Heard in the Hall

Where is parks money?

Parks and recreation advocates, saying they are tired of money Mayor Nutter promised when he first took office, take their complaints to City Council.

3 comments

Where is parks money?

POSTED: Tuesday, April 17, 2012, 3:14 PM

Miriam Hill

Advocates for Philadelphia parks told City Council Tuesday that they are tired of waiting for an additional $8 million a year they say Mayor Nutter promised when he first took office.

Chanting "Restore $8 million," about 200 of them sat in Council chambers as Parks and Recreation Commissioner Michael DiBerardinis testified about his department's budget.

In an interview after the Council hearing, Lauren Bornfriend, executive director of the Philadelphia Parks Alliance, said that in 2008, parks advocates had supported a parking tax backed by Nutter that was supposed to be dedicated to funding parks and recreation centers.

The parking tax passed, but then the economy crashed, and those revenues went to causes other than parks. Bornfriend says parks have suffered long enough. Many facilities have unusable bathrooms, leaky roofs and other problems, she said.

"It's been four years," Bornfriend said. "Enough is enough." The decision to divert the parking-tax revenue followed decades of underfunding, she added, creating huge needs in the system.

City Budget Director Rebecca Rhnyhart said city finances are still recovering from the recession. The city already has raised property and sales taxes to compensate for declining revenues. If parks money were increased beyond the $47.8 million budgeted for fiscal year 2013, other departments would lose, Rhynhart said.

"Something else would need to be cut," she said. Several Council members expressed support for increasing parks funding, but they did not say where they could find the money.

Click herefor Philly.com's politics page.

3 comments

Previous Story: Democrats Love Women

Next Story: A little night music at City Hall

Comments (3)

0 like this / 0 don't • Posted 3:37 PM, 04/17/2012

"Something else would need to be cut,"

Start with Council. 7 of them can go home permanently. And take their bloated staff payrolls with them.

— citylumberjack

0 like this / 0 don't • Posted 11:00 AM, 04/18/2012

citylumberjack is 100% correct why do we need useless at-large councilpeople and why are the staffs so highly paid disgraceful situation that the press ignores and why do we allow councilpeople to have full time positions outside of council such as oneill, green and kenney a total waste of the taxpayers funds demand reform and get rid of green and kenney and over the hill oneill

— nelson van alden

0 like this / 0 don't • Posted 9:55 AM, 06/13/2012

Actually, it makes more sense to have fewer district council members and more at-large ones.
Fewer of all of them and term limits for those left, of course.

These council members who stay for more than two terms are bad news for the city, always have been.

The district ones are so concerned with their little corner of the city that we all suffer because their decisions are not beneficial for the whole city. Preference would be four district ones for the four quadrants created by Market Street and Broad Street and the rest, say another five of them as councilmen for the whole city. Then meet once a month and then go far away.

— GAC