Last week was very eventful. Wednesday (6/27) I represented Council Member Brewer at a report release and panel discussion commissioned by the Citizens Budget Committee and the New Yorkers for Parks. The report was titled: "Making the Most of Our Parks" and involved an examination (beginning in 2006)of all NYC's parks in terms of acceptability of conditions, generated revenue, staffing, etc. The goal of the report was to examine the progress and change within NYC's park system since its worst point (the early 90's). The report emphasized the enormous positive change in NYC's parks and the significant increase in the size of the park system - but also highlighted some structural issues that contribute to lingering shortcomings and failures in the park system

The meeting commenced with a summary of the report findings and the associated conclusions. Emphasis was placed on: a) the persistent discrepancies in quality of park maintenance between higher income and lower income neighborhoods (though this gap has narrowed between 1994 and 2006); b) potential for greater revenue to be made in parks, and the need to create incentives to increase park-generated revenue; c) lack of, and need for, a comprehensive (inclusive of all types of park space) strategic expansion and development plan; d) the lack of, and need for, an objective, standardized measure of park use and efficiency; e) the importance of the private non-profit and Department of Parks and Recreation relationship (non-profits spend over $100 million on parks and contribute to oversight and maintenance of parks), and the need to have consistent guidelines for dealing with non-profits and revenue sharing, maintenance efforts, capital funding, and funding for operation and maintenance staff.

Following the presentation of the report results there was a panel discussion during which members of the audience and members of the panel discussed the implications of the findings and raised questions about the recommendations offered by the report. Central issues were: a) the issue of encouraging revenue making in parks and the possibility of allowing parks to directly keep a portion of that revenue (at what point do you draw the line? What will the impact be on park experience? What will the revenues be used for?); b) How will the status of the parks be impacted by Bloomberg leaving? How can we ensure the continued progress over the next 10-15 years?; c) Need to bring all parks up to acceptable status and to focus on lower income neighborhoods; d) the issue of capital spending versus expense maintenance spending – why is there not more money spent on maintenance to prevent the need for larger capital investments?; e)issues with turning parks into a source of revenue (could possibly increase the discrepancies in resources between parks in high versus low income neighborhoods, could significantly alter the park experience if boutiques, advertising, etc were to invade).

After this meeting (which was really interesting - I have never examined parks through a social/economic/political lens), I went to a Stated Council Meeting in City Hall. Stated meetings occur about twice a month and are mandatory for all Council Members. During the meeting there is opportunity for Proclamations and Citations to be made for notable citizens, organizations, etc., and then the Council votes on local bills. The bills up for vote are presented and there is time to voice concerns and arguments against/ for the bills. During this meeting there was a revolutionary campaign finance bill up for vote (which incidentally was signed into law this Tuesday by Mayor Bloomberg-and I was there:-)), which would drastically limit the amount of campaign contributions candidates are allowed to accept. While the bill aimed to level the playing field for candidates with less money, the minority in opposition to the bill felt it would do the opposite by favoring candidates with large personal wealth to put into their campaign. Other bills which passed included a complete revamping of the city's building code (this was also signed into law Tuesday morning).