Public Parks Privatization: Cost Saver or Failed Mission?

By Matthew Amelung

The existence of public parks for our enjoyment is often taken for granted. With a host of public parks at the local, state, and national levels, citizens have a multitude of options for recreation. Yet, with increasing financial pressures and subsequent budget cuts at all levels of government, the existence of these recreational opportunities is coming under fire, much like many other government-funded programs.

At the state level, massive cuts to public parks are being made to keep the system afloat. California’s woes are a prime example of this defunding. Its Department of Parks and Recreation cut $22 million of its parks budget from 2009-2011, leading to the closure of 70 of the state’s 278 parks by July 2011 (Sankin, 2012).

These cuts are likely to continue unless some sort of alternative solution is found. One such policy reform quietly taking shape is public parks privatization. Beckwith (1981) defines public parks privatization in the following way: “For our purposes, it will be assumed that public ownership of parks will continue and that privatization entails the contracting out of support services to private firms operating for profit. By contracting out, the governmental unit has not shed its responsibilities for providing park services. It has, rather, by means of traditional contract-law principles, allocated its tax revenues to a low-bidding private firm rather than to its own employees.”

To some degree, this type of privatization has already been happening for a number of years. Many public parks have sub-contracted certain aspects of the parks systems – concessions, for instance – out to for-profit firms to manage.  In California, 200 for-profit firms are contracted to provide such services and saved the Parks Department $12.5 million in 2011 (Sankin, 2012). However, when it comes to privatizing an ENTIRE public parks system, such a bold step has yet to be made.

Before we explore why public parks privatization is lauded as an effective cost-savings measure—as well as the reasons some vehemently oppose it—let’s take a look at the history of our country’s public parks system. According to Beckwith (1981), “governmental ownership of parkland is a relatively recent phenomenon.” In the early- to mid-nineteenth century, the government was poised to sell as much of its public lands as possible. However, “…a new sense of scarcity arose because of the perceived depletion of natural resources” and subsequently, the National Park Service was established in 1916 (Beckwith, 1981). The public parks movement was also spurred by the ideal of egalitarianism, as supporters of conservation “demanded that the remaining public lands be withdrawn from the market and reserved for conservation” (Beckwith, 1981).

Today, the National Park Service maintains 84,000,000 acres of land and 397 national parks (“About Us,” 2012). These figures do not include the numerous public parks operated at the state and municipal levels. However, decades of conservation efforts are at risk of being jeopardized due to ever-increasing budget cuts. As stated earlier, public parks privatization has been cited as a potential solution to these budget shortfalls. The key reason is the proven cost-effectiveness of privately run parks over publicly run parks.

The privatization of public parks accomplishes cost savings in a few ways. First, there are staffing savings. Private firms can pay employees less than government agencies, including a decrease in employee benefits. Beckwith (1981) even proposes increasing the number of volunteers working at privatized parks as a way to cut costs, which he calls the independent sector. He defends this recommendation by stating: “There is no presumption that those who work in publicly owned parks must be public employees. Accordingly, the most tentative step in the privatization of public parks would be to increase the recruitment of volunteers to help manage the parks, particularly in the more accessible municipal parks. This practice is already widespread.”

In general, when services are contracted out to more bottom-line oriented, private firms, cost savings often result. As Beckwith (1981) puts it, “Unlike a governmental bureaucracy, which has little incentive to hold down costs, competitive private firms are driven to minimize costs in order to survive and prosper in the marketplace. Public parks can only benefit from this wider range of potential suppliers and their impetus toward efficiency."

However, even with these alleged cost savings, public parks privatization also has several pitfalls. First, essentially selling out a public park to a profit-oriented firm could mean abandoning the mission of a public park. Based on the reasons for their initial creation, public parks are not supposed to be profit-makers, but rather a conservation effort that can also provide recreational enjoyment. As California State Senator Noreen Evans (D) told The Huffington Post, “Once you privatize a park, you change the essential mission of the park -- it becomes about making a profit. My own philosophy is that a state park should be owned and operated by the public. Any time you turn even a portion of a state park away from public control, you always have the problem that the park's interest becomes inconsistent with serving the public.”

In addition to abandoning the egalitarian mission of public parks, privatization also cuts costs in ways that could be viewed as unethical. The meager salaries and benefits that may be offered by private firms produce cost savings to the detriment of staff, who may no longer receive livable wages. These ethical concerns should not be forgotten in our quest to save the public parks system.

References

“About Us.” (2012). National Park Service. Retrieved from http://www.nps.gov/aboutus/index.htm

Beckwith, J.P. (1981). Parks, Property Rights, and the Possibilities of the Private Law. The Cato Journal, 1(2). Retrieved from http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj1n2-6.html

Sankin, A. (2012). California Park Privatization: Report Suggests Operation Of State Parks By Private, For-Profit Firms. The Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/08/california-park-privatization_n_1333402.html