More-Public Park

Is City Council giving Fairmount Park to the people? Or to the wrong people?

by Diane Fiske

About 140 years ago, the Fairmount Park Commission was formed and given two missions: protecting the Schuylkill River, the source of Philadelphia's water, and ensuring that city residents had a green place to escape the grays of urban life. Landowners donated space, a park was established, and a charter was written declaring that Philadelphians should have use of the space.

Since then, Fairmount Park has grown to more than 9,000 acres, and has been successfully protected from development by the 16-member commission, whose 10 citizen appointees, throughout its history, have been selected by judges from the state's Court of Common Pleas benches.

Now, however, that commission is threatened with abolishment in the form of a proposal to place Fairmount Park under the control of the mayor and City Council.

In June, Council approved a ballot initiative that would ask voters whether the commission should be disbanded and Fairmount Park joined with the Recreation Department. Despite testimony from several officials that the park's future would be jeopardized, the bill passed with just one dissenting vote. The question will be on the ballot in November.

This idea was born, in part, out of a neighborhood parks issue, says Councilman Darrell Clarke, who co-sponsored the legislation. Clarke wanted to have the grass on a field near 33rd and Diamond cut for the Strawberry Mansion Little League. But, he says, the Fairmount Park maintenance crew that mowed across the street refused, because they "couldn't cut the grass on a non-park site," Clarke says. Fairmount Park cuts up to a certain point, and then the Recreation Department takes over — an inefficient setup.

"Combining the two departments will eliminate inefficiency," Clarke says.

But that's not the only reason he wants the change: He also believes the current "appointment of commissioners isn't really fair."

Clarke continues, "The diversity of the people in the city should be recognized so that the people who actually use the park, as opposed to the people who have vacation homes in the Poconos, [decide who governs it]."

Councilman Bill Green, who cast the one dissenting vote on the proposal, sees things differently. "If it's not broken, why fix it?" he asks.

The commission, Green says, was established to protect the park from political interference. "My fear," he says, "is that future administrations will simply be able to sell park land for all sorts of reasons. To their cronies, to their political supporters, or because the city is in need of money."

"With the merger, it would be a one-step process, and eliminating the commission eliminates the check on the political process," Green says.

As for the governing body, he admits that years ago, commissioners were wealthy movers and shakers from families such as the Manns, Wideners and Strawbridges. But he claims that this is no longer true: Commissioners are now chosen after a public application process.

Mark Focht, current executive director of the commission, concurs, explaining that "anyone can apply, and the board of judges [conducts] a vetting process."

Still, he concedes, many other cities, such as Boston and Chicago, have one department overseeing parks and recreation. The way he sees it, if the combination is coming, "it might as well come under a strong mayor like Mayor Nutter who believes in sustainable open space" (Nutter supports the merger).

Should the initiative pass, there would be one deputy commissioner for parks, one for recreation and a commissioner overseeing the new joint department.

Judge Alex Bonavitacola, who retired from the bench last year and serves as vice president of the commission, sees trouble coming. "The park will be pushed into second place," he says, because helping the rec department is "good politics."

He says he believes the merger is technically illegal. "I do not think the city has the right to abolish a commission authorized by the state. It would take a broadening of the charter-enabling statute, which would have to be approved by the legislature," he says.

Other commission members, such as treasurer Philip Price Jr., simply say that if the merger goes through, Fairmount Park should get strong protection from sale or lease.

In any case, the park's future is in voters' hands.

(editorial@citypaper.net)