• Where We Work
  • Alabama
  • Alaska
  • Arizona
  • Arkansas
  • California
  • Colorado
  • Connecticut
  • Florida
  • Georgia
  • Hawaii
  • Idaho
  • Illinois (Chicago Area)
  • Kentucky
  • Louisiana
  • Maine
  • Maryland
  • Massachusetts
  • Michigan
  • Minnesota
  • Missouri
  • Montana
  • New Hampshire
  • New Jersey
  • New Mexico
  • New York
  • North Carolina
  • Northern Rockies
  • Ohio
  • Oklahoma
  • Oregon
  • Pennsylvania
  • Rhode Island
  • South Carolina
  • Tennessee (Chattanooga)
  • Texas
  • The Caribbean
  • Utah
  • Vermont
  • Virginia
  • Washington
  • West Virginia
  • Wisconsin

 

Boston Metro Park System White Paper

Striving for Excellence:

Enhancing Greater Boston's Metropolitan Park System

A white paper by the Trust for Public Land written by Peter Harnik, June 2003. (A copy of this paper is posted in PDF format at the bottom of this page.)

Metropolitan park systems play a critical role in maintaining the livability of major cities and their immediate suburbs. Greater Boston's metro park system, under the management of the Metropolitan District Commission, is a model that has been emulated around the country. The lack of county government in Massachusetts, however, makes the management of regional resources especially challenging. This reality, combined with a lack of leadership at the gubernatorial level in recent years, has made the agency increasingly dependent on key legislators and vulnerable to demands for patronage. Reorganization may help address some of the challenges faced by the MDC, but it by no means guarantees an excellent park system. To succeed, it must be combined with additional investments in the following areas:

1) Make a commitment to leadership: By recruiting and supporting a strong qualified leader with a solid track record in the field of park management, the Administration can send a strong signal about its commitment to the future of the metropolitan park system.

2) Create a new governance structure: The park system's governance structure should involve representatives of each community served. The Massachusetts Water Resources Authority provides a successful model, including an Advisory Board with one member from each of the relevant jurisdictions.

3) Create an updated master plan: Currently, external pressure on the agency comes primarily from localized interests. Creating an updated master plan will help counter these forces by involving the public in creating a strong vision for the entire system.

4) Increase investment in the system's land and staff resources: The MDC spends approximately $13 per resident served by its parks, significantly below the average of the metro park systems examined for this report. In order to create a truly excellent system, additional investments in land acquisition, maintenance and programming are needed. In particular, a source of dedicated funding for the agency should be explored.

5) Provide a clear expression of purpose: The MDC lacks a formal mission statement for its metropolitan park system. If the agency is merged with the Department of Environmental Management, it will be more important than ever for the new division managing metropolitan parks to have a clear expression of purpose to guide agency staff, advocates, and members of the public.

Greater Boston has the nation's oldest and most venerable metropolitan park system, a network dating back to the ground-breaking 1892 conception of an "emerald necklace" of parks and parkways surrounding the central city. Not only has this park system served area residents admirably, it has also been profoundly influential nationally, leading to the creation of other metropolitan park agencies in the suburbs of Washington DC, Cleveland, Detroit, Oakland, and elsewhere.

The greater Boston metropolitan park system is managed by the Metropolitan District Commission (MDC), a state agency under the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs. The park system spans more than three dozen communities and totals approximately 20,000 acres, including such well-loved icons as the Charles River Esplanade, Middlesex Fells, and Blue Hills Reservation. It also includes dozens of beaches, skating rinks, tennis courts, swimming pools, playgrounds, and bandstands and music shells, including the Hatch Memorial Shell on the Charles River Esplanade, which draws between 300,000 and 500,000 people each year for the Fourth of July celebration.

MDC's park system was widely recognized for its excellence during the first half of the 20th century. Since then, the MDC has faced a number of struggles, and periods of significant accomplishment have alternated with periods of stagnation. This year, in an effort to increase efficiency by reducing duplication among agencies and also to limit patronage, both the Governor and Legislature are proposing to reorganize the MDC.

The Trust for Public Land, a national nonprofit conservation organization, is committed to strengthening and maintaining greater Boston's metropolitan park system. We have prepared this white paper in an effort to help ensure that any reorganization maintains and enhances the integrity of the agency's remarkable park resources. Our analysis is based upon previous reports, interviews with a cross section of Boston-area experts, and research on several other comparable metropolitan park agencies around the country.

Why have a metropolitan park system?

Metropolitan park systems play a critical role in creating a livable urban environment. To understand the unique niche that metropolitan park systems fill, it is helpful to understand the different roles parks play in different settings. On one end of the continuum, state parks typically provide large swaths of relatively pristine land that provide opportunities for public enjoyment and recreation, help maintain wildlife populations, and protect water quality. At the other end, city parks provide urban "breathing room" and are usually made up of human-created spaces, such as playgrounds, formal squares, and landscaped parks. Metropolitan parks occupy the space between these two extremes, and typically include one or more of the following:

1. (1) multi-jurisdictional greenways along rivers, railroad corridors or other linear features;
2. (2) mid-sized suburban reservations that are primarily pristine but are designed to be used by much larger numbers of people than state parks;
3. (3) special features that are of strong regional interest and attraction and that are beyond the ability of a local jurisdiction to manage.

What are the challenges faced by the Metropolitan District Commission?

The MDC faces two fundamental challenges in operating a metropolitan park system-one political and one structural.

The political challenge is that the agency suffers from a lack of strong leadership. This power vacuum, which originated with a series of governors who were not strong park advocates, has led to a budgetary ritual with a downwardly spiraling trajectory: (1) a governor proposes significant cuts to the MDC's budget; (2) parks and recreation advocates protest and ask the Legislature to respond; (3) the Legislature puts funds back into the MDC budget.

The result of this minuet is that the state's chief executive ends up having little or no ownership of the agency, while MDC becomes beholden to particular powerful legislators, who by definition have distinct geographical areas of interest.

This situation clearly has the potential to foster a lack of leadership in the governor's office as well as a patronage mentality among certain legislators, who may ask the agency to hire their supporters and/or invest in more facilities in their districts, as a quid pro quo. Although the exact extent of patronage in the MDC is in dispute, it is widely perceived to be a problem for the agency.

The structural challenge is that MDC is a state agency with a regional mandate. It serves approximately 40 cities and towns, with a combined population of roughly 2 million, or one-third of the state's total. Any state agency with this type of regional mandate will have difficulty maintaining its funding and its status if the sitting governor does not have a strong personal interest in the metropolitan park system.

How do other metropolitan areas manage their regional parks?

No other metropolitan park system in the country is operated by a state agency.

For instance, Cleveland Metroparks is a county agency chartered within Cuyahoga County, Ohio, which includes the city of Cleveland. The agency was established in 1917 by conservationists who feared that Cleveland's rapid growth would swallow up all the pristine lands surrounding the central city. Modeling their effort on Boston, the founders expropriated Frederick Law Olmsted's moniker of "Emerald Necklace," but located Cleveland's green swath considerably further outside of the city.

Cleveland Metroparks is led by three commissioners who are appointed by the chief judge of the county's Probate Court (the judgeship is an elected position). The commissioners are appointed to three year staggered terms and are unpaid. The commissioners elect their own leadership and hire Metroparks' executive director. Agency funding comes from a property tax millage that is approved by the electorate of each tax district within the county; it is beyond the reach of the county executive and county council. There are also a few communities outside Cuyahoga County that have voluntarily agreed to be included within Cleveland Metroparks. Each has signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Metroparks and contributes a millage payment to the operation of the agency.

Huron-Clinton Metroparks is a five county regional agency in southeastern Michigan. It was chartered by the state of Michigan and is run by a seven-member board of commissioners-one appointed by the County Commission of each county, and two at-large members appointed by the Governor. The at-large members have four-year terms that coincide with the Governor's term; the others have staggered six year terms. They are unpaid, except for a $100 per diem fee for board meetings they attend. The agency's budget is funded largely through a property tax millage. There is also considerable fee income from vehicle entry fees as well as golf and beach revenues.

Like Cleveland Metroparks, Huron-Clinton Metroparks was brought to life by people who were worried about the loss of natural landscapes and open space at the far edges of the growing city. Most of the system's parks-along the Huron and Clinton Rivers, which both start northwest of Detroit and flow south and east, respectively-are nearly 50 miles from downtown. The system's principal orientation is natural conservation, water activities, and golf.

The Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority is a park authority just outside the nation's capital that was created to make up for the lack of state parkland to serve the burgeoning population of Washington, D.C.'s Virginia suburbs. Its service area contains three counties and three cities. It has a 12 person governing board, consisting of two members appointed by the city council or county board of each participating jurisdiction. Board members serve for four years. The agency's $14 million budget stems from 80 percent earned income and donations, and 20 percent tax revenue allocated from the member jurisdictions, pro-rated by population.

The East Bay Regional Park District is an agency serving Alameda and Contra Costa Counties on the east side of San Francisco Bay. It is governed by an elected seven-member board of directors. A property tax millage in the two counties and assessment district levies provide 65 percent of the agency's revenue; another 9 percent comes from fees.

What structure makes sense for MDC?

The ideal solution to MDC's structural problem would be to move the agency from the state level to the regional level, putting management closer to the people served and creating a higher level of accountability to local constituencies. Achieving this solution would be extraordinarily difficult, however, since Massachusetts has virtually no system of county government, unlike Ohio, Michigan, California and Virginia, in the examples cited above. As a result, nearly all regional services in Massachusetts are provided by special authorities, such as those for the Turnpike, the MBTA, and the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, or by agreements among specific groups of towns and cities.

In addition, the majority of the metropolitan park agencies cited above are funded, at least in part, by a dedicated revenue stream, which provides a relatively reliable source of income. Creating a similar revenue stream for greater Boston's park system would allow the parks agency to plan for and make the investments in land and stewardship that are needed for a truly excellent metropolitan park system. Current prospects for achieving this goal seem remote, however, given the current fiscal challenges facing the Commonwealth and many of its cities and towns. Nevertheless, it should remain a long-term priority.

The current proposals put forward by the Administration and Legislature call for unifying the MDC with the Department of Environmental Management and creating a division within this new agency focused on metropolitan parks. The proposed reorganization may help both increase efficiency and reduce patronage, but is not likely to result in an excellent metropolitan park system, unless it is accompanied by a long-term commitment on the part of the Legislature and Administration to investing in these parks and connecting them directly to the people they serve.

What additional investments are needed?

There are several critical investments that are needed now to keep greater Boston's metropolitan park system on the right track. These recommendations are based on the Trust for Public Land's new report The Excellent City Park System: what makes it great and how to get there, which evaluates the park systems of the nation's 50 largest cities, including Boston, and identifies seven measures of park excellence.

1) Make a commitment to leadership: Because MDC's last commissioner did not have professional park management experience and had close ties to a former governor, he helped make the agency a symbol for patronage. Although the current reorganization proposals are designed to improve conditions in the agency, the most important ingredient needed is a strong qualified leader with a solid track record in the field. By recruiting and supporting such an individual, the Administration will send a strong signal about its commitment to the future of the metropolitan park system.

2) Create a new governance structure: Given the highly localized concerns of the cities and towns within its region, a metropolitan parks agency or division must work hard to build a strong connection between the agency and the entire population it serves. One of the most effective ways to do this is to institute a governance structure that involves representatives of each community. Community-based advisory councils, for example, play an absolutely critical role in acting as ambassadors for the agency, stimulating strong public-private partnerships, influencing public opinion, and advising agency staff.

In creating a new management structure for the metropolitan park system, the Administration and Legislature should consider emulating the highly successful architecture of the well-respected Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA). This would include an Advisory Board, consisting of one member from each of the jurisdictions served by the current MDC, with the member selected by the mayor or Board of Selectmen of each municipality. Ideally, it would also include an 11-member Direction Council modeled on MWRA's board of directors, which would consist of three members selected by the Governor, one each by the leader of the State Senate and House of Representatives, three by the mayor of Boston, and three by the Advisory Board.

3) Create an updated master plan: Although the MDC has undertaken recent master plans for portions of its park system, it has not completed a comprehensive master plan in more than 45 years. The lack of a complete master plan is significant, in that it reflects the lack of a core constituency of advocates, outside of the agency, committed to the entire park system. Instead, external pressure on the agency comes primarily from localized interests within the individual cities and towns that it serves, as well as the advocates focused on specific parks or elements of the park system. Investing in a master plan will be absolutely critical to countering these forces, by involving the public in creating a strong vision. If combined with the Advisory Board and Direction Council recommended above, this would begin to build a stronger constituency for the entire system.

4) Increase investment in the system's land and staff resources: Currently, the MDC is spending approximately $13 per resident, based on the population of greater Boston. This puts it well below the average of nearly $21 per resident spent by the five cities analyzed for this white paper. In order to create a truly excellent metropolitan park system, reorganization must be coupled with additional investments in land acquisition, maintenance, and programming. In particular, a source of dedicated funding for the agency should be explored.

5) Provide a clear expression of purpose: Although the MDC has a legislative mandate (M.G.L., Ch. 92, Section 33) and is guided by a document called Enhancing the Future of the Metropolitan Park System, it lacks a formal mission statement for its metropolitan park system. If the agency is merged with the Department of Environmental Management, it will be more important than ever for the new division managing metropolitan parks to have a clear expression of purpose to guide agency staff, advocates, and members of the public. Providing for public input into the mission statement will also be an important step forward in building a stronger relationship between the parks agency and the people it serves.

Conclusion

With its unparalleled history and priceless landholdings, Boston's network of metropolitan parks has the potential to remain one of the nation's great park systems. The Trust for Public Land applauds the Administration and Legislature for their commitment to maintaining and improving the system. The proposal to reorganize the Metropolitan District Commission must not, however, be seen as an end in itself. Further steps and increased investment will be needed to produce positive results and to maintain greater Boston's historical role as a model for urban parks across the country.

This white paper is also available as a PDF, attached below.

Posted 7/2003

Metro District Commission Numerical Comparison

Metro District Commision White Paper