Recreation planning and financing failure in Philadelphia: 11 of 12 public swimming pools have closed

Because of the provision of parks and recreation facilities by a variety of government entities as well as the private sector, and the same with public transportation, parking, cultural resources and the arts ("What would be a "Transformational Projects Action Plan" for DC's cultural ecosystem," "Downtown Edmonton cultural facilities development as an example of "Transformational Projects Action Planning""), libraries ("Neighborhood libraries as nodes in a neighborhood and city-wide network of cultural assets"), etc., I have become enamored with the idea that "master planning" by government agencies should cover the entire sector of responsibility, including other government agencies as well as private sector entities.

In DC, this matters because the National Park Service provides 80% of the parks facilities in the city, complemented by some other government agencies (e.g., the USDA's National Arboretum, the Capitol Botanic Garden, etc.  But also because various private and nonprofit organizations provide access to facilities too.  It's complicated by the fact that the city parks department doesn't want to take on new responsibilities, so it outsources new facilities to nonprofits.

(And because in DC area transit there are competing interests and agencies and they don't work together very well. "The answer is: Create a single multi-state/regional multi-modal transit planning, management, and operations authority association.")

But also schools.  Schools have playgrounds and other facilities which may or may not be open to the public.  In Baltimore County, for close to 70 years there has been an MOU between the Recreation Department and the Schools, where Recreation invests in school facilities like gyms and auditoriums, creating larger facilities that also serve the general public.  A few other places do this, but not at the scale of Baltimore County.

In thinking about what I write about:  A third is best practice.  A third is gaps and insights--I joke I might be a bad planner but I am great at gap analysis.  (This past few weeks I have been on fire in identifying and writing about gaps in public and private writings.)  And the last third is about worst practice and system and leadership failure.  

The Philadelphia Inquirer has an article on the latter, "Philly’s indoor pools have become ‘a travesty’ after decades of disrepair and neglect," about how 11 of 12 public indoor pools are closed because of facility failure--from 2004 to 2019.  

I think this is complicated by the fact that some are in schools, and some are Department of Recreation.  And by the financial problems of the Philadelphia government, which affect the school system in many ways, and the parks system too, although it has the benefit of being able to raise money philanthropically.

Although the city is still committed to public outdoor pools.  It has more than 60.  But even they are closed before the end of August, and "summer heat" tends to persist long into September.

Philadelphia is not the only city with this problem.  Ten or so years ago, Baltimore closed most of its recreation centers because of lack of funds, hoping underfunded community organizations could step in and fill the breach.

See "The real lesson from Flint Michigan is about municipal finance."

The PI article discusses this in terms of (1) equity, because some private indoor pool facilities are still open, for a fee, (2) how knowing how to swim reduces the likelihood of drowning by 88%, (3) the value to young people from participating in athletics, (4) job opportunities for people who learn how to lifeguard, etc.

One issue is money.  But I think another is failure to coordinate between the Schools and Recreation agencies, and not having an MOU like Baltimore County.  Also in not funding "civic engagement" and capacity building to help third party nonprofits raise money and support for indoor swimming.

There is a Friends of Philly Aquatics, but obviously they aren't a significant player.  

The PI also reported on the lack of recreation facilities for the disabled, illustrating that these planning and facility operation failures go beyond indoor swimming ("Will the closing of Philadelphia’s only rec center for people with disabilities lead to lasting inclusion? ").

It's amazing to me that a city can actively destroy their public assets like these with few repercussions.  (Then again corporations do it too.  Eg Safeway destroyed supermarket chains it bought in Chicago, Philadelphia, and Texas.  AT&T destroyed the media assets of Time Warner.  Etc.)

In my naivete, I believe that robust master planning is one of the solutions.  But vision is one thing, although sure, it's mostly lacking.  Money is another.

The downside of requiring city residence for municipal employees: self-interest can capture government operations

Washington Post Saturday columnist Colbert King laments in his most recent piece, "Washington, D.C., is run by people who don't even live here," that the majority of people employed by the City of Washington don't live in the city, that employing DC residents on the part of the local government would be a step forward in terms of dealing with un- and under-employment within the city.

While my preference would be for city employees to be city residents, especially because the city captures income taxes from residents, a reflexive preference for city residents as government employees can be problematic.

1.  Residents as government employees may vote in their personal economic interest.  City residents vote in city elections and city government employees voting can end up voting their own interests, rather than the interests of the city as a whole.

This was a real problem when Marion Barry was mayor and so many city residents were on the city government payroll -- DC had more government employees per capita than any other local government in the US, which contributed to the city's bankruptcy in the mid-1990s.

Related concerns include employee unions (although not necessarily comprised of city residents) can be big donors to campaigns, earning the fealty of councilmembers voting for better than average wages or pensions.

This can be fiscally irresponsible, which is increasingly evident as cities across the country face bankruptcy, high costs of pensions and an inability to fully fund them, spiraling health insurance costs, etc.

2.  Hiring under-qualified workers.  Particular residents may be underqualified but hired anyway, because of an overall preference to hire locally.  While this helps the unemployment rate it doesn't necessarily contribute to a better functioning government.

This was a real issue in the high government employee numbers during the various Barry Administrations.  I remember going to my first local community government meeting in 1987 or 1988, and a representative from the DC Department of Public Works was barely intelligible.  He wore a nice suit, but made no sense when he spoke.

3.  Parochialism and mediocrity.  Similarly, a bias for local residents as government employees can encourage parochialism and mediocrity in terms of perspectives, visions, and capabilities.  It can be good to mix things up.

I always find it interesting that many land use and transportation planners in area jurisdictions like Montgomery and Arlington Counties live in DC.  The advantage of multiple roles is that can help those communities be more progressive while aiding the knowledge of local residents.

=======
Ward 9.  For years, the "problem" that Mr. King writes about, DC government employees living in the suburbs has been a running joke in terms of how Prince George's County is referred to as Ward 9 -- DC has eight wards or political districts -- because so many DC Government employees live there. Parochialism doesn't necessarily fade when you cross to the other side of the DC-county line.

The suburban-urban divide within the city.  And people who live in the suburbs might not care all that much or have the right center city urban perspective about working on issues while working for DC.

Then again, I argue that as it is, DC is shaped towards suburban thinking ("DC as a suburban agenda dominated city")  on account of how the "Outer City" dominates the city's political agenda, as 10 of the city's 14 elected officials other than Attorney General live in the Outer City.  The others live in the original "L'Enfant" city, which is the most urban part of the city.

Post editorial on the PG County Council and ethics

A blogger-activist life is complicated, because you are constantly boundary spanning, and not everything you do is written about in a blog or on twitter (which I don't do anyway). Sometimes I write pieces critical of how government works at the executive branch or legislative branch level. Sometimes I criticize newspapers for what they write.

But you always walk a delicate line between being perceived as being "critical", personally critical, or providing reasoned "criticism" and "critical analysis."

A lot of people have a hard time seeing the difference, any criticism, reasoned or not, is seen as negative and unproductive.

Since the point of activism isn't to be unproductive, you have to constantly walk the line between public criticism/critical analysis such as a blog entry or an op-ed in a local newspaper vs. pushing the right thing privately, in emails to various people, including journalists, when you think they've written something that misses the point.

In the previous newspaper coverage about Prince George's County Council and ethical challenges, I ended up sending a lot of emails to journalists, because I thought their analyses were pretty constrained, that they didn't understand the problems are evidenced in how the system of development and contract approvals is organized in ways that promote self-interested involvement and that this has to change if you want to have fundamental improvements concerning ethics.

So I was really pleased to see today's Post editorial, "Why block ethics reform?," and this specifically:

Still, the new council is fighting Mr. Baker's ethical reforms in the name of its own precious prerogatives - exactly the prerogatives that helped saddle the county with the abysmal regional and national image it suffers from today.

One of Mr. Baker's proposals would end the insidious practice whereby individual council members can halt proposed development projects in their districts at the 11th hour, extract unspecified concessions and then be assured that the full council will rubber-stamp the outcome. This procedure has been an open invitation for abuse and corruption.

Not only that, but it is virtually unheard of in other local governments in Maryland, where the policy is to leave the details of development projects - curbs, gutters, building materials and the like - to planning boards and planning professionals. This is wise policy, precisely so that politically inspired mischief by elected officials, and the potential for abuse, are minimized.

It's not exactly true, other county councils in Maryland have the ability to get overinvolved in such matters as well, but none is as base as the process in Prince George's County, which had been the subject of past blog entries (such as "The system of corruption: when you don't understand "systems", of corruption or anything else, you don't understand outcomes") and other missives.

Revenues from and costs serving local households: DC version

Greater Greater Washington has a post, "Being outside a state has its advantages," about the advantages of DC being not part of a state. For what it's worth, I've made this same point for about 9 years.

There are two issues.

Income Tax Revenue

It's all about the income tax revenue stream that is made available to the locality. I don't know how it works in Virginia, but in Maryland, about 1/2 of the state income tax revenue is returned to the local jurisdictions. However, this money is subject to recission if the state has financial issues, as it does in the current economic situation.

Similarly, localities in Maryland that are incorporated work out a tax reimbursement from the County, for services that citizens pay for in the County property tax, but end up being provided by the City/Town. Again, localities can lose out on this reimbursement during tough economic times, as Takoma Park has learned (see "Takoma Park council considers sharing pain of budget shortfalls‎" from the Gazette).

DC doesn't have to worry about that. It keeps all that it earns. Of course, when tax revenues fall, or when demands on public coffers keep rising, it has the same budget issues faced by other jurisdictions.

Cost to a municipality of serving households

Typically, it is said that a single family house costs $1.20/dollar of tax revenue and that a multiunit residence costs 80 cents/dollar of tax revenue to serve, and commercial property something like 55 cents/dollar of tax revenue to serve.

A house worth about $400,000, after the homestead exemption, has a property tax liability to the homeowner of between $3,000 and $3,500. That is the revenue from property tax. Now the city generates about 18% of total property tax revenues from the downtown central business district, and a goodly portion of the residential property tax comes from Ward 3, which has the highest property values of any section of the city.

The issue is what is the cost and revenue number to serve different types of households when you factor in income tax collections? I haven't seen this calculation done for DC and we need to do it.

What bugs me in terms of the redistributive justice advocates is that they rail against resident attraction programs and focusing on attracting childless families to the city, without acknowledging that (1) the city needs revenue to pay for all the programs they want, and (2) each household with children generates far more financial demand on the system than they ever pay in taxes, especially if more than one child needs to be educated.

The cost to educate one non-disabled children per year is upwards of $15,000. (The cost to educate one disabled child for one year can be as much as $80,000.) Given that the number of households with children is about 20% of the total, you can see that we need many tax paying childless households in order to pay for the cost of educating each child.

Similarly, we need more revenues to help cover the social and human services costs of households that draw more services.

That's one of the reasons I support intensification of land use where it can be supported, not just because walkable, compact places have enough people for neighborhoods to flourish, with successful local commercial districts, safer streets, more people to participate in civic and community functions, to serve as "eyes on the street" contributing to safer neighborhoods, and density and demand so that public transit can run more frequently.

We need more tax paying residents (income, sales, property) so that all of the various demands and interests of a "progressive urban political and social agenda" can be accomplished in a manner that doesn't bankrupt the city.

Theoretical advantage of unitary government and efficiency

Another point about unitary local government is that in theory it should be more efficient, not less efficient, in that you don't have overlapping local, county, and state agencies performing part of the responsibilities.

For example, a resident of the City of Takoma Park is paying money to the state, county, and city, and the State Highway Administration takes care of some roads (like 401 - East-West Highway/Philadelphia Road), and the City takes care of the rest. But the City resident is paying Montgomery County also for this, and maybe the County isn't reimbursing all of the money back to the City of Takoma Park. Note that because of the city and the county tax, residential property taxes in incorporated communities in Montgomery and Prince George's County are significantly higher than they are in DC.

So part of the city's complaints about having to perform state responsibilities is a chimera, except that the city is not always performing more efficiently.

One thing too that I rue is the lack of high performance standards/mandates that can come down from a state government in the planning realm.

For example, most states mandate particular local planning requirements. So in Maryland, counties have to have environmental plans with strong recycling requirements, a master plan, a growth plan, a parks and recreation plan, etc. In DC, we don't do a lot of this. New York City has been doing composting for years, in response to a state mandate to reduce their waste stream. Etc.

Without having strong requirements, the city loses, in my opinion, as a result.

Municipal consolidation

Agency consolidation and cooperation and joint service delivery across municipalities is something I have written about over the years. It moves up the agenda when there are financial problems. For example, in the Detroit, New Jersey and Greater Boston areas, this has been going on for awhile. Now that financial problems are more evident in the Washington region, it is coming up here.

The interesting thing in yesterday's article in the Post ("Slashing budgets no easy trick: Turf issues can impede ending agencies' overlapping functions") about the Parks Department and the Recreation Department in Montgomery County being separate entities, albeit under the same rubric, is that this results in part from "historical" reasons. The tension in parks planning between parks as "passive" pristine spaces vs. locations for "active" recreation--the idea of nature trails and open spaces vs. tennis courts and athletic fields--has been present in the profession for 100 years.

Another problem though with consolidation that the Post didn't figure out is evident in the point about how Montgomery County has four or five different data centers and IT systems for different major agencies.

But I am learning that working for government, consolidation only works when the surviving entity recognizes and supports "differences" in user needs and capabilities, e.g., GIS users have much higher computing demands and needs than do typical users of word processors, PageMaker or InDesign, and the Internet. But if the IT management system works to dumb down all user configurations to some average mean, the ability to accomplish work gets compromised.

Consolidation can work like an "all in one" printer/fax machine. You get all the capabilities, but they are crippled. A standalone copier works better than the all in one. A standalone computer printer works better than the all in one. A standalone fax machine works better than the all in one. But if your needs are limited than the all in one is fine. If you have certain power user needs, and the common system doesn't provide differential levels of support for those needs, consolidation can be a hindrance.

Too often, the quality of the end result is dumbed down, rather than set to new and higher levels of achievement.

(In Baltimore County, the Dept. of Recreation and Parks doesn't provide programming. It's actually provided by independent parks/recreation councils created and funded by citizens. 40 different councils provide services at more than 100 facilities. From my perspective, wanting to promote bicycle and pedestrian programs through this delivery "system", each council is separate and all are focused for the most part on typical team athletics (football, baseball, soccer, basketball, tennis) and not a whole lot on wellness type programming. Of course, the plan I am working on will lay out a strategy for introducing bicycle and walking oriented programming in this situation, how to pilot it, and how to work to replicate the programming across a decentralized recreation programming "structure." Figuring out how to work within such an interesting "unique" structure is one of the things I really like doing.)

Coalition to End Needless Tax Subsidies (CENTS) Press Release

(While I am not inalterably opposed to tax incentive programs for business, I believe that communities need to be very judicious about what they spend money on in terms of whether it truly contributes in a significant fashion to the local economy in terms of income, sales, and property taxes, and an increase in the number of residents in the city. Given that resources, even in the best of times, are always scarce, the point of incentives should be not a straight up subsidy but an investment that generates a greater than a $1 return for each $1 spent. Ideally, such investments generate far more than $1 in return for each dollar spent.)

DC Small Businesses Oppose $25 Million Plan to Lure Northrop Grumman
Residents, taxpayers and peace groups agree that tax dollars should not subsidize huge weapons manufacturer

When: 9:30am, Monday, March 8

Who: CENTS—Coalition to End Needless Tax Subsidies

Where: Wilson Building, 1350 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, Washington DC

What: Press conference re Northrop Grumman Coming to DC, then join us in testifying before the Committee on Finance and Revenue at 10:00AM in room 120 of the Wilson Building.

While the District of Columbia is facing a budget shortfall of hundreds of millions of dollars and cutting essential services, the DC Council is offering $25 million in tax abatements and grants to lure defense contractor Northrop Grumman to the district. This is part of a bidding war between DC, Virginia and Maryland, a bidding war that Washington Post business writer Steven Pearlstein called "loony."

Small business owners are incensed that scarce tax dollars are being offered to a Fortune 100 company with $34 billion in revenue. "Small businesses, the engine of our city's economy, are struggling to pay their taxes and secure loans—and many are going out of business," says Busboys and Poets owner Andy Shallal, who employs 250 people—most of whom are district residents. "The city should be giving priority to small businesses, not to huge corporations that don't need the help."

The corporate giveaway—championed by Councilmember Jack Evans and Mayor Fenty—does not come with any analysis of the benefits for the city, nor any comparison of what the funds invested elsewhere could generate. "With unemployment at crisis levels of over 12 percent citywide, the city needs jobs," says Trisha Clauson, director of Think Local First DC, which represents 160 DC small and local businesses. "It is small businesses that can generate more jobs and support a locally-driven economy where money stays in the community."

Opposition to the project is also coming from the city's peace community, who see Northrop Grumman as a major war profiteer. "Northrop Grumman wants to be closer to the nation's lawmakers so it can lobby for more war funds," said Medea Benjamin with CODEPINK: Women for Peace. "The district, whose residents are overwhelmingly pro-peace, should not be subsidizing a huge defense contractor that profits from war. That's why we're building a broad-based coalition to oppose this plan."

Charlie Cray of the Center for Corporate Policy adds that Northrop Grumman has not been a good steward of public funds. "It has had to pay hundreds of millions in fines for overbilling the government and knowingly using defective parts," said Cray. "It would be scandalous to give DC tax dollars to a company with such a long record of waste, fraud and abuse."

Contact:
Pete Tucker 202 365 6118

Municipal management: Things could maybe be worse (San Francisco) compared to your municipality

As much as I write about DC, and clearly the problems in municipal government, the utilization of resources, the design of programs, and failures in service provision result from similar kinds of systems failure, this expose of failures in governance, management, and fiscal responsibility in San Francisco, "The Worst-Run Big City in the U.S." from the San Francisco Weekly, is pretty shocking.

Interestingly, if you have read Siegel's book The Future Once Happened Here, you can see what's happening is no different than what has happened elsewhere in cities like New York, Los Angeles, DC, and Philadelphia. To some extent, NYC has improved significantly although there are still problems. But the problems are worse in the other cities.

The problem is when the liberal ideal to help is coupled with lack of management controls, systems, and accountability. Eventually, it spirals out of control for a couple reasons. First, municipal workers become an interest group in and of themselves, and work to receive constantly rising incomes, pension benefits, and eased work rules.

Second, because problems are mostly seen as lack of enough money rather than how the funds are used, what the intended outcomes are, whether or not the outcomes are achieved, and why or why not.

Although the author of the SFW piece attributes the problems to "hyperdemocracy." Maybe that's an issue too. I think that the public's social concerns and desires to solve problems get used by the interest groups--workers, government agencies, nonprofit organizations--in order to maintain and strengthen these bodies in ways that become disconnected from the public good, because representing the public good, and the city overall, becomes disconnected from the work of the agency.

From the article:

There are ways San Francisco can maintain its rampant democracy while establishing a system that abhors waste and incompetence:

Return much of the day-to-day control of city operations to an unelected, long-term city manager — who would also be responsible for negotiating union contracts.

Institute detailed citywide planning to avoid waste and duplication of services, while ensuring essential city functions are provided for.

Emphasize best practices in each individual city department, and let go of workers who aren't needed because of productivity gains.

Eliminate all budget set-asides and mandatory staffing levels, and let the city develop budgets that meet the needs of today and tomorrow, not yesterday.

Fire people who are incompetent — and that includes those at the top-heavy management level.

Instead of telling us how much money has been spent on a problem, focus on whether the problems are getting solved.

Regional corruption: Baltimore

Unlike the Post, the Baltimore Sun puts its stories on corrupt and illicit dealings in the City of Baltimore on the front page. Yesterday's paper had two stories related to the ongoing investigation of Mayor Dixon:

-- "Lipscomb gets probation for campaign violation" (plus today's follow up "Lipscomb apologizes for role in City Hall scandal" and coverage from earlier in the month, "Dixon's lawyers plan appeal on perjury charges ruling")

-- "Baltimore panel blocks company's payment to the City Foundation"

The City Foundation is a 501(c)3 conduit that allows developers and others currying favor with the city government to make donations or to have community benefits directed to this organization so that payments are considered charitable deductions.

The City Foundation story is not dissimilar to the unit set up by the DC Housing Authority. Likely by the way that Michael Kelly of the Housing Authority (and he was one of the best government officials in the City Government over the past 8+ years, reforming a department that had been previously termed one of the absolute worse public housing authorities in the U.S.) was "eased out" (see "D.C. Housing Authority Director Takes New York City Job" from the City Paper) had to do with this Parks contracting debacle and his likely distaste for working outside of the law.

From the article:

The Baltimore Board of Estimates on Wednesday blocked a company's payment to the embattled Baltimore City Foundation, and the city comptroller called for a halt to all donations to the private nonprofit group amid questions about how it oversees spending.

Later in the day, Mayor Sheila Dixon called for an outside consultant to recommend new oversight procedures for the city-controlled foundation, her strongest response since a Baltimore Sun investigation revealed questionable transactions by public employees using charity money.

As inquiries continue about whether the group's board of directors employs adequate safeguards to ensure that donations are properly spent, City Comptroller Joan M. Pratt requested that a scheduled $50,000 payment to the foundation set for approval on Wednesday be sent directly to the city's coffers.

"Right now, I think contributions made for the benefit of the city should go directly to the director of finance," Pratt said, adding that foundation board members "don't have the appropriate oversight." She later said she wanted to review five years' worth of independent audits before donations resume. The Board of Estimates did not act on that suggestion.

Also see "Audit of City Foundation sought." The article is a follow up to a Sun investigation of the Foundation.

Seems like the Baltimore Sun is stronger at investigation of the local government than is the Washington Post. The Post can be proud of its investigation of problems with funding of care services to HIV patients ("Wasting Away: The Squandering of D.C.'s AIDS Dollars") but the reality is that such an investigation doesn't get at the systematic corruption of processes, systems, and procedures that typifies the Executive and Legislative branches of the District of Columbia municipal government.

Such investigations give the appearance of concern and industriousness, without leading to substantive changes.

About 20 years ago I read a speech by the founder of a media watchdog group, and he talked about what he called the "bias of the middle" of news coverage on U.S. federal government actions overseas--that events like overthrows of overseas governments had good intentions, that mistakes were made, but they were aberrations, and that they would never occur again.

All the while, the government machine, what Harvey Molotch calls the Growth Machine in the municipal government context, keeps spinning along.

From a past blog entry:

I am a fervent proponent of the Growth Machine thesis, first laid out by sociologist Harvey Molotch, in the seminal article, City as a Growth Machine: Toward a Political Economy of Place. From the abstract:

A city and, more generally, any locality, is conceived as the areal expression of the interests of some land-based elite. Such an elite is seen to profit through the increasing intensification of the land use of the area in which its members hold a common interest. An elite competes with other land-based elites in an effort to have growth-inducing resources invested within its own area as opposed to that of another. Governmental authority, at the local and nonlocal levels, is utilized to assist in achieving this growth at the expense of competing localities. Conditions of community life are largely a consequence of the social, economic, and political forces embodied in this growth machine.

Political scientist Clarence Stone, a professor at University of Maryland has a competing thesis, that of the "urban regime." I don't think these theories are competing so much as different sides of the same coin. "Growth Machine" theory explains the motivation of "the land-based elite," and "urban regime" theory explains in detail how the land-based elite operates and functions.

Professor Stone was kind enough to send me a recent paper, "Now What? The continuing evolution of Urban Regime analysis," from 2005. He writes:

An urban regime can be preliminarily defined as the informal arrangements through which a locality is governed (Stone 1989). Because governance is about sustained efforts, it is important to think in agenda terms rather than about stand-alone issues. By agenda I mean the set of challenges which policy makers accord priority. A concern with agendas takes us away from focusing on short-term controversies and instead directs attention to continuing efforts and the level of weight they carry in the political life of a community. Rather than treating issues as if they are disconnected, a governance perspective calls for considering how any given issue fits into a flow of decisions and actions. This approach enlarges the scope of what is being analyzed, looking at the forest not a particular tree here or there. (emphasis added, in this paragraph and below)

In discussing Atlanta, Stone writes: "Land use, transportation, and housing formed an interrelated agenda that the city's major economic interests were keen to advance;" and

By looking closely at the policy role of business leaders and how their position in the civic structure of a community enabled that role, he identified connections between Atlanta's governing coalition and the resources it brought to bear, and on to the scheme of cooperation that made this informal system work. In his own way, Hunter had identified the key elements in an urban regime – governing coalition, agenda, resources, and mode of cooperation. These elements could be brought into the next debate about analyzing local politics, a debate about structural determinism.

In short, it's the "system" of governance, and how it operates, rather than looking at recurring events separately, as if they are not connected.