opinion

Editorial: Where we stand on park levy

The fight over Cincinnati’s Issue 22 might just be the most heated debate over a park levy ever to unfold in the country.

Through social media and public appearances, opponents to the levy have raised both valid concerns and wildly inaccurate claims about the proposed 1-mill permanent property tax. It has sparked a very appropriate community conversation about one of this city’s most prized assets: Its 5,000-acre park system, considered one of the nation’s best.

The Enquirer editorial board has taken much time to review the measure, to weigh concerns and to listen closely to the public, while also asking plenty of our own questions and pursuing our own research.

Ultimately, Issue 22 earned our support, and it deserves yours, too.

For $35 a year on a $100,000 house, this permanent tax could be transformative for Cincinnati, both its downtown and its neighborhoods.

Exhibit A is our newest park, Smale Riverfront, a strip of active and passive recreation areas that meanders beautifully next to the Ohio River just east of Paul Brown Stadium. Its fountains, gardens, walkways and giant event lawn show the best of Parks Director Willie Carden’s leadership and the power of parks to bring life to a once-neglected neighborhood.

The new levy could enable the city to finish Smale – Cincinnati’s new front yard – and invest in neighborhood parks beyond Downtown and Over-the-Rhine.

Such infrastructure improves existing residents’ quality of life. Equally important, it recognizes that an expanded and reinvigorated park system is an economic development strategy.

We believe it is a community amenity that helps attract job candidates, many of whom are post-college millennials we need to further fuel Greater Cincinnati’s economy and employment base. This demographic is very big on bikes, and the Issue 22 campaign proposes to pay for the Wasson Way and Oasis trails and expand the Mill Creek one. Together, they will help connect different corners of Cincinnati and link us to a statewide trail network.

Expanding the region’s skilled workforce to meet existing needs and land new companies is an imperative for business leaders throughout the region. That explains why so many companies and executives are backing Issue 22 so prominently, including through campaign contributions.

We believe this levy will help extend the park system’s long tradition of excellence, building on the positive gains we’ve seen at both Washington Park, nestled in Over-the-Rhine, and the two-mile stretch of riverfront from Bicentennial Commons to Paul Brown Stadium.

Yet, our support comes with several asterisks.

We are troubled about recent Enquirer stories spotlighting how the five-member Park Board has handled some decisions, information and money. We also want to ensure that council members and the public have ample opportunity to help decide how new levy dollars are spent.

The Enquirer’s endorsement is based on assurances from Mayor John Cranley – Issue 22’s architect and public face – and parks leaders that two specific concerns will be addressed.

• First, it has become apparent the Park Board fails to consistently operate in a transparent manner. The board’s decision to take $200,000 from an endowment fund for use in the levy campaign – as reported by The Enquirer last week – was a bad one. Even Cranley has acknowledged mistakes were made there.

Equally concerning is that the check was cut before a public board vote was taken. Furthermore, our reporters initially had difficulty getting Park Board documents as basic and clearly public as its budget.

That is not acceptable.

The entire park department – board and staff – needs training in Ohio’s open meetings and open records laws. (Incidentally, we have a hunch it is not the only public agency in need of a refresher course.)

Park Board President Otto Budig told the editorial board Wednesday he would be “very happy” to learn more on these subjects. We look forward to his leadership in educating not only himself but other board members and parks employees.

The board also should add a high-level official – an ombudsman of sorts – who is tasked with creating a culture of transparency and accountability throughout the organization. That individual must thoroughly know the applicable laws and ensure they are understood and followed by all park employees and board members.

Cranley said he has asked for an audit that he expects to explore the procedures for how the Park Board handles endowment dollars. We look forward to a conversation about the proper and improper uses of money that individuals have left to the city parks.

• Second, the levy was introduced without a citywide conversation about which park projects should be prioritized and what they should look like. Instead, most of the recommendations came out of an 8-year-old master plan, with additions such as Evanston-based King Records. To a member, the editorial board is pro-James Brown and loves his music, but that doesn’t mean park dollars should be used to preserve the studio that launched his career.

There must be a process that encourages and incorporates taxpayers’ ideas and preferences. Voters, residents, business leaders – all deserve to have their voice heard on park priorities.

Cranley told the editorial board Wednesday that “of course” he would support a council measure to lay out a process for citizen input. We will hold him to that and trust that the process will also include more council input than an up-or-down vote on bonds. Council members are citizens’ elected representatives, and the mayor should work with them.

Ensuring adequate input from the public and council has been a primary concern of levy opponents, and it was a fair one.

However, they’re failing voters and needlessly whipping up the local political scene with their fear-mongering and ridiculing of the mayor. Issue 22 has become a referendum of sorts on Cranley, and that shortchanges the parks. The debate over his leadership should be reserved for 2017, when he will likely be seeking re-election.

Voters should be wary of some of the anti-levy talking points:

• Some say hundreds of parkland trees will be removed to build restaurants, even though the levy includes no such specific plans.

• The opposition makes fun of Cranley for calling Burnet Woods “creepy.” But some Clifton-area residents have complained it is not inviting or as user-friendly as it should be. Concerns over the park’s creepiness does not mean there will be a full-scale removal of trees.

• Another frequent accusation is that the levy is a “slush fund” meant to benefit Cranley supporters with improvements such as a redo of Lytle Park, which abuts Western & Southern’s headquarters on the east side of Downtown. Contrary to what some might say, it won’t be the personal park of neighboring companies; it’s a “Welcome to Cincinnati” gateway for newcomers, many of whose first impressions are made Downtown.

Too often in this grand city, we get bogged down with uncivil finger-pointing and irrational arguments. Democracy can be messy at times, undoubtedly.

But Issue 22 provides us an opportunity to unite around a shared interest and citywide asset: an unbelievably beautiful, intricate and ambitious system of five regional parks, 70 neighborhood parks, 34 natural areas, five nature centers and countless scenic overlooks and hiking trails.

The beauty of Issue 22 isn’t in a list of specifics, but in its possibilities as a pot of money dedicated to parks.

We encourage voters to shake off the naysayers and support Issue 22 as you cast your Nov. 3 ballots.