National Park Service as operator of local parks in DC

I know the argument that because the District of Columbia is the National Capital, park and urban design features should be operated by the federal government as an element of beautification.  After all, that's how it's done in Paris ("Why Paris Works," New York Times Magazine, 1992).  And in cities like Brasilia and Canberra, which are dedicated national capitals.

But in the US, antipathy within government (the Republicans don't believe in government being legitimate) about governance and anti-Washington sentiment means that the necessary monies to fund such infrastructure and services is never provided, unlike Paris.

I have made the point for a long time that locally serving parks and features in DC that are run by the National Park Service should revert to DC ("Defining National Park Service installations in DC as locally or nationally serving," 2019, "Yes, the National Park Service shouldn't be paying to maintain major commuter roads and bridges in the DC area," 2019).

Not that DC would adequately maintain them either and this isn't the only area where DC should pick up the costs and programs serving the city that the federal government runs ("3 ways to honor D.C. autonomy and relieve the federal treasury," Washington Post).  

DC like most governments isn't good at providing extranormal services to maintain public places, which is why business improvement districts have been created to provide such care in commercial districts like Downtown.  

WRT local governments not being good at providing extranormal service see "The Life and Death of a Masterpiece:  What went wrong with a 1988 park by the late Dan Kiley, and what can we learn from its imminent demolition?," Landscape Architecture, 2004.  Another example of a park space that was demolished because it exceeded the capacity of the local government is the Long Beach Civic Center in California.  But there are many others.

People stand next to the fountain in Dupont Circle as the water flows Thursday. The National Park Service recently turned the water on in the fountain after repairs were made. (Matt McClain/The Washington Post)

There is a letter to the editor in the Washington Post, "Dupont fountain is an example of NPS’s failure to plan," in response to an article about the Dupont Circle Fountain, and how part of it has been fixed so water is flowing, but another part needs to be fixed so it will be shut down.  

The author avers this is poor planning, and the first response in the comments makes the point about funding not being being provided, but scraped together in the midst of a shortage and many other priorities.

(Note sometimes it is poor planning, lack of coordination, etc.  E.g., DC paid to repave the street behind our house, while knowing that Pepco was scheduled to tear up for re-laying of transmission lines, but because the money was allocated they went ahead.)

Another comment is about not having the money to repair Memorial Bridge after an errant car took out some balustrades.  But Memorial Bridge probably should primarily be maintained by DC, although the argument can be made it's part of the National Mall, but it connects DC and Virginia, etc.

But then the next comment is yes, you're right, NPS does a terrible job with Lincoln Park... Lincoln Park is a 100% locally serving park, and being responsible for maintaining it means that NPS has less money to deal with the truly "national installations" elsewhere in DC that it is responsible for.

The real question is what should the National Park Service be maintaining in the city and what should be maintained by the city.

Dupont Circle should revert to the city.

On the other hand, NPS doesn't want to give anything up either.  Even though urban park spaces are not its strength, and the organization's focus is on the large national parks, especially those out west.

So DC is between a rock and hard place, destined to have undermaintained and underfunded facilities in perpetuity.