Our parks need more work

To the editor:

(re: “Age, neglect plague Vannie, Bronx’s ailing parks,” July 26)

You could just as well add other items to this excellent list of rich assets that need attention, including a broken birding/golf bridge, now closed to the public. The skate park. The pedestrian bridge across the Major Deegan.

None of these items are controversial, and yet the city seems to find it difficult to get funding for them. However, at the same time, it can find millions of dollars for the Parks Without Borders program. And just recently, to pave over the Putnam Trail that runs through a rare nature area. The mayor just added an infusion of tax dollars.

The Parks Without Borders program is not controversial, but the Putnam Trail project is. Many know that a rare ecosystem will not survive. So why is the city pouring millions into this and “feel good” projects, and not necessities?

The city and state are supposed to improve the health of wetlands, not allow them to continually erode. 

The parks department even agrees. In a study they did in 2013, they noted that development in the park has harmed its health over the years, and they posit that maybe agencies should get together to look for ways to remove asphalt from the park, which causes erosion, fragmentation and flash flooding.

We know the scientific data supports this view. Hardscape is the culprit behind flash flooding, pollution into our waterways, climate change, loss of biodiversity. Yet apparently government statements about having policies on these matters are just words.

And who knows how much this new additive pavement will cost over time? (It’s actually the most expensive thing you can do.) Many wouldn’t mind seeing taxpayer dollars going to a pedestrian bridge or replacing the birding/golf bridge, even if costs increased.

Not only is there a prioritizing issue, but to make sure the parks system has adequate funding, the city council and mayor must do more. Right now, dollars allocated to the parks system hovers around an embarrassingly low 0.6 percent of the city budget — and for an agency that oversees 14 percent of city land mass.

In the 1960s, this figure hovered around 1.4 percent. 

Some say raising the allocation to at least 1 percent would go far. And we know other cities do even more than that. Cleveland and Minneapolis, for instance, allocate 7 percent of their city budgets to their park systems. Seattle, a higher percentage as well.

The public should consider donating money to the conservancies, but we need more responsible stewardship from officials to prioritize projects using taxpayer money more wisely. 

The community board, instead of talking about how sad this situation is, should at least write a resolution charging the city councilman to do more about notching up the parks budget and reorienting focus to the necessities mentioned in this fine article. 

Suzanne Corber