Agency hopes new rules protect parkland

In the spring of 2008, the city came very close to leasing about 20 acres of Fairmount Park for a $1 billion expansion by Fox Chase Cancer Center.

Park neighbors rallied to preserve their beloved woods and took the case to Orphans Court, where Judge John W. Herron ruled in their favor and killed the planned development.

At the time, there were no rules about whether parkland could be sold, leased, or changed in other ways.

On Wednesday night, Philadelphia's newly minted Commission on Parks and Recreation will take a first step toward creating some rules by presenting draft legislation that commission members say aims to protect the city's 10,300 acres of parkland.

"One of our goals is to achieve no net loss of park and recreation open space," said Nancy Goldenberg, who chairs the commission. "We're trying to set a very high bar."

The commission also intends to ensure that any discussion of changes to parkland involves the public.

"One of our goals is to have a transparent process, so people know up front what is expected of them and the public knows what the process is," she said.

The discussion unnerves some park activists, who say they fear that any new law will not be written strongly enough.

Sam Stretton, the lawyer who represented neighbors who wanted to keep their park in the Fox Chase case, said he was concerned that selling or leasing parkland would simply prove too tempting for a city in a budget crunch.

"It's a very enticing thing, open parkland, because it does generate money," Stretton said.

Mary Tracy, head of SCRUB, Public Voice for Public Space, an activist group that fought the Fox Chase plan, wondered how the law would deal with councilmanic "privilege" or "prerogative." That's a Philadelphia custom that gives Council members virtual veto power over land use in their neighborhoods.

Tracy said, however, that she would have to read the legislation before commenting.

But Lauren Bornfriend, executive director of the Philadelphia Parks Alliance, an advocacy group, said that if the new ordinance was properly written, it would help protect parks.

"The Parks Alliance is very glad that the commission is doing this. We have wanted guidelines for years," Bornfriend said. "The bill created now is going to be very important because this is the beginning of a new time, and we will be setting precedents."

Blondell Reynolds Brown, who chairs City Council's Parks, Recreation and Cultural Affairs Committee, said Council would move slowly before adopting an ordinance so that the measure could incorporate the public's concerns.

The commission will make the proposed legislation public at its meeting 6 p.m. Wednesday at the Free Library at 1901 Vine St. and take questions about how the process of developing the ordinance will work.

At a special meeting at 6 p.m. Oct. 27, also at the library, the commission will take questions and seek suggestions on the draft legislation. By mid-November, the commissioners hope to have a final draft ordinance to present to City Council, which will then hold its own hearings.

The desire for an ordinance grew in part out of voters' decision in 2008 to change the City Charter and merge the Fairmount Park Commission with the city's Recreation Department.

The Fairmount Park Commission was a city department, but it was overseen by commissioners appointed by the city's judges. Mayor Nutter, along with Reynolds Brown and Councilman Darrell L. Clarke, pushed for the merger, arguing that bringing oversight under more direct city control would increase much-needed funding and give the public more input.

The Fairmount Park commissioners had veto power over sale and disposition of land, but they approved the Fox Chase proposal. City Council also approved the deal.

The charter change dictating the merger called only for guidelines on disposition of parkland, but Nutter asked for a law.

The Fairmount Park Commission and the Recreation Department completed their merger over the summer.

Parks and Recreation Commissioner Michael DiBerardinis said he believed the law would provide long-term protection.

"Instead of having regulations or guidelines, this would be an ordinance with the force of law, and that's really a big difference from what the charter change calls for," DiBerardinis said.