“font-family: Verdana; line-height: 13px;”>Yesterday – on the eve of a final vote by the Board of Estimate & Apportionment today and by the Board of Aldermen on Friday – Comptroller Darlene Green sent a strongly worded letter to members of the Board of Aldermen urging them to vote no on Board Bills 189 and 190,
which
authorize two bond issues – a $30 million bond for Forest Park
capital projects and a $34 million bond for other city parks. This
poorly written letter is nothing but a
“font-family: Verdana; line-height: 13px;”>compilation of worst-case scenario-projections that completely overlooks an extremely important economic variable – the opportunity cost of the city doing nothing to improve its parks, and especially its crown jewel of “font-family: Verdana; line-height: 13px;”>. Moreover, $280 million in private matching funds is on the table now. Green’s letter should do nothing to change the votes of aldermen, who approved the bills unanimously during the perfection phase of their consideration.
“font-size: 9.0pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: Verdana;”>Green speculates that increasing the debt burden will place the city’s credit rating at risk, as per Moody’s Investors Service (which is improperly named in Green’s letter). However, this argument neglects to mention the equivalent emphasis Moody’s places on the value of a city investing in its infrastructure, which also can contribute to an upgrade or downgrade in a city’s credit rating.
“font-size: 9.0pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: Verdana;”>While Green indulges in hypothetical cases about interest rates and budget shortfalls, advocates for this bond issue could counter with a different hypothetical case. The failure to capitalize on these available matching private funds to maintain and improve these valuable civic assets could result in deteriorating facilities and services at our parks, especially Forest Forest, with its more than 12 million annual visitors. This could in turn result in fewer visitors for the park and the world-class cultural and recreational attractions located there, which would mean less tax revenue for the city. Given that our parks anchor our best neighborhoods, deteriorated parks could spur population greater loss for the city, with even more loss of tax revenue.
“font-size: 9.0pt; font-family: Verdana;”>Green’s letter attempts a “gotcha” argument that increased payment for debt service would result in less funding for park maintenance, suggesting that the bond issues could degrade rather than improve the parks. Forest Park Forever has said on numerous occasions that it understands the city is experiencing difficult financial times and it would be willing to forgo equivalent payments on the debt service for as long as three years for the bonds it purchases. Also, the $34 million will be used to make capital improvements in the city’s 106 parks. As a result, the need for ongoing maintenance in the parks will decline. There is a financial value in making the capital improvements on the faster time frame a bond issue affords. What actually endangers their long-term health is to do what the city has been doing: raiding the revenue streams that the voters believed were going to be allocated to our parks and spending the money elsewhere.
“font-size: 9.0pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: Verdana;”>There has not been a comprehensive capital improvement bond issue to improve city parks since 1955 – more than a half-century ago. If not now, with $280 million in matching private funds in the mix, then when?
