creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
John Stossel
John Stossel
23 May 2012
Keeping Business Honest

Instinctively, we look for people's motives. We need to know whom we can trust and whom we can't. We're … Read More.

16 May 2012
Making Life Fair

When my wife was a liberal, she complained that libertarian reasoning is coldhearted. Since markets produce … Read More.

9 May 2012
Creating a Risk-Free World

A child leaving home alone for the first time takes a risk. So does the entrepreneur who opens a new business.… Read More.

Making Parks Decent Again

Share Comment

America is filled with parks that are filthy, dangerous and badly maintained. The governments in charge plead: We can't help it. Our budgets have been slashed. We don't have enough money!

Bryant Park, in midtown Manhattan, was once such an unsavory place. But now it's nice. What changed? Dan Biederman essentially privatized the park.

With permission from frustrated officials who'd watch government repeatedly fail to clean up the park, Biederman raised private funds from "businesses around the park, real estate owners, concessions and events sponsorships. ... (S)ince 1996, we have not asked the city government for a single dollar."

Sounds good to me. But not to Shirley Kressel, a Boston journalist.

I asked her what's wrong with getting the money from private businesses, as Dan does.

"Because it goes into private pockets," she said.

So what?

"Because it's very good (for Dan) to use the public land for running a private business, a rent-a-park, where all year 'round there's commercial revenue from renting it out to businesses. He keeps all that money. People don't realize that."

So what? I don't care if they think the money is going to Mars. The park is nice, and people don't have to pay taxes to support it.

The park is certainly more "commercial" now. The day I videotaped, there were booths selling food and holiday gifts. The public seemed fine with that.

Biederman is not finished with his efforts to save public parks. He next wants to apply his skills to the Boston Common. The Common is America's oldest public park, and like many others, it's largely a barren field. Biederman doesn't want to seek business funding, as he did with Bryant Park, because the area is not as commercial. Instead, he would combine the Bryant Park and Central Park models. I know something about Central Park because I'm on the board of the charity that helps manage it. When government managed Central Park, it was a crime zone. Now it's wonderful. Those of us who live near it donated most of the money that renovated and now maintains Central Park.

It's not a business arrangement.

Kressel says she'll fight Biederman's plan for Boston.

"(W)e don't need ... to teach our next generation of children that the only way they can get a public realm is as the charity ward of rich people and corporations," she said. "We can afford our public realm. We're entitled to it. We pay taxes, and that's the government's job."

The Central Park model "doesn't work for 98 percent of the country," she added.

I don't know what'll happen to the rest of the country, but it's working in Central Park. Why not try it in Boston? It's working for the public.

"It's not, because these people, the money bags, get to decide how the park is used and who goes there and who the desirables are and who are the undesirables. Undesirables are primarily homeless people. ... Homeless people have to be somewhere. If we don't make a system that accommodates people who don't have a place to live, they have to be in the public realm."

Biederman has a ready answer: "We have the same number of homeless people in Bryant Park today as we had when it was viewed by everyone as horrible in the early 1980s. What we didn't have then — and we have now — is 4,000 other people. The ratio of non-homeless to homeless is 4,000 to 13 instead of 250 to 13. So any female walking into Bryant Park who might have in the past been concerned about her security says, 'This doesn't look like a homeless hangout to me.' The homeless people are welcomed into Bryant Park if they follow the rules. And those same 13 people are there almost every day. We know their names."

Once again, the creative minds of the private sector invent solutions that never occur to government bureaucrats. If government would just get out of the way, entrepreneurship and innovation, stimulated by the profit motive, will make our lives better.

John Stossel is host of "Stossel" on the Fox Business Network. He's the author of "Give Me a Break" and of "Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity." To find out more about John Stossel, visit his site at <a href="http://www.johnstossel.com" <http://www.johnstossel.com>>johnstossel.com</a>. To read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS, INC.

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

??

??

??

??


Comments

5 Comments | Post Comment
Privatize everything with individual liberty and the world would be a better place. It would solve every problem society has.

An example. Privatize schools and over time people would know how to run the best schools by noticing the schools that students choose to go to.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Jerry Feheley
Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:26 PM
Your statement… “Once again, the creative minds of the private sector invent solutions that never occur to government bureaucrats. If government would just get out of the way, entrepreneurship and innovation, stimulated by the profit motive, will make our lives better.”
I agree 100%, but my only worry is preventing greed from running wild, aka the housing market meltdown, when government gets out-of-the way.
Does government have a role in at least keeping things fair, honest and without concealment, deception or dishonesty?
Comment: #2
Posted by: David Jacobs
Wed Dec 1, 2010 10:18 AM
I would have liked to hear more on Kressel's proposal, because surely her idea wasn't to a) stand by while the government continues to not improve the park -OR- b) raise taxes because if your throw enough money at the government, eventually it will improve that park. She must have had some alternative that neither raises taxes nor allows the park to continue to erode away. Improper Action is better than No Action. You can fix mistakes, you can't fix anything by doing nothing.

I also agree with Jake, at what point do we step-in when the private sector runs amok? Are free-market promoters seriously saying we were better off when you could only attach Ma-Bell telephones to your phone-line, or when your cellular company owned your phone number, so if you wanted to move to another company with more affordable rates and better options, you had to get a new phone number? I suppose the answer was to simply not use the phones (they are a privilege, not a right after all). No, someone has to stand-up to the Robber Barons of yesterday and today. Conversely, we don't then need the government stepping in telling us where to shop, what to buy, what to eat, etc... All things in moderation I say.
Comment: #3
Posted by: Nathan H.
Wed Dec 1, 2010 1:04 PM
If only John Stossel knew the half of it when it comes to Public Land issues. Dig deep and you will find a treasure trove of material of how the government has been gobbling up millions upon millions of acres of public land year after year then putting it "off limits" to the taxpayers. Then of course there is the big picture; the "greens" I guess you would call them who use an organization like the Nature Conservancy when you pull enough layers back you see huge land purchases at incredible discounts only to see the Nature Conservancy resell the huge land grabs to super wealthy movie stars and such. Then there are the kooks organized for the sole purpose of buying enough of western United States land to create a "corridor" from Mexico to Canada "for the animals". Yeah, I know; I didn't believe it either.
Why should taxpayers be burdened with more debt for the purchase of more public land when they can't take care of what they've got????????????/
"Weigh In to Encourage Your Senators to Reject Omnibus Approach
It is time to have your voice heard again as 10 Democratic Senators sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) urging him to move a new public lands omnibus bill during the current “lame duck” session of Congress. The legislation would limit access to more than two million acres of public lands in 13 states, while creating new national parks, monuments and wilderness areas and may include other provisions.
As you will recall Congress used procedural gimmicks to enact a similar omnibus bill in 2009, and we must make it clear to Congress that passing massive omnibus bills at the 11th hour is no way to manage our public lands.
Please click the Take Action link below to let your Senators know you oppose a new massive omnibus public lands law and that a repeat of the 2009 law will mean more restrictions to access.
TAKE ACTION!" http://www.arra-access.com/site/R?i=2cdvJAaD53GCkfOnOzZRMg..
My website, where you can find years and years of research material is
http://www.angelfire.com/planet/rights/
Government agencies being led around by nose rings by special interest green groups. The EPA and Forest Service started writing our public land laws (normally the job of Congress) decades ago. The proof in documented on my website. Corruption, abuse of power by governent employees, all documented for your reading pleasure.
Wake up John Stossel; there is a gold mine of material just waiting for your investigative pleasure.
Comment: #4
Posted by: elorts
Wed Dec 1, 2010 7:31 PM
Jake,
The housing meltdown was caused BY the government. Research the "community reinvestment act." It was passed in 1977, and its goal was to increase urban home ownership by pressuring lending institutions to loosen their standards. People can certainly be predatory though. I'm not disagreeing with you there. However, in this case, that instinct was sanctioned and encouraged by the federal government.

Nathan,
Yes, of course we need laws to prevent business practices that are anti-free trade (like "Ma-Bell"). I don't think anyone would disagree with that, least of all Libertarians. However, isn't it true that government is nothing more than a giant Ma-Bell?
Comment: #5
Posted by: Jeff
Thu Dec 2, 2010 7:33 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
John Stossel
May. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31 1 2
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Roland Martin
Roland S. MartinUpdated 20 Jun 2012
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 28 May 2012
Steve Chapman
Steve ChapmanUpdated 27 May 2012

26 Nov 2008 The Big Three Should Stand on Their Own Feet

8 Jun 2011 The Cancer of Regulation

16 May 2007 The Tax-Cut Myth