Norton wants to push Park Service to be more responsive

Public Spaces

Norton wants to push Park Service to be more responsive

by David Alpert • July 26, 2011 1:30 pm

Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton has joined the chorus of voices calling for the National Park Service to be more flexible and work better with local communities to manage their many DC parks, large and small.

Photo by ElvertBarnes on Flickr.

On Sunday, the Post published an op-ed I wrote summarizing the issues with the Park Service. Chief among them is the frequent refrain that they have to apply the exact same policies to all parks nationwide, regardless of size or context.

This excuse has come up repeatedly. It's a factor in blocking Capital Bikeshare on the Mall. It's an obstacle to Bryant Park-like sandwich kiosks in Mount Vernon Square. And it forces community groups wanting to put on events in neighborhood parks to jump through ridiculous hoops.

There's no reason the Park Service actually has to treat every park the same, from the tiny triangle across Q Street from Dupont Circle (where they've delayed for years efforts to fix deteriorating grass and benches) to the enormous Yellowstone. I also noted that the General Service Administration, a typically slower-moving organization that has recently exhibited refreshingly forward-thinking sustainability practices, created a separate office to handle urban facilities.

Congresswoman Norton and her staff have apparently seen the coverage of these problems. She put out a press release linking up the Capital Bikeshare with another issue, NPS's reluctance to enter into public-private partnerships for DC's golf courses. Her press release says:

Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) will offer an amendment today to the Interior Department Appropriations bill that requires the National Park Service (NPS) to study ways to make NPS parks in the District and throughout the nation more responsive to the diverse park communities they serve. The study is the first step towards changing current NPS policy that inflexibly treats all parks the same from, Yosemite to Dupont Circle Park.
The Congresswoman has tried unsuccessfully to get important changes for parks in the District, including allowing Capital Bikeshare stations on or near parks and permitting the three golf courses in the District to be run as a public-private partnership. Both of these examples have run into existing concession concerns. However, Norton said, "NPS could negotiate concession agreements that accommodate Capital Bikeshare in the future.
Moreover, another particularly harmful example of inflexibility is NPS insistence on concession contracts that do not allow capital investment, resulting in astonishing deterioration of invaluable, capital-intensive golf courses in the District. Inflexible, one size fits all policies keep Americans from using our parks for compatible purposes, such as bike stations, or worse, condemning unique iconic resources to inevitable decline.

Golf courses also aren't the only places NPS could benefit from public-private partnerships. Richard Layman wrote, "For 10 years the Downtown BID has been trying to get MOUs with the NPS to manage the downtown federal parks such as at McPherson Square or Franklin Square, to manage them more like how similar facilities (but not controlled by the federal government) are managed in New York City."

Some neighborhood organizations have also been looking into the potential to do the same with their local parks. Downtown BID officials wouldn't comment on the issue since they want to maintain a positive working relationship with NPS.

I've collected a lot of stories about NPS decisions that let bureaucratic process trump sensible and sustainable policies. If you have some such experiences, or would like to participate in meetings with other frustrated people, NPS officials, or members of Congress, please get in touch.

18 comments

Tags: DC, Eleanor Holmes Norton, golf courses, NPS, parks

Local parks need local government (Jan 2, 2008)
Union Station latest photo flashpoint (Jun 3, 2008)
How can Obama really do more for DC? (Dec 2, 2010)
Who is Peter May, and why is the National Park Service anti-urban? (Dec 10, 2008)
Park Service says no bike sharing on National Mall (Jul 19, 2011)

David Alpert is the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Greater Greater Washington and Greater Greater Education. He worked as a Product Manager for Google for six years and has lived in the Boston, San Francisco, and New York metro areas in addition to Washington, DC. He loves the area which is, in many ways, greater than those others, and wants to see it become even greater.

Comments
Add a comment »

Regarding that Q Street Triangle Park, the community (DCCA and Main Streets) has had funds provided by a developer in the bank for years. The NPS has made it difficult to spend those funds on park improvements.

by Rob Halligan on Jul 26, 2011 1:45 pm • link • report

What is the public/ private partnership on the golf courses?

But otherwise this is quite right

by Charlie on Jul 26, 2011 2:01 pm • link • report

In your editorial, you mention that Pierre L'Enfant himself wanted DC's squares and circles to be community gathering places. Do you have a good reference for this? I don't doubt it at all, but am interested in reliable sources about L'Enfant and his plan.

by thm on Jul 26, 2011 2:08 pm • link • report

@thm, I don't have the exact references in front of me, but two recent works on L'enfant, Washington Burning and Grand Avenues, both reference L'enfant's desire to see the squares and circles as community places. Both works have extensive bibliographies and notes. L'enfant, in fact, had hoped that each state would "adopt" a square, locating their delegations and whatnot around their square, spurring development and fostering competition between states as to who could attract successful business ventures and creating attractive public spaces.

by Birdie on Jul 26, 2011 2:16 pm • link • report

The National Park Service's operations in Washington DC are the epitome of dysfunctional bureaucracy.

by Ron on Jul 26, 2011 2:29 pm • link • report

First of all, Eleanor Holmes Norton has no business getting involved here. This is a matter for the National Park Service. On the off chance the National Park Service's performance in the District should ever be less than perfect, oversight should be left to the real members of Congress.

Second, if we are going to change the park system for a small number of District residents, we should make a change that would enable all Americans to enjoy the parks, by paving them over and turning them into roadways. Not only would this enable more people to enjoy the parks, it would help keep trees from interfering with Washington's famous monumental sightlines. Just imagine the stellar view of the Capitol that would spread out before a Maryland commuter coming down the 16-lane highway where Meridian Hill Park used to be!

by Fake Lance on Jul 26, 2011 2:48 pm • link • report

John Muir just turned over in his grave.

by karl on Jul 26, 2011 3:01 pm • link • report

Not only is the Park Service lying when they say that they have to apply the same rules to all their parks, but they KNOW they're lying. The proof is 36 CFR 7.96 - National Capital Region.
NPS wrote 36 CFR 7.96, and like any agency, they can amend it however they like so long as the amendments are supported by the evidence and not an arbitrary and capricious abuse of discretion. That's enormous latitude, especially when you consider that most ordinary people would say that arresting someone for taking photographs or dancing in a national park is the epitome of "capricious abuse of discretion."

by tom veil on Jul 26, 2011 3:05 pm • link • report

Bravo Fake Lance.

by cmc on Jul 26, 2011 3:24 pm • link • report

It might be helpful to look at this issue as not specific or particular to DC, especially given that NPS also has parks in the downtowns of other major cities: Independence Park in Philadelphia, Golden Gate in SF, Jefferson National Expansion (the Arch) in St Louis, and San Antonio Missions, to name a few. If people in these cities share some of the same issues or concerns that we have here in Washington (albeit ours are on a larger scale), we may have more success in achieving a change in behavior on the part of the Park Service.

by Dennis in DC on Jul 26, 2011 3:53 pm • link • report

For what it's worth, for events that we've put on in the federal parks: dealing with NPS has been far easier than DC's own DPR... er, apart from the brutally expensive police details that have been required from us on one occasion. Other than that they've been quick & responsive.

by Bossi on Jul 26, 2011 4:41 pm • link • report

I just hope there's strong oversight of any public/private partnership on city golf courses. It would be an easy way for a councilmember with sports connections to help push through a well-connected vendor...

by Geoffrey Hatchard on Jul 26, 2011 7:32 pm • link • report

My latest thought about this is that it is doubly hard for NPS to be flexible with parks in DC because they are unable to escape incredibly micro-managed oversight from both the Exec. and Legislative Branches, because in DC is where all the potential overseers are already based.

I don't know enough about how NPS functions to learn about what opportunities there are to open up some interstices.

Again, I argue that if DC would step up in terms of parks planning and outline its preferences, that would help open up and broaden parameters for discussion.

OTOH, my experience in Balt. County demonstrated to me that "subsidiary" governments like a county vis-a-vis the state, don't like to put into plans things that they can't change directly, such as state policy. (I had a section outlining gaps and defects in state policies in terms of how they impacted local bike and pedestrian planning and practice, but my boss excised it from the plan.)

But without outlining the problems in a systematic way, they never get addressed.

WRT Bossi's point about DC DPR, he's right. I've written plenty about the failure to have a comprehensive master plan for the parks and rec. dept. here. In its own way, it shouldn't be a surprise, as it's another illustration of my line that "big government trickles down and shapes the local government in its image." NPS is disconnected from its local constituency. The DC DPR takes that as best practice and does the same thing.

by Richard Layman on Jul 26, 2011 7:40 pm • link • report

@Richard Layman: Great points, but I question your final paragraph. DPR may be unresponsive or frustrating to work with, but is there anything to substantiate your claim that this disdain for constituents is a result of DPR modeling itself on NPS? Or is it, more simply, a function of poor management at DPR? There are plenty of city agencies both good and bad. I don't take their bureaucratic inclinations to be a direct result of an organizational culture at their federal equivalents. If you have examples of this "trickle down" theory, I'd be curious to hear more.

To answer my own question by providing one example: because it's easier to say "no" to a reasonable request and cite security fears than to actually deal with the issue, DC HSEMA stymied Feet in the Street while DHS (with an assist from NCPC and GSA) stymied mixed-use development near St. E's. But establishing a causation link for agency mindsets is still difficult.

by Stephen Miller on Jul 26, 2011 10:43 pm • link • report

Thanks much for your piece on the NPS. As a volunteer for the NPS on the National Mall nothing embarrases me more than telling a visitor that we have no public transportation available that can carry them from one end of the park to another. The number 13 Metrobus that used to run on weekends is long gone and the Circulator that took folks around half of the park at least is extinct also. All of this because of a contract with a company offering day long tours. Not all of our visitors want - or have the time for - an all day hop-on hop-off tour and merely want to get to from one site to another. Truly embarrasing for the Nation's Capitol.

by Dan K. on Jul 27, 2011 10:14 am • link • report

The Triangle Park will begin this fall, actually: the design has been approved, the contractor selected Firvida), and the NPS will be mailing notices to 225 adjoining property owners and businesses beginning next week. Rob is slightly incorrect in saying we've had the funds in place "for years." the PUD was years ago, but the $69k in funds don't come along until well after the PUD construction project is 100% complete.

We received the funds less than two years ago, and wisely didn't begin planning until they arrived (with volunteers doing the project management). The NPS has a few staff changes over the last 14 months, but is now quite fair and consistent with their approach, even creating a new permitting process for us.

Its too bad that the author did not contact Dupont Main Streets to interview us on the current status of the Triangle Park or our relationship with the NPS before posting this piece.

Paul Williams
Exec Director, Dupont Main Streets

by Paul Williams on Jul 27, 2011 12:03 pm • link • report

Stephen Miller--it's a hypothesis based on observation. WRT DPR, not really, with regard to the convoluted way DC Government works at both the executive and legislative branch level, yes. The best example is HSEMA. Does a city, even DC, really need to model the provision of emergency management after the Federal Dept. of Homeland Security.

The real problem with the parks department comes from other areas: (1) DC's failure to think more innovatively about planning generally; (2) the lack of higher govt. standards (e.g., the State of Maryland requires local jurisdictions to do parks master plans, so all the jurisdictions in Maryland subject to planning laws have such plans; and (3) the failure of DC elected officials to take the parks mission seriously, therefore parks professionals aren't typically selected to be directors of the agency, and the agency doesn't have a parks master plan (one was created during the Williams Administration but was never publicly released).

FWIW, this problem of using the parks dept. as an agency source of jobs and patronage appointments isn't unique to DC. In Baltimore County e.g., the director is usually appointed by the County Executive and is politically connected, without a background in parks planning and/or operations.

by Richard Layman on Jul 27, 2011 12:48 pm • link • report

Oh, wrt "Feet in the Street," sure HSEMA was an issue, but DDOT could have picked a way better location and not had the problem. A couple years ago, I suggested Mass. Ave. from Mt. Vernon Square to Dupont Circle, with the main numbered cross streets remaining open.

Frankly Mass. Ave. is way better, more central, more visible, than PA Ave.

- http://urbanplacesandspaces.blogspot.com/2010/08/speaking-of-sunday-streets.html

by Richard Layman on Jul 27, 2011 12:54 pm • link • report