LEXIS-NEXIS® Congressional Universe-Document

Search Terms: "Conservation and Reinvestment Act", House or Senate or Joint

Document 82 of 92.

View Related Topics

MARCH 9, 1999, TUESDAY

SECTION: IN THE NEWS

LENGTH: 2648 words

HEADLINE: PREPARED TESTIMONY OF
THE HONORABLE DON YOUNG
CHAIRMAN
BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
SUBJECT - (H.R. 70I) CONSERVATION AND REINVESTMENT ACT
OF 1999
(H.R. 798) RESOURCES ACT 2000

BODY:

I have wrestled with the best way to introduce my comments for this testimony, primarily because I am somewhat intimidated by the magnitude of this moment, and also because I have longed to be here doing just this for many years. I have been involved in the provision of leisure services for the past 23 years as a graduate of Eastern Michigan University. I walked out of college knowing that the career path I had chosen would give me the chance to make a difference in peoples lives.
I chose public parks and recreation because I believed then, as I do now, that of all of the services that local government provides, recreation is the only one that touches people directly and personally. It is the service of choice, the creator of memories, and the barometer of the quality of life. I presently serve the sixth largest county in the United States. We are celebrating an 80 year history of providing leisure service to the residents of Wayne County. This history is there only because of a few pioneering visionaries who determined that to set aside park lands for the future was important. This sentiment can be echoed throughout the country, especially in our urban areas where the only park lands are those acquired through donations or grants.
The Land and Water Conservation Fund and Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program can be found at the center of the development of many of the great facilities in many areas of the country. In most of the major cities, parks programs were enhanced only when a source of funds outside of the normal financing process was identified. The evidence of this is the overwhelming number of grant applications to every dollar that is available, whether through federal, state, private, or foundations.
I took the opportunity to talk with some of my peers throughout the country and, quite frankly, was not surprised to find that most of us have the same opinion. In communities all across the country, large and small, city and county, regional and state parks systems; we all find ourselves in competition for funding with other agencies within our organizations. Many of us have the constant battle to validate investment in recreation in comparison to commitments to public safety. It has even become fashionable to use terms like prevention and alternatives when describing law enforcement, when this is really the natural domain of the parks and recreation profession. It is the local recreation program that identifies the leadership qualities of the gang member and redirects it to a positive use, that mines the caves of the shy and withdrawn and inspires great talent. The most effective deterrent to negative leisure pursuits is the infusion of positive programming, The most aggressive deterrent to the negative social elements in a park is a family picnic.Nowhere is the impact of recreation more visible than in the local, county, and state parks. It is these areas that the study commissioned in 1985, by President Ronald Reagan's COMMISSION ON AMERICANS OUTDOORS, identified as the opportunity of first response to educate, break barriers, and enhance appreciation of the nation's natural resources. In fact, a great parallel was drawn showing that the recreational desires of residents of rural, suburban, urban areas was essentially the same. These desires changed with the cultures and exposures, but had the same essence of enjoyment at heart.
This should come as no surprise, especially in these clays of expanding urbanization. It is no secret that the definition of urban has changed significantly over the recent years. During this time period, the recognized value of greenspace as a component of healthy community environments has become a staple in community planning.
In the late 1850's, when the Olmstead tradition of New York's Central Park became the icon of green space protection, the other major cities were following suit, Philadelphia's Fairmount Park, Chicago's South Park, and Detroit's Belle Isle were representative of good government leadership in providing for regional type facilities. This effort was followed by the development of playground in Boston and other large cities that recognized the need for recreation for urban youth.
The growth of communities throughout the country followed the recipe of big cities, with large regional parks and smaller recreation programs on a localized basis. These were funded through gifts and donations. The communities were not providing services consistently until after World War II. Between the years of 1951 and 1974, the country experienced both explosive growth in services, however, it also became apparent that many of the older facilities were beginning to show deterioration and lack of investment. Communities were struggling to provide basic services as their audiences grew by leaps and bounds. It was evident that some assistance was necessary for these critical needs. Several agencies engaged in study of the situation and the following reports were produced:
1962-OUTDOOR RECREATION RESOURCES REVIEW COMMISSION REPORT established the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation (BOP,) and the Land and Water Conservation Fund(LWCF).
1970- BOR produced THE RECREATION IMPERATIVE, the first nationwide outdoor recreation plan. Supported by a special study of urban recreation in 1972 by HUD, this report suggested that " ... up to 75 percent of the LWCF could be used to support the day use of major urban areas and at least 30 percent of the funds should serve the central city needs." This recommendation was not followed with action, but with more studies.
1963-Department of Interior published the NATIONAL URBAN RECREATION STUDY, which chronicled serious deficiencies in urban recreation nationwide, within the most serious needs in the inner cores of the nations largest cities which had demonstrated an inability to meet these needs without outside assistance.
I could continue with this mantra of painful recitations with studies that are as recent as last year, with much of the same results. However we find ourselves with an unprecedented opportunity. We, you, have the chance right now to take the place of the visionaries of the past and support a process that will provide for development, renovation, and enhancement of critical recreation resources in important living spaces throughout this country.A great value of the LWCF and UPARR funds is the fact that local agencies must make an appropriate commitment to the investment to take advantage of the funds. Most projects would only take place if there were dollars available outside of the normal funding process. These funds, along with local match, make for the most successful return on investment that government can make in the quality of life of the citizens of this country.
A great example of this can be found in Wayne County, Michigan. The largest city in the county of Wayne is the City of Detroit. For it's entire eighty year history, Wayne County, as a result of it's development, only provided park facilities in suburban areas. This cannot be considered a criticism, considering that all of the parks had been donated or acquired as a result of county road development and expansion. The Wayne County Parks restoration story is a unique one, but significant to the moment because it included an effort, for the first time in it's history, to develop a dedicated source of funding. Part of this plan included a proposal to invest a substantial amount of the millage proceeds in the City of Detroit.

The project was identified when City of Detroit Parks and Recreation Director Ernest Burkeen and I talked about possibilities in the city.
Chandler Park is one of the oldest and largest parks in the city and rests in one of it's most impoverished areas. The park is bordered by one of the oldest housing development in the country and both it and the park had fallen into grave disrepair. A study had been conducted to determine the most critical recreational need for the area. This study determined that some type of aquatic facility was necessary. The leadership of Wayne County, CEO Edward H. McNamara and his staff met with Mayor Dennis Archer and his staff, forging the plan to invest in a multimillion dollar family aquatic center in this park.
The park was a magnet for inappropriate activities, ranging from substance abuses of all sorts, gang banging, and even nude dancing on hoods of cars. Needless to say, it was not a family park. Police calls were recorded at one of the highest levels in the city in Chandler Park. The neighborhood was up in arms and dissatisfaction was the name of the game.
A number of community forums and neighborhood meetings suggested that there was overwhelming support for the project. The elected officials of Wayne County and the City of Detroit worked with us to lease a portion of the park and construct the aquatic center. Immediately after ground breaking, we began to notice a shift in the culture of activities that occurred in the park. What we see now is almost idyllic in nature, a complete culture change as a result of that facility, and police calls almost insignificant.
This is a true success story that could not have happened if a source of funds outside of the normal funding process had not become available. There also had to be political will and a process to make it happen. These elements existed in Wayne County for that instance, and some others, but should exist all across America.
In fact, the format and program is there, Since the inception of the LWCF and UPARR, these funds have served as a ray of hope for the providers of public recreation. There are not many sources outside of normal funding processes that are dedicated specifically for public parks and recreation. These not only do that, but inspired the same kind of activity in state and local government throughout the country. They served as catalysts for local investment in the quality of life of communities. Some projects would never happen without the 50% match of the LWCF or UPARR. Some communities would have no recreation center, no sports fields, no open space. Historic areas would not be preserved, the legacy of a national recreation infrastructure would not be protected.
I cannot impress upon you enough the intense needs for stateside funding at full levels, and if possible permanent status off budget. The number of projects would be overwhelming, so much that it would seem like creative writing 101. For example, a 1995 survey by the National Recreation and Park association identified capital investment needs for parks and recreation from the period 1995-1999. Local agencies alone will require a nationwide total of $27.7 billion for rehabilitation, land acquisition, and new construction. Less than half of that sum is currently identified as potentially available.
A recent national survey of local and state recreation and parks agencies yielded an immediate need for $1.7 billion to support 1,450 projects. This response occurred within a 6-week period. Last year in the Michigan there were $107 million in grant requests, but only $25 mil were approved. This is not an atypical year for programs that the voters approved, and are very proud of. Nothing can underscore this need any more than a response like this. There are even more examples of unmet needs that we can cite:
Illinois- the cost of land is skyrocketing, making it difficult to protect valuable woodlands from development. Nature preserves, forest preserves, and park districts are losing the battle with developers because they can't compete with their unlimited resources or their ability to quickly respond to opportunities.
Nebraska- a very rural state where most communities have a population of less than 1000 people. Their ballfields were developed with LWCF funds in the early years without lights. With only $100k allocated to the state, unlit ballfields was the best that could be done. Unlike some communities, softball is still one of the most important public recreation activities in Nebraska. The unmet need there is to have those fields lighted, but there are no ready funds to undertake that effort.
Wisconsin- there is an unmet need in Wisconsin that register somewhere near $8mil, according to some sources. A prime example is a 15 year old project in Dane county that involves the acquisition of some 3500 acres of prime open space for recreation purposes. The local appropriations process does not include funds beyond day to day operations and normal renovations.
There is the assumption that states and local communities are enjoying budget surpluses and unlimited funding opportunities. In fact those surpluses are paper for the most part, and are managed by limiting tax exposure by placing ceilings and other restrictions. In fact, the issue of funding from the federal level has been raised on the basis of responsibility. So then, there is the query of" why should federal dollars be spent on what seems clearly to be local and state responsibilities.?"
First of all, the federal government will benefit because this effort will take the pressure off of the federal government to create new federal lands for open space protection and recreation. This comes at a time when the federal programs are experiencing pressure in areas of maintenance, operations, and capital improvements.Secondly, the two biggest items facing the nation are crime prevention and health care costs. Investments in park and recreation facilities and programs is a direct counter to those expenditures. The evidence irrefutable. Consider this notion, the $35k that it will take to finance one incarceration will fund staff, equipment, and supplies for a small community recreation program.
The president is talking about livability, especially in urban areas. Critical urban areas must be made livable, with recreation as a prime component in the decision making process for corporate and family relocation. There is no better investment for local government than in the quality of life. In many communities, youth assistance programs are becoming the best method of promotion for a communities status as a livable city.
There are 43 communities in Wayne County. Some of them have experienced the highs and lows of urban renewal to the point that now they area struggling to stay alive. Many of these communities are looking to the county to provide support for their failing parks and recreation systems. We have all of the warm feelings and ideas that can be proffered at this time, however, resources are limited to what we can find allocated in our own budgets. This is the place, in the past, where the LWCF and UPARR have come to the rescue with grants that helped these communities. The most amazing thing is that, each grant requires a substantial local match. This match encourages the initial investment as well as the long term allocation to maintain the facilities. Think of these programs as catalyst for local government investment in the quality of life enhancements that help these communities stay alive.
Today, our nation is poised on one of those pinnacles that faced the millennium leaders of our past. This is a moment of destiny that will establish a real agenda for the quality of life of Americans. This is the initiative that we expected from President Reagan's Commission on Americans Outdoors, from the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, from the legislation that created the Land and Water Conservation Fund and Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program.
This is the instance where the phrase "CARPE DIEM-SIEZE THE DAY" makes all of the sense in the world. I trust that you will make historic decisions for now and the future. Support funding these critical programs at their full levels for the first time in our recent history. Take the bold step for tomorrow, today.
END

LOAD-DATE: March 12, 1999

Document 82 of 92.


Search Terms: "Conservation and Reinvestment Act", House or Senate or Joint
To narrow your search, please enter a word or phrase: