Genesis of NOLA Parks For All: Audubon millage referendum Purpose: to advocate for the protection of existing greenspace and to expand greenspace into deficient areas Supporters: a diverse group of citizens from neighborhoods all across town. Three projects: City Beautiful Clubs, Parks Report Card, and Master Plan Amendments

CITY BEAUTIFUL CLUBS “for whatsoever a man soweth, A revival of civic involvement in the enhancement of the cityscape, involving primarily those who live in proximity to the areas involved. “for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.”

Neighbor Team Objective - planting, tending and sustaining plantings and ornaments in parks, bus stops, playgrounds, varied public areas with support from municipal authorities and community horticultural resources.

Target Places (Public) New Orleans listing from 1949. Tons of public small space, many with residential neighbors willing to beautify them.

A Parks “Report Card”

Open Space: Why It’s a Lightning Rod Park administrators tend to view open space as an under-utilized asset that must be monetized to support park maintenance. Many citizens want their parks to provide free access to nature and “passive” open space. Both points of view have their merit. But current process lacks adequate safeguards to ensure that the public knows about and can affect the decisions of park administrators.

Parks For All’s Master Plan Objectives To define and protect existing open space (“no loss”). To reinstate conditional use process to oversee conversion of open space to intensive or commercial uses. To create additional greenspace in underserved areas and where population density is increasing. To create an umbrella board to coordinate management of City’s parks – a bridge towards a better unified system. To require large parks to develop their own Master Plans and to subject those plans to the City’s Capital Improvement Plan to ensure conformity to the Master Plan. To develop an equitable funding plan for parks and recreation to relieve pressure on the need to monetize greenspace.

Two Specific Fixes – Fix #1 Fix #1  Remove edit in Chapter 14 of the Master Plan that was proposed by large-park administrators: “In large parks, a variety of passive and active recreation facilities, cultural facilities, and supportive commercial uses may be allowed.” Illustrates bias in favor of giving park administrators a free hand in converting greenspace to intensive and commercial uses. Parks For All wants to reverse this bias and move to a more transparent process overseen by City Council. Council should have this new sentence removed from the proposed amendments.

Two Specific Fixes – Fix #2 Fix #2  PFA had requested an Amendment of GOAL 3 of Chapter 7 as follows: “A commitment to no net loss of public parkland, and to a strict limitation on conversion of open green space to specialized uses or to intensive and commercial uses.” The CPC, rejected the staff recommendation to retain the word “net,” and recommended that the word “net” be deleted, but did not specifically address the additional change requested. Council should add the phrase “and to a strict limitation on conversion of open green space to specialized uses or to intensive and commercial uses”, to emphasize that the Park entities and City should closely scrutinize any changes that would result in the loss of green space.

A Flaw in the Master Plan Process Parks For All also recommended that City Planning redefine the Future Land Use Map to designate Natural Areas, Recreational Areas, and Open Spaces. Purpose: to heighten awareness of open space throughout the City. However, the current Master Plan amendment process would require Parks For All to re-do the Future Land Use Map, rather than the City Planning Commission. CPC advised us that for them to undertake this task, the directive would have to come from City Council. So we ask that City Council consider mandating this change to the FLUM.

We Didn’t Come Up Completely Empty-Handed Change a Chapter 7 objective from “no net loss” to “no loss” of greenspace. Require the major parks to develop their own park plans in conformity to the City’s Master Plan objectives for parks. Use vacant lots and other public properties, such as schools, as full or part time neighborhood parks. Ensure public access to the river and avoid placement there of specialized-use facilities. Let open greenspace predominate.

Why We Should Prevent the Loss of Public Greenspace This quote from Chapter 7 of the current Master Plan explains it well: “Cities that give up park land end up regretting it. A robust network of greenspace and parks is a critical asset for quality of life and urban success. It helps retain existing residents and attracts new ones. When cities looking for “free land” establish other public facilities on park land, they are chipping away at the community’s overall inventory of park land. Often, it is more costly or otherwise more difficult to acquire new park land. For this reason, it is important to make sure that, at a minimum, the city maintain a commitment to keeping the same overall amount of park land that it has at present. In addition, as needed, additional park resources (whether directly owned by the city or by others) should be made available in areas of the city that are currently underserved.”