Uncovering JAPA
Park Equity via Development Fees in Los Angeles
Low-income and historically underserved communities often lack adequate public parks. Charging development fees for parks could redistribute resources to these areas. Municipalities like Los Angeles are redefining "proximity" to comply with allocation laws.
In "Development Fees and Park Equity in Los Angeles" (Journal of American Planning Association, Vol. 90, No. 2) Alessandro Rigolon, Christopher Giamarino, and Jon Christensen evaluate the effectiveness of a modified development fee ordinance in Los Angeles intended to direct more funds to parks in underserved areas.
Los Angeles Park Fees Examined
The study assesses if Los Angeles effectively used the ordinance's flexibility, allocating park fees to areas farther from developments. Using it examines equity and geographic implementation using longitudinal research, interviews, document analysis, and quantitative methods
Park fees need criteria transparency
- Park fees alone cannot fully address park equity.
- Measurable criteria could assist in directing funds to underserved, park-deficient communities while allowing officials some discretion in allocation.
- Cities should maintain transparent data on fee generation and allocation.
Understanding Park Funding and Fees
Annual park budgets predominantly allocate funds for operations and maintenance, leaving limited resources for capital enhancements. To generate funding for capital improvement projects in underserved communities, public agencies could consider options such as raising sales or property taxes, issuing environmental bonds, or implementing development fees.
In 2017, Los Angeles modified its park fees ordinance to boost funding for underserved neighborhoods, allowing greater flexibility in fee allocation based on development size. However, the policy doesn't earmark funds specifically for under-resourced areas.
Supreme Court rulings mandate that development fees, including park fees, adhere to two primary principles: rough proportionality, aligning fees with necessary public funds for park services, and the nexus principle, requiring fees or land allocation near the development.
To adhere to the nexus principle, many ordinances set a maximum distance from fee-generating developments where fees can be used, usually 0.5 to 2 miles for neighborhood parks and further for regional parks. However, initiatives to promote park equity may clash with this principle, leading some local governments to allocate fees near developments, potentially neglecting areas of greater need.
City's Park Fee Equity Challenges Discussed
The findings show that the city utilized the increased flexibility from the modified ordinance to allocate park fees farther from developments. However, despite this latitude, the analysis indicates that the amended ordinance did not improve equity. There was minimal change in investment equity based on socioeconomic status or race/ethnicity before and after 2017, with few exceptions.
Notably, there was increased investment in areas with higher proportions of non-Hispanic Black residents, while investment decreased in areas with higher percentages of Latinx residents.
Interviews and supplementary analyses identified several factors contributing to limited equity gains. These factors include the absence of equity criteria within the ordinance, political pressures, and prioritization of capital renovations to address deferred maintenance issues. Additionally, geographic restrictions on fee expenditure hindered equitable distribution.
Respondents noted that the city's ability to allocate fees to underserved communities was hindered by the scarcity of fee-generating development in those areas, despite the extended maximum distance for park fee use. This challenge is especially notable for neighborhood parks, where the permitted maximum distance was two miles, the smallest among park categories.
Overall, interviews highlighted systemic barriers to equitable park funding distribution, emphasizing the need for policy adjustments. Addressing issues like the lack of equity criteria and geographic constraints on fee use could improve access to park amenities for underserved communities.
Figure 3: Six demographic variables and park acreages per 1,000 people were studied over seven fiscal years, based on nearby park investments in census tracts.
LA Considers Expanding Park Fee Limits
Los Angeles could expand the two-mile limit for neighborhood parks, enabling fund transfers from affluent to underserved areas with minimal construction. Introducing equity criteria for fee allocation could mitigate political pressures.
Due to significant deferred maintenance needs and chronic underfunding of park departments, integrating park fees with larger funding sources may be necessary to advance park equity significantly.
Unlike Los Angeles' current data-tracking system, cities could implement unique identifiers for park fees generated in each development, enabling transparent disclosure of fee allocation to each park.
Additionally, cities could establish data dashboards for residents and advocates to readily access, sort, and visualize park fee data.
Top image: Tom W. Sulcer via Wikimedia