This week we learned that some Miami-Dade county commissioners want to change the county charter so that they can sell advertising in county parks. They have scheduled a meeting to consider this on August 26 at 11:00 a.m.
The UEL thinks that Parks are an important part of Miami-Dade County not only because they provide areas for recreation, but because they are places where residents can escape the pressures of urban life and find some peace. A vibrant, well-supported parks department is a vital part of our community.
Should we open our parks up for advertising in order to raise revenue? Parks are exactly the kinds of amenities that should be supported by the whole community (through property taxes) because we all benefit from their existence. A $20 addition to annual property tax per household would completely make up for the budget deficit in park maintenance. Changing the charter to allow advertising would be a short-term way to raise revenue, but with long-term negative consequences.
The UEL opposes any proposals that would litter our parks with advertising. During the great depression, our government responded by building more parks and creating jobs. We think it does not make any sense now — during our own economic downturn — to lease our parks away to advertisers.
Readers, what do you think?
P.S. Dan Paul, who recently passed away, was the father of Amendment 7 in the County Charter, it was called “The Dan Paul Amendment.” This is the Amendment that will be threatened on August 26th. The charter change would not only change policy in County Parks, it would change policy for most City parks as well.
We are proud to say that Dan Paul was a longtime member of the Urban Environment League Board of Advisors.
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
One Response to Advertising in Parks? Do we want it?
Leave a Reply
Planning News- A Federal Assault on Transit February 6, 2012At the Transport Politic, Yonah Freemark provides a comprehensive overview of the 'all-out ideaoligical battle' being waged by the House GOP against public transit. read more […]Jonathan Nettler
- Urbanists, Council Revolt Over Toronto's Transit Plans February 6, 2012Upon becoming Mayor of Toronto, Rob Ford killed existing public transit plans, declaring the "war on the car" over. Now a coalition of urbanists and a majority of city council members are turning against Ford's subway-only plan. read more […]Michael Dudley
- Examining the Super Bowl's Balance Sheet February 6, 2012The day after the big game, Diana Lind, with the help of a Planet Money Podcast, delves into the economic ramifications of hosting a super bowl, and wonders whether Indianapolis might not turn out to be the night's biggest loser. read more […]Jonathan Nettler
- Has Preservation Gone Too Far? February 6, 2012Ben Adler writes about the growing contingent of policy wonks, architects, and architectural critics who believe that preservationists have acquired too much power. read more […]Jonathan Nettler
- The Collapse of the Architecture Profession February 6, 2012Recounting the exalted heights that the profession reached in the last decade, and its complete meltdown during the Great Recession, Scott Timberg asks: where does architecture go from here? read more […]Jonathan Nettler
- Is the High Line Gay? February 6, 2012Erik Piepenburg speak with Friends of the High Line co-founder Robert Hammond about the celebrated park's connections to gay culture in New York City. read more […]Jonathan Nettler
- A Shift of Attention to Local Planning Policies by the Tea Party Becomes National News February 6, 2012The 'lamestream media' picks up the story of Tea Party activists railing against efforts to control sprawl and conserve energy. read more […]Jonathan Nettler
- Why Your Cell Phone is the Most Promising Transportation Planning Tool February 6, 2012Emily Badger reports on the growing importance of the cellular phone, and particularly their location tracking capabilities, as the next most essential transportation planning tool. read more […]Jonathan Nettler
- Razing of Historic House Stirs Outrage in Beijing February 6, 2012In a cruel twist, a historic house associated with Chinese architects who championed the notion that 'a great nation should hold dear its historic patrimony', and deemed by authorities an 'immovable cultural relic,' was recently demolished. read more […]Jonathan Nettler
- Think Environmental Rules Are Holding Up Transportation Projects? Think Again. February 6, 2012Brad Plumer investigates widely echoed Republican claims that environmental rules are a major reason why it takes so long to build highways and bridges, and finds scant evidence to back up the claims. read more […]Jonathan Nettler
- A Federal Assault on Transit February 6, 2012
Eye on Miami wrote about this same subject: I thought I would share an exchange with a reader by the blogger:
Sig said…
I guess you would rather we pay heavy admission and parking fees than put up a sign at the park. That way parks can keep out the riff raff and be the exclusive territory of the rich.
August 16, 2010
Delete
Blogger Geniusofdespair said…
Sig: You are not a sheep, repeat that to yourself. Don't let them dictate your choices to you.
No. Parks are one of the fundamental services that the government should supply to its citizens. We paid for the land, we pay taxes for the upkeep. A nominal entrance fee of a couple of dollars I can live with. But, you should think long term Sig. Look at other cities, like New York and Atlanta. No ads. Once you start something it keeps snowballing. This would be a bad precedent to start. I have been fighting to keep development out of parks for 15 years. This isn't the first assault. Parks are one of the only places people can bond with nature. Putting advertising in them would only defeat their purpose. One small sign will turn into 3 or 4 or…more.
It is not always an either or decision. You have to stand up and say: NOT ONE OR THE OTHER. Stop being a sheep and letting them box you in to choices you shouldn't have to make. Don't lecture me, tell the commissioners neither choice is good for you. Here is an idea, each of the commissioners will have a lot of money after their campaigns, why don't they donate them to the park's department instead of funding the people who put them in office. Why should the LBA get money when parks are underfunded. Why should Seijas be funded to travel to Warsaw, when we can't provide people with cheap park entrance fees? Don't be a putz.
August 16, 2010