A Catch-22 For Neighborhoods Needing Parks

A Catch-22 For Neighborhoods Needing Parks

Photo by Megan Burks

A park is planned to open along a stretch of Home Avenue in City Heights in 2013.

 

Skaters in City Heights did everything they could think of to get a skate park built in their neighborhood.

They traded skinny jeans for slacks during meetings with decision-makers. They created homemade videos and launched a Facebook page. They lobbied City Councilwoman Marti Emerald, who in June signed a pledge to build a park filled with half-pipes in their neighborhood.

The political will to build the park is there. The money is not — at least in City Heights.

San Diego’s city government has built a park system where expansion in some dense, urban neighborhoods is dependent on a Catch-22. The city won’t fully prioritize building a park unless it’s funded — but the city has kept the fees that generate money for parks low to attract developers to communities needing revitalization.

That means newer, more affluent neighborhoods get parks while projects in low-income communities stall.

Tom Mulaney, director of the urban development nonprofit Friends of San Diego, said development fees would need to be $5,000 to $10,000 to provide enough parks for most neighborhoods. The fees are charged whenever a developer builds a new residential unit. The revenue stays in the community to pay for parks, libraries, fire service and transportation infrastructure.

San Diego’s average fee is $6,580 and gets as high as $23,298 in northern San Diego.

But the Mid-City planning area, which includes City Heights, charges a $2,545 fee; its parks fund receives $1,918 of the payment.

Vicki Burgess, a project manager in the city’s Facilities Financing Department, said the fee increases about 2 percent a year to adjust for inflation. But Mid-City hasn’t seen a significant increase since 1998 because the city hasn’t updated plans that lay out how communities should develop and how new projects will be funded.

Residents involved with the City Heights Planning Area Committee, the group that provides recommendations to the city on land-use decisions in the neighborhood, said they’ve submitted a new financing plan to the city, but Mayor Jerry Sanders’ office has delayed its release. A spokesperson for the mayor did not return a request for comment.

The delay has resulted in a sluggish revenue stream for parks in City Heights. While San Diego has set a goal of 3 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents in each neighborhood, City Heights comes up about 100 acres short. Chain-link fences are mainstays there, surrounding empty dirt lots where projects are stalled or nonexistent.

“You see a difference when you’re walking around City Heights,” said Christie Hill of the Center on Policy Initiatives, a group looking at how the city prioritizes park projects. “It looks different compared to more affluent areas, and folks want to know why.”

Communities that top the parks list are sprawling, wealthier suburbs. Take Otay Mesa, where funding for park projects is four times the budget for pending Mid-City parks. There, cul-de-sacs and backyards nestle into foothills crisscrossed by hiking trails.

Otay has no shortage of green space, but it has a rapidly growing population to keep pace with. The community, like most others with higher fees, is developing, meaning it has the advantage of charging developers proactively for parks and other amenities. It isn’t catching up like City Heights.

Fees in newer communities are much higher than those in developed neighborhoods because they take into account all of the community’s infrastructure needs. State law prohibits communities from charging retroactively for deficiencies. City Heights can only account for new demand, not existing want for parks or sidewalks. In new communities, all demands are arguably new.

Otay’s fee is set at $27,707 per new single-family home; in some North County communities, fees can reach $128,753 per house.

That steady revenue significantly impacts who gets parks first.

While the city prioritizes projects that would improve the health and safety of residents or help revitalize needy communities, it also takes into account existing funding, how much of it comes from outside sources and annual maintenance costs.

In park-poor City Heights, residents have been waiting to see a couple of acres of brush along Home Avenue turned into recreation fields and picnic tables for about a decade. That project is graded medium priority and is scheduled to be completed next year, 11 years after it debuted on the project list.

Meanwhile, Riviera Del Sol Neighborhood Park in Otay is also slated to open the in 2013, though it arrived on the city’s project list four years after the Home Avenue park. Its priority ranking is high, in part, because the community has money for it.

That bottom line can be sobering for residents rallying to bring resources to their neighborhoods, said Joe LaCava, chairman of the Community Planners Committee. His group is involved in a city effort to bring community groups closer to the budget process, allowing them to submit recommendations for parks and other projects to the mayor before the budget is drafted. Previously, community groups had to lobby their council members late in the fiscal year.

“I’ve tried to manage the expectations on two sides,” LaCava said. “The first is that this is a very quick process. The other realization is that the city doesn’t really have a lot of money.”

But he said simply being let into the process — having the opportunity to understand the city’s limitations — is empowering.

“It mobilizes the community to figure out what to go and fight for,” LaCava said.

For City Heights skaters, it’s been the impetus to start doing instead of asking. The youth have worked with Emerald’s office to narrow their search for a skate park location to two spots: Colina Del Sol Park and Park De La Cruz. Once that decision is made, they’ll start applying for grants from private organizations like the Tony Hawk Foundation.

And with grant money in hand, the skaters just might make it to the top of the parks list.

Megan Burks is a reporter for Speak City Heights, a media project of Voice of San Diego, KPBS, Media Arts Center and The AjA Project. You can contact her directly at meburks@kpbs.org or 619.550.5665.

Voice of San Diego is a nonprofit that depends on you, our readers. Please donate to keep the service strong. Click here to find out more about our supporters and how we operate independently.


Megan Burks

Megan Burks

Megan Burks is a reporter for Speak City Heights, a media project of Voice of San Diego, KPBS, Media Arts Center and The AjA Project. You can contact her directly at meburks@kpbs.org or 619.550.5665.

  • 117 Posts
  • 4
    Followers

Show comments
Before you comment, read these simple guidelines on what is not allowed.

4 comments
Andrew Poat
Andrew Poat subscriber

This is another reason we need to consider an integrated infrastructure funding strategy for our region - like the one I have been working on with the San Diego Chamber of Commerce. Older communities have no reasonable chance of meeting park standards if we put all of the cost on new development - and no one will be able to create new homes or employment space if do - the companies or developers will take their projects and jobs to lower cost places (e.g. Arizona). I hope we can bring older communities wanting the infrastructure they need to be successful - and newer communities needing maintenance funds for the infrastructure they have - together to put neighborhood needs back in the municipal budget.

andrewpoat
andrewpoat

This is another reason we need to consider an integrated infrastructure funding strategy for our region - like the one I have been working on with the San Diego Chamber of Commerce. Older communities have no reasonable chance of meeting park standards if we put all of the cost on new development - and no one will be able to create new homes or employment space if do - the companies or developers will take their projects and jobs to lower cost places (e.g. Arizona). I hope we can bring older communities wanting the infrastructure they need to be successful - and newer communities needing maintenance funds for the infrastructure they have - together to put neighborhood needs back in the municipal budget.