June 2016 - Parks & Recreation - 47

Los Angeles Neighborhood Land Trust

Our study analyzed $2 billion of
Prop. 84 funding spent on 2,174
projects with identifiable local impacts in California communities. We
found decidedly mixed results. Our
study was not an audit of individual
projects. Nor did we examine purely
environmental benefits. We looked
at benefits for people and communities, and we found that when those
priorities were clearly spelled out,
funds were spent according to those
priorities. But, when priorities were
left vague, spending was not closely
aligned with those priorities.
Overall, although " local parks and
urban greening " were listed as priorities for Prop. 84, we found that communities that lack parks received less
funding than those that already have
parks.
We found that rural areas, with
lower population density, received
just as much funding as urban areas.
Residents in rural areas within a halfmile walking distance of funded projects saw $7,475 per capita in spending in their neighborhoods, while
residents in urban areas saw only
$209 in per-capita spending.
And, we found that less funding
was spent in disadvantaged communities, which were prioritized in several sections of the proposition, than
was spent in communities with higher median household income.
There was a bright spot in Prop. 84:
$400 million was set aside for competitive grants administered by the
California Department of Parks and
Recreation for " underserved communities " to create " parks in neighborhoods where none currently exist. "
The criteria and process for selecting
projects were carefully spelled out in
a separate law: AB 31, the Statewide
Park Development and Community
Revitalization Act of 2008, sponsored

Kids play at the opening of Faith and Hope Park, built by the Los Angeles Neighborhood
Land Trust with funding from Prop. 84.

by Sen. Kevin de León (D-CA-24),
then assembly member, now president pro-tem of the California State
Senate.
That worked. The money went to
the priorities approved by voters.
Looking ahead, a $3 billion parks
bond sponsored by assembly member Eduardo Garcia could be on the
statewide ballot in California this
fall. Sen. de León is also working on
a bill. Garcia's bill incorporates some
of the lessons of Prop. 84 - a third
of the money would be administered
under AB 31, and a good portion of
the funding would be distributed proportional to population.
That's a good start. People need to
be put into the equation for environmental bond spending, but it could
go further.
More of the funding could be explicitly prioritized for disadvantaged
communities that have not historically seen the benefits of spending on
parks - proportional to their population, at least, if not more because
of their greater need.
There should also be more explicit
articulation of priorities and criteria
for every section of funding - not
just for parks, but also for other con-

servation and natural resource protection projects.
And explicit requirements for better data reporting need to be written
into law so that we can look back at
how our money was spent and learn
how to do even better in the future.
The same thing could be said about
the 1,702 other similar funding measures passed around the country
during the past three decades, and,
more importantly, measures on the
ballot this year. At least $1.4 billion is
already at stake on upcoming ballots
in California, Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan and New Jersey.
But the real opportunity is to get
this right on parks and recreation
funding measures that have not yet
been finalized in cities, counties and
states nationwide. The key is in the
careful writing of ballot measures to
include clear priorities, explicit criteria and data-reporting requirements.
Results will follow.
To view the full report and an interactive view of the data, visit http://
environment.ucla.edu/prop84.
Jon Christensen is an Adjunct Assistant
Professor at the Institute of the Environment
and Sustainability at UCLA (jonchristensen@
ioes.ucla.edu).

W W W. PA R K S A N D R E C R E AT I O N . O R G | J U N E 2 0 1 6 |

Parks & Recreation

June 2016 - Parks & Recreation

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of June 2016 - Parks & Recreation