Stanford Social Innovation Review

The truth has a certain ring. Your article struck a high note with your commentary. I am deeply saddened by our government’s failure to use its checks and balances to reign in a maverick president. The world situation, especially in Africa, is catastrophic. Ours is becoming a country of neglected people and places. I often think of the good the war monies could do and what American values would be imparted by such generosity. The ideals of our fathers (and mothers) have been crushed underfoot by the boots of war and the sour note of greed.

»» Posted by: Kathleen W Johns on March 9, 2007 07:03 AM

Perhaps this is in part a rhetorical device justifying another version of trickle-down economics,
a suggestion that it’s not so bad to enact tax cuts for rich people because they’ll give money back
as charity to federal parks. It would be interesting to see how much charity money
actually comes to parks and from whom.

In San Francisco, this week’s San Francisco Bay Guardian also has a page 5 editorial about
the fact that private businesses that are allowed to operate in San Francisco’s Presidio (a national park)
benefit from the Presidio’s “special status as a federal enclave,” giving the businesses exemption from
paying some taxes and abiding by state and city labor laws, minimum wage and health insurance
requirements, and land use laws.  The question is, who protects lands for the common good?

»» Posted by: Jean Oggins on March 9, 2007 07:07 AM

This is stunning news.  Thanks Mark for this post.  Will foundations will be asked to pay for military veteran’s medical care next?

Perla

»» Posted by: Perla Ni on March 9, 2007 12:52 PM

Hummm.  This shouldn’t be any surprise—philanthropy has always played a big role in the National Park System.  For instance the Rockefellers are largely responsbile for Grand Tetons National Park—they gave the land.  Railroads in the early part of the last century brought parks to the masses of the American public.  Donors have always helped build visitor centers, trails and oh yes, tens of thousands of people volunteer their time to the parks they love.

Some of us may not like it but this horse is already out of the barn—and its worth noting that at the same time he raised the philanthropic challenge he proposed the largest federal fund operating funding increase in the history of the park system.

»» Posted by: tom on March 13, 2007 01:22 PM

I am involved with a non-profit that raises money for a National Park. We were the first off shoot of the NPF and the most successful. This year we left the NPF and became a independent entity. We are not a slush fund. The park has to go through a strict grant process that proves public benefit. We fund education programs for school children, research, trail rehabilitation, Native American project, native species rehab just to name a very few. Since 2000, we have raised 2 million dollars that has gone directly to the Park.

Yes we do have private business in the park. Do they get tax breaks? Probably. Consider this - they are only open 2-3 months a year due to weather. You go in to a business and ask them to operate for only a third of the year but still be responsible for upkeep, maintenance, advertising, salaries, insurance, ect. Oh I can hear the laughter from the board room now. Even louder would be the yowling from the public if they weren’t there to provide for the visitors.

Next time, walk in to a National Park - look around. Every thing they do costs money. There are how many National parks? 400? Where on earth does it say in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution that the government is required to pay for National Parks?

I find your article ignorant and offensive. To liken this to paying for military veteran’s medical care ludicrous. but you bet I would be first in line if that what was needed. Let me guess, my family foundation shouldn’t grant to small organizations to help families, immigrants from Africa, Native Americans because the Government should be doing it?

I was taught and I have taught my children that if you see something that needs to be done - you step up to the plate. You don’t wait - You don’t whine or complain that the government is not doing enough. You stand up and take care of your community.  Where would we be if our fore fathers went that route. Waiting to be bailed out? Speaking French probably.

Check the mission statements of your foundations. Foundations were set up to fill in the “gaps”. When did we become so high and mighty. Have we forgotten our mission?
Thank God for the tens of thousand of volunteers that donate not only money but most importantly time

»» Posted by: Queeniehill on March 13, 2007 03:33 PM

I’m afraid some of the comments, espeially Queeniehill’s, miss my fundamental point. The Bush administration, through a history of tax cuts and other policy decisions, has underfunded the national park systems for years and years, denying it the budget it needed for maintenance, staffing and other routine expenses. Government has the taxing authority to generate the funds--and the President’s budget allocates them--as necessary to tend to public purposes, to public priorities. A vital and healthy national park system certainly ought to figure among them.

I am not against voluntary charitable support used to supplement government programs, although I think government itself ought first meet its own responsibilities.  What I challenged in my blog piece is the disingenuousness of a president whose policies have crippled government’s ability to tend to public needs, who has allowed some of the hardest consequence of that impact to fall year after year on the national park system, and who then turns to charity to fill the gap instead of using the power and authority of government itself to do the right thing.

Sure, some donors willingly try to fill this gap or at least part of it, when called on.  But what I’m upset about is a president who creates this and so many other gaps intentionally and unnecessarily – and then turns to altruism to fill them, acting as if he has no other choice and no responsibility, and all while increasing competition for the charitable dollar. 

»» Posted by: Mark Rosenman on March 15, 2007 11:51 AM

I agree with Dr. Rosenman that this appears yet another cynical move on the part of a very cynical administration.  Having been denied their numerous efforts to plunder our national parks and public lands for personal profit, and having been defeated in attempts to relax environmental protections and damaging use-permits, the administration seems to be looking for any other means to make these resources pay for themselves.  Heck, if we can’t turn a profit on ‘em, might as well get somebody else to foot the bill for their upkeep, right?  And as long as foundations have something as non-controversial as the great outdoors to put their money into, that might just mean they have less to put into those left-leaning liberal nonprofits out there.  Cool deal. 
We should be looking closely at how this administration responded to the groundbreaking efforts during the last administration to bring the scope and needs of the nonprofit sector into light.  We may have gotten more than we bargained for by pushing for greater awareness of this sector.  More cynical minds than ours may have responded not by asking how government can work more effectively with this sector, but by how it can plunder our resources or offload its unwanted or unworkable problems on us.

»» Posted by: OCNative on April 16, 2007 04:12 PM

I get that Mark R. hates bush—so do most americans at this point. But......lets get our facts right.  Actually under our constitution CONGRESS allocates money not the President.  so it is CONGRESS tht has underfunded the parks for 2 decades—dems & reps alike.  True that no president has proposed funding the parks either—until this year.  happily the president proposed a record increas in fundning for parks ops that only begins to fill the big hole and happily the Dems (and many Reps) in congress uped the ante and filled th ehole a bit more.

if you wonder about the history of philanthropy in the parks check out http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/hisnps/NPSHistory/philanthropy.HTM

Bush may be an awful president but lets get our facts right.

»» Posted by: tom on June 9, 2007 07:13 AM

Sorry, Tom, but I think it’s fully appropriate to hold a Republican president responsible for the budgets he submited to Republican-controlled Congresses.

»» Posted by: Mark Rosenman on June 17, 2007 01:17 PM