February 6, 2007
Park Service Budget Bump to Benefit D.C.
DCist happened to attend the Department of the Interior's budget briefing yesterday, where we learned that the Administration has listed the "National Park Centennial Challenge" as one of its budget priorities for fiscal year 2008. This new project, which intends to improve the Nation's national parks, monuments, and other historical sites in preparation for the Park Service's centennial in 2016, comes with a large increase in spending: $290 million more than the current funding level. Plus, given our high concentration of Park sites, a good chunk of those funds will be coming home to D.C.: $3.95 million more that the last enacted funding level, just for parks in the District. That doesn't even include system-wide improvements that will benefit D.C. as well.
Photo from flickr user dbking.
Most of the funds are targeted to increasing services for Park visitors. For instance, there is a concerted effort to increase the cleanliness of restrooms along the National Mall, and to increase the number of trash receptacles around the monuments and walkways. They also plan to add ranger services to less well-known areas like the L.B.J. Grove which sits across the river, but is still part of D.C.
The Park Service is excited about of all this. Director Mary Bomar was moved to thank Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne from the floor for requesting the large budget increase. After the main announcement, she was staffing the Park Service booth herself, happily flipping through pages of budget numbers and rattling off descriptions of special projects to questioners. "This is the biggest budget ever for the National Park Service," Bomar told DCist, "and we're especially pleased to increase funding in the National Capital Region."
Granted, a good chunk of the budget increase will go to the monuments that many D.C. residents only visit when guests are in town, but there are budget increases that will benefit the locals as well. For instance, the Park Service will focus on improvements for the Baltimore-Washington and George Washington Parkways, the C & O Canal, and National Capital Parks-East which handles the decidedly non-touristy Capitol Hill parks, Anacostia Park, Fort Dupont Park, and the Kenilworth Aquatic Gardens. You Northwesties will be happy to learn that Rock Creek Park is slated for a big increase as well, with much of that funding bump to go towards improvements to the landscape and fountain repairs in Malcolm X/Meridian Hill Park.
The Park Police, which came under scrutiny last summer for several violent crimes on the National Mall, is also slated for a budget increase: $7.9 million above the current spending level. Not only will this provide for enhancements for the current force, but will also add 32 more officers to the beat nationwide. The Park Service didn't have the regional breakdown available, but one would hope that the Service would respond with D.C. area officers in order to support one of their biggest advocates.
These budget increases aren't necessarily a done deal, as the House and Senate Appropriations Committee must have their say throughout this year's spending debates; they could very well change the spending levels to reflect their own priorities. Are there any improvements you'd like to see to parks around the region? Are you excited as we are for the 2016 National Park Service Centennial?
|
Sounds good. Almost unbelievably good. Call me skeptical, but given this administration's focus I hope not too much of the bump gets siphoned off toward putting up bollards and the like.
Nice shot of Malcolm X/Meridian Hill park. The southern section of the park is one of the most serene places in downtown-ish DC, yet you hardly ever see anyone hanging around (besides folks looking to camp out/get anonymous sex). I would love to see greater use / caretaking of this section.
"Plus, given our high concentration of Park sites, a good chunk of those funds will be coming home to D.C.: $3.95 million more that the last enacted funding level, just for parks in the District. That doesn't even include system-wide improvements that will benefit D.C. as well."
That assumes that the Bush administration's budget proposal for Interior -- or at least this section -- will make it through Congress unscathed. And in the current budget climate, that's a VERY big assumption.
Way to swallow the White House spin whole, DCist.
That assumes that the Bush administration's budget proposal for Interior -- or at least this section -- will make it through Congress unscathed. And in the current budget climate, that's a VERY big assumption.
Way to swallow the White House spin whole, DCist.
keep:
Collen, I couldn't agree more! Once the weather warms up, you can expect to see me there, weirdos and neerdowells be damned!
Colleen-
I've lived along Malcolm X Park for over four years, and when I first moved in, those statements would be pretty true. The fountains weren't even operational, and a lot of the park was in disrepair, and few people liked to hang out there. But they've put a ton of work in over that time, and it's so much nicer than it was just a few years ago (let alone 10 years ago). As for people hanging out, I see people enjoying the park, both levels, all the time. Particularly on nice days on the weekend, I see a lot of folks enjoying the grassy, hilly areas of the lower level on a blanket.
Sure, it's not overcrowded with people, but that wouldn't really do much for the serenity, now would it?
This double naming thing is as awkward. How about Meridian X Park?
dcist adam -- you put that in the last paragraph, after gushing about what the program would do for d.c.
it's a nice idea -- but it's also a program in a budget that traditionally gets worked over pretty thoroughly in congress.
it's also a program for which the white house would depend significantly on private donors -- they're asking for $1 billion to come from outside donations over 10 years, out of a total of $3 billion proposed for the program over that time.
i appreciate where you're trying to go with this post, but a little more research would have been helpful. budget stories are not good material for amateur hour.
dcist adam -- you put that in the last paragraph, after gushing about what the program would do for d.c.
it's a nice idea -- but it's also a program in a budget that traditionally gets worked over pretty thoroughly in congress.
it's also a program for which the white house would depend significantly on private donors -- they're asking for $1 billion to come from outside donations over 10 years, out of a total of $3 billion proposed for the program over that time.
i appreciate where you're trying to go with this post, but a little more research would have been helpful. budget stories are not good material for amateur hour.
dcist adam -- you put that in the last paragraph, after gushing about what the program would do for d.c.
it's a nice idea -- but it's also a program in a budget that traditionally gets worked over pretty thoroughly in congress.
it's also a program for which the white house would depend significantly on private donors -- they're asking for $1 billion to come from outside donations over 10 years, out of a total of $3 billion proposed for the program over that time.
i appreciate where you're trying to go with this post, but a little more research would have been helpful. budget stories are not good material for amateur hour.
Well, I'm glad to see the new National Park pass price increase is going to *something good*. $50 to $80!
speaking of amateur hour, nice triple post keep...
Keep,
Interior's budget does get a good working over in Congress, and it's very possible that Congress will cut the budget quite a bit. This doesn't mean that the Park Service doesn't deserve credit for requesting a budget that will benefit Washington. You yourself say it's a nice idea.
As far as the 10 year-program, the FY 2008 budget is not predicated on the $1 billion from private donors immediately . This is the long term goal, but it's what they're asking for nonetheless. And it's not like they have no pull at all. (For those of you not familiar with the conversation, the Administration is proposing $1 billion over the next 10 years for the Centennial program, with $1 billion in matching funds for up to $1 billion in private donations. See www.doi.gov/budget/2008/index_for_2008.html for the whole document).
I'll be the last one to defend the Administration's budget tricks. Remember last year when they tried to balance the budget on ANWR receipts, which everyone knew would never pass congressional muster? That was ridiculous. $1 billion in private donations is pretty steep, but the National Park's are something that a lot of people support, people from all parts of the political spectrum. Though the accounting is a little fishy, this part of the budget isn't going to be as polarizing as a lot of parts of the Interior bill. Something tells me that Norm Dicks--whose state has 13 NPS sites, and whose district is slated to receive an extra $1.6 million in the budget--and Dianne Feinstein, (who has 30 NPS sites in her state, 16 of which will receive a total of $9 million more under this budget) aren't going to go nuts on slashing the NPS budget. The MMS? The BLM? That's a different story.
Despite shortcomings in the DOI budget (limited endangered species funding, increased resource extraction, embarrassingly low Indian program funding), the proposal to improve the National Parks isn't a bad one. You've probably been in some Parks recently--the ones I have are pretty run down. If they're aiming for a national shindig in National Parks in 2006, they really do need to start now.
I'm more of the mind that this admin (including some on our local council) are more inclined to use the parks as economic development tools and/or ways to channel resouces toward contributors than they are to maintain them for the sake of the general public. The most generous observation I'll make is that they are sometimes willing to allow private dollars to make up the funding shortfall in their budgets.
Also, the budget requires matching funds to get that money. Which may or may not happen.
I'd like to see just a wee tiny slice of the increased budget used to add underwater lights to the Dupont Circle fountain.
Michael: Why not shoot for the stars and ask that part of this funding go to covering the Connecticut Ave underpasses with green roofs? In addition to creating more parkland, it would make it much easier for pedestrians to cross that avenue to the North and South of the Dupont Circle, which it could really help CT Ave regain its status as a premier downtown shopping corridor.
I love that idea Mark (green roofs over Dupont Circle) - Do you claim ownership of it? I don't know if that area qualifies under this bill, but if the money came from somewhere else (DC's huge surplus), t'would be just as nice!
DC area parks are still underfunded, happy words to the contrary notwithstanding. You can see a rather marked difference just by going from the park-like, lavishly planted and meticulously maintained settings around the Senate office buildings South of Union Station, then crossing over 2nd Street, at 2nd and D NE. There's a little pocket park there, due East of 2nd Street, on the 'residential' side of the street. It's owned and managed by National Park Service. But it's a shitbox. Absolutely no landscaping, barren dirt patches, not a new tree planted for years, several decrepit old benches, and, lately, a huge homeless encampment. The message couldn't be more obvious - the Senators and staff get beautiful gardens, the actual taxpaying residents get crap.
Best part of this post is the association of Meridian/Malcolm X Park with NPS. If some powerful DC non-profits get their way the DC government will be asking that the park be turned over to DC Parks and Recreation.
Which will be great for the anonymous sex in under-utilized spaces crowd; but won't do much good for the park, the fountains, the community space, or the general well-being of the neighborhood.
Obviously this is just pie in the sky since NPS is already averse to handing more land over to the city, but it frightens me nonetheless.
NB- no offense to the Anonymous Sex In Public Spaces crowd.
DCster: No, I don't claim ownership of the idea. It's been kicked about for some time. It's in my mind of late because I recently was told the only way the city could do it was through selling the air rights over the Connecticut Ave underpasses which, of course, would result in buildings in the middle of CT Ave, rather than the parkland. That would probably make it a non-starter.
From my limited perspective, DC's surplus doesn't seem destined to go to things like this. The prior admin favored a quid pro quo public private model for infrastructure renovation- they liked projects to be as cash-neutral or positive as possible. Perhaps the new admin will bring with it new priorities, but there have been a lot of deferred budget demands.
Regardless, the Feds built the Dupont Circle underpass to facilitate commuter traffic. It’s done that well, but one of the big negative effects was to fragment what was then a premier downtown commercial corridor. Fed money should repair that damage. They could do that, give us a great commercial corridor, improve pedestrian safety, and give us more parkland at the same time. It would only take two green roofs...