I think almost everyone would agree with Jonathan Karp’s notion that poor neighborhoods who are lacking in open space and recreational facilities should have some mode of public recreation that is free or, at the least, very inexpensive. However, I do not think the particular recreational outlet has to necessarily be in the form of a park or open green space. Firstly, and perhaps most practically, it takes money. And lots of it. For many of these public works projects, the funding comes from taxes. But wait a second. The people in the poorer neighborhoods are frequently exempt from paying taxes. So who’s going to end up paying for these parks? That’s right…middle and upper class people who are paying taxes, or are willing to donate money to private organizations to fund park building and maintenance. As Pamela Wridt said in the first reading, such private donations have been subject to corruption and other political distortion that they end up going to park upkeep in wealthier neighborhoods. Which leaves not that much money from taxes to go to these parks, especially considering the fact that park spending has been cut in recent years.
Secondly, the historical analysis of parks in New York City quoted often in Wridt’s paper points to a tendency for poorer ethnicities not taking care of their parks. Granted, any community of people may cause deterioration to their parks if not properly maintained. However, since poorer neighborhoods will be least likely to afford maintenance of their parks, they may also end up with deteriorated parks like those in the 1970s. No one wants that to happen again.
In a capitalist society like America, it seems like public works projects that can specifically help the poor are limited. If public projects are going to be initiated by the local community, they need to be supported financially by the community. If there is lack of funds, then there is lack of project. The best option for those neighborhoods where there is no nearby public recreational facility that is deemed safe should stick to whatever cheap entertainment they can afford, be it their computers or street games. I guess this basically goes back to Zohar’s general feeling about capitalism and how America would, in some respects, be better off as a socialist country. Perhaps a better system for recreational facilities could be devised under a socialist economic system?
