Sponsorship in/of Portland Parks

Jack Bog’s blog points to the newly-posted Sponsorship policy on Portland Parks & Recreation’s web site. It says, “Draft”, but this policy has been being used for years, as if it had been reviewed by the public and adopted by City Council.

Citizen participation, with a responsive city bureaucrat, triumphs again! At this month’s SW Neighborhoods, Inc. Parks Committee meeting, one of the guests was Bob Shulz, newly-appointed Marketing and Business Development Manager at PP&R. He talked about the sponsorship policy; Margot Barnett (a member of the Urban Forestry Commission and fellow SW Parks committee regular) and I questioned where this policy came from, since both of us have been working on parks issues for at least ten years and neither was ever aware of any public input on a sponsorship policy.

The very next day, Bob called me and reported the policy had never been open for citizen review, nor adopted by City Council. So now, both are going to happen. The catch is, since the bureau and Commissioner Saltzman’s office have been using the policy as if it were already adopted, you can bet it is pretty much a done deal. So if citizens don’t like it, and want something different, we need those huge numbers of warm hearts, thoughtful minds, and people showing up that I mentioned in the MLK Day post below.

This is the ONLY public meeting scheduled to review and discuss the sponsorship policy. And then citizens have only until February 23 to submit comments, before the policy is sent to City Council for adoption. So please come, participate, comment.

The Citywide Parks Team is a citizen-initiated, citizen-run, citizen-owned group, set up two years ago when the SW and East Portland parks committees realized we needed a forum where parks advocates from all over the city can share information and review/give input on PP&R policies and operations. We meet every third Thursday, and everyone is welcome. Incidentally, the Rose Room is one of the most impressive rooms in City Hall, and we get to sit around the huge wood table usually occupied by City Council and other Important People. It’s worth attending, just for that. Comfortable chairs, too. Please participate.

My comments on the “proposal”:

Here is the main policy statement (“draft”, but currently being used):

“It is the policy of Portland Parks and Recreation to actively seek sponsorships for its services, parks, and facilities from individuals, foundations, corporations, nonprofit organizations, service clubs, and other entities. The purpose of such sponsorships is to increase PP&R’s ability to deliver services to the community and/or provide enhanced levels of service beyond the core levels funded from the City’s general fund.

In appreciation of such support, it is the policy of Portland Parks and Recreation to provide sponsors with suitable acknowledgement of their contributions. However, such recognition shall adhere to the aesthetic values and purpose of the bureau’s parks, facilities, and services. In addition, such recognition shall not detract from the visitor’s experience or expectation, nor shall it impair the visual qualities of the site or be perceived as creating a proprietary interest.”

I believe parks provision is a core service the city should be funding out of the General Fund. I would like to add a strong statement to this effect, in the Charter. Parks are not things we should fund only if we happen to have money left over. They are an essential part of the infrastructure of the city, allowing people to use less land for housing because the city provides shared recreation and nature spaces for residents, workers, and visitors. So I disagree with the underlying premise of this policy, that sponsorship of/in parks is necessary or desirable. The better solution would be to prioritize city spending, to fund essential things like parks before non-essential things like the tram.

I also don’t want to see more in the trend seen in changing the name of Civic Stadium to PGE Park. The draft policy states, “Naming of facilities within a park or community center in recognition of a sponsor is permitted providing such names are subordinate to the name of the park or the community center.” Names with historic significance induce pride in our city’s public assets in ways commercial names do not. I believe even adding a “subordinate” name, or subtitle, to a park may detract from its historic tone – for example, I don’t want to see “Sellwood Park” become “Sellwood Columbia Sportswear Park”.

This policy is about sponsorships rather than commercial enterprises in parks. There hasn’t been a public process that I know of, to establish policies for when we allow non-public entities to operate in or run parks facilities — e.g., the transfer of the Portland Tennis Center to private management. I believe we should be very cautious before increasing the level and diversity of commercial operations on public park property. While a kiosk selling coffee or burritos might be OK, McDonald’s would not, for me. Whether you agree or not, the most important thing is to have public discussion and broad community agreement on such issues. Let’s make a success of the review of this “draft” policy on sponsorship, then press for one on transferring operations/facilities to non-public entities.

The review and adoption of the sponsorship policy has huge ongoing significance for public participation in decision-making for our parks. This policy will determine whether our parks stay clearly public places, owned and loved by citizens, or whether we allow incremental incursions until they become quasi-private, adorned by sponsors’ signs/logos. Or even fully private, if land in parks will be sold off to fund parks operations, as was proposed with the sale of property at Mt. Tabor Park to Warner Pacific College. And while this first step has relatively minor proposals by itself, it represents a unique opportunity to voice your opinion on operating Portland’s parks. Please participate.