One of Chicago’s best examples of this took place on Wednesday, May 22, in the Richard J. Daley Bicentennial Fieldhouse. Jointly sponsored by the Chicago Park District and by the Grant Park Advisory Council, a group of six perspectives were presented on the question: “Making Money in our Parks: Good or Bad.”
Participating in the symposium were Ald. Mary Ann Smith (48th), who chairs the City Council’s Parks and Recreation Committee; Dr. Bruce Wicks of the University of Illinois’ Department of Leisure; Laura Foxgrover, senior project manager for Lakefront Services of the Chicago Park District; Ed Uhlir, project director for the still-under-construction Millennium Park; Friends of the Parks Board Member Dr. Robert Gordon; and the symposium’s chairman, Bob O’Neill, president of the Grant Park Advisory Council.
The stated goal of the forum was “to promote public understanding of the Chicago Park District’s practice to seek additional revenue from concessions, sponsorships, use, permit and program fees, as well as to facilitate public discussion of the practical, aesthetic and ethical limitations on these revenue raising functions.”
Dr. Wicks led off the presentation by explaining that “use of the parks deals with peoples’ values and the balance of nature and people. There is a need,” he continued, “for social equity—who pays for the parks and who benefits. It’s a matter of allocating resources.”
Wicks explained that it’s up to the authority in charge of the parks to determine the level of philanthropy, the corporate sponsorship, and the fees and charges assessed for the use of various park amenities, and “there’s a public/private partnership in the determination of who gets a fair share of the resources available.” For example, Wicks asked whether the largest share of the park resources should go to the people who pay the most taxes and thus the largest share of park costs, or to those who pay the least taxes and probably have greatest need for the parks as an outlet from the pressures of the city.
Ald. Smith is particularly disturbed with the $5 million annual budget for cleaning up the parks. She pointed out that “the Chicago lakefront is the most frequently visited park in the country. Its value to tourism as well as to Chicagoans is something that can’t be calculated.”
Laura Foxgrover is responsible for managing the contracts on privatized concessions within the parks. There has been a conscious effort to upgrade the concession facilities.
There’s an emphasis on privatization of park amenities, a point discussed in greater detail by Ed Uhlir. Naming rights and privatization are not new to Chicago. One of Chicago’s icons, Buckingham Fountain, was named in memory of Clarence Buckingham by his sister Kate. The Field Museum and Adler Planetarium are other instances of private funds financing the construction of public amenities which still retain the names of their philanthropic sponsors.
Uhlir also addressed the cost overruns in the Millennium Park construction at Randolph St. and Michigan Ave. This park will add a very visible 16 acres to the Chicago Park system and is destined to become one of the most highly used parks in the city. But, in explaining the overruns, Uhlir pointed out that $140 million has been raised from the private sector to complete the park. It takes a contribution of $3 million to identify the donors of various amenities. In spite of the Chicago Tribune’s harping on the subject of the overruns, Uhlir explained, the corporation that owns the Tribune has contributed $5 million to create an ice rink named for the paper’s long-time publisher, Robert R. McCormick.
Other corporate contributors whose names will appear on different elements of the Millennium Park include Sears Roebuck, the William Wrigley Jr. Company and Exelon. According to Uhlir, with revenue enhancement and endowments, the park will be completed without the bloated estimates of cost overruns that have been published.
In addition, Uhlir explained that several elements, including the proposed Ghery stage, will be profit centers for the park when these features are rented for corporate events and private users including weddings and gala parties.
Dr. Gordon, a psychiatrist, raised the question: “What is an urban park and what is its function in the community?” Dr. Gordon asked the group attending the seminar to consider the value of parks in our urban society, particularly in an economically stratified society. Gordon considers that parks are truly bastions of democracy.
Finally, Bob O’Neill, an attorney, described our Grant Park as “an economic engine for Chicago. If we don’t energize the city we don’t energize neighborhoods either.” O’Neill explained the competition that exists, either actual or tacit, between the city and the suburbs. If people are dissatisfied with life in the city, they move to suburbs for the quality of life they find there. On the other hand, if the city offers a better quality of life, people will begin moving back into the city to experience that quality more easily. It’s happening now as the construction boom on the city’s near north side attests.
Chicago Park District budget director Gary Gordon also attended the meeting and commented on the district’s $330 million annual operating budget. Of those funds, $230 million are derived from property taxes, and the balance is non-property tax revenue. Included among those resources are $30 million from a State of Illinois business tax. Gordon described five functions within the Park District’s program that are self supporting and which, in many instances, provide a profit center for the District. Those five activities include the city’s harbor system, the parking garages, the golf courses, Soldier Field and the concession stands, which by themselves contribute $2 million to the parks.
A question-and-answer period followed the presentations. Some of the unanswered questions that lingered after the meeting included those relating to the propriety of selling naming rights over public facilities. While those sales might be desirable and even necessary, the question of who would determine the propriety of any given sale is still open. So, too, is the question of controlling the prices charged by concessionaires. Whether the concessionaire has the right to charge $3.50 for a $1 hot dog is not in the province of the Park District, but the question of whether this is desirable and should be controlled is still an open one.
Printable Version