Is it appropriate for the National Park Service to transform portions of the prison on Alcatraz Island into a cabaret with scantily clad dancers, all in the name of luring younger generations to the parks? Should corporations be allowed to rent out portions of parks -- at no profit -- for lavish parties? These are hot-button topics to some, but elicit a shrug of the shoulder from others.
Within recent weeks there have been at least two "special events" in the national park system. I say "at least" because there's no way to say how many might have been held without calling each of the 391 units, as the NPS's Washington headquarters does not track these events or sign-off on them.
These two events were parties, complete with alcohol, music, and good times for those invited. One, at Alcatraz Island in Golden Gate National Recreation Area, was staged to benefit Toyota's San Francisco Bay area Scion owners. The other was across the country at the Charlestown Navy Yard, part of the Boston National Historical Park, and commemorated the end of a conference held by McKesson Corporation, a Fortune 500 (No. 18, actually) health-care company.
They've generated controversy on these pages because some folks are angry over how units of the national park system are being managed. Others say the Park Service should stage such events if they bring in dollars to help with the parks' upkeep. Still others say the parks should be available for folks to enjoy themselves in such fashion, and others say the Park Service could learn from the non-profits that run such places as Mount Vernon and Monticello.
While some parks turn to such events to help raise money -- the contract BNHP has with Amelia Occasions, the event organizer that brought the McKesson party to the Navy Yard, calls for Amelia to plow some money back into the Commandant's House -- others allow events because groups like to use the parks as a backdrop for various occasions.
Indeed, Golden Gate each year averages right around 1,000 special events at its many venues, from weddings and film projects to marathons and music festivals.
While some certainly seem fitting -- the Wolf Trap National Park for the Performing Arts would be oddly silent without its concerts, operas, and children's theater -- others can seem oddly out of place, such as the Alcatraz and McKesson parties, for reasons I'll get into in a minute.
Then, too, there are concerns that problems can creep into the park system with the private bashes staged on public property. Those concerns range from the threat that continued commercialization and special events will transform the parks, both subtly and not so subtly, into something they were never intended to be, to the very question of what's appropriate.
Take a good look at the accompanying picture (You can find others here). and ask yourself whether Alcatraz, once used to incarcerate 19 members of the Hopi Tribe because they refused to be "Americanized," and long a maximum security prison, is an appropriate venue for such a production. To get an even better of what transpired, check out the YouTube feed found on this page. Pay close attention and you'll hear one of the participants in the "art gallery" questioning the location: "We're having this celebration out here where so many people suffered. It's hard."
Even the folks at Golden Gate admit the "performance art" dance by the Vau de Vire Society, portions of which some might consider sexually suggestive, if not mildly obscene, staged in the prison's infirmary is controversial. But they don't think it was too much for Alcatraz Island, a venerable unit of the national park system, one whose stories revolve around pain, suffering and misery.
"From what I've been able to gather from some of the messages that we got, people thought the dance routine was too much, had too many burlesque elements," Rudy Evenson, Golden Gate's chief of special park uses, told me.
"There may be elements that pushed people's envelopes," agreed Rich Weideman, the park's public affairs chief. "But I can tell you that we did an out-briefing of this event with our superintendent. He is very, very much in support of events like because of the very reason this park was created was to attract urban audiences into the national park system.
"The bulk of these people had never set foot on Alcatraz, nor very few even knew the national park area existed in and around the Golden Gate. This is the core of our future potential audience for the National Park Service. Not necessarily party people, but young, diverse communities. "
Is it so important to attract Gen-Xers and Gen-Yers to the parks that they have to be lured with elaborate parties that don't really mesh -- at least in the case of Alcatraz, a National Historic Landmark -- with the backdrop and tramp upon the solemnity of the setting? You have to wonder if the 750 Gen-Xers and Gen-Yers who attended the event were impressed with Alcatraz itself or the nubile dancers, the fashion show staged in the shower room, the related art show, and the free drinks.
True, there was some park interpretation, but...did it stick?
"For all the events the Park Service permits on Alcatraz Island, we require that as part of the permit the event include an educational component," said Mr. Evenson. "So, for example, we had a park ranger who gave a talk about the clothing-issue area in the shower room and how prisoners were processed there as an introduction to the ecologically friendly fashion show that was part of this event."
Across the country, I can't tell you exactly how the folks at Boston National Historical Park felt about the McKesson party, as, after my initial contact, they haven't returned my phone calls. I do understand, though, that upwards of 50 complaints were received the night of the event and that higher-ups in the Park Service's regional and national offices have been looking into the event and the agreement with Amelia Occasions.
There is some concern that the Park Service's tight budgets are forcing park superintendents to become more entrepreneurial in how they manage their units. While being more business-like in terms of watching the bottom line is welcome, pushing the limits of how the overall business is run can lead to questionable decisions.
Rick Smith, a long-tenured NPS employee whose career took him from field locations to the Washington headquarters and included a stint as associate regional director for natural and cultural resources in the Park Service's Southwest Office, worried about a "new breed" of park managers in a story published last fall by CQ Researcher.
Overtime, Park Service veterans are beginning to worry that tight budgets and political pressures are producing a "not very attractive" evolutionary change in park managers, Mr. Smith told the publication. Now an official can rise through the Park Service ranks "if your park makes money because you're able to collect fees or you're a great fund-raiser, or if your park has a congressman or congresswoman on an appropriations committee you get palsy-walsy with," he says. "I would prefer a park manager who has real dedication to preserving and protecting the resource.
While the National Parks Conservation Association so far has been silent on the issue, that's not the case with the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees. Bill Wade, who chairs the group's executive council, quickly questioned the propriety of the two events.
"These are likely to be instances that test the purpose and intent of the NPS Management Policies. While I’m sure that one can find specific permission in the Policies to justify these kinds of events, there are also provisions that would argue against them," he told me. "It comes down to the intent of the policies (and law) and the judgment of the authorizing superintendents. In these two instances, the judgment was faulty because the events clearly degrade the purposes for which the units were established."
At the Park Service's Washington headquarters, Lee Dickinson, the agency's program manager for special park uses, had no personal knowledge of either event. Nor would she express an opinion on whether the events were appropriate for the two settings.
And yet, Director's Order 53 clearly states that superintendents should not grant a special use permit if an event is "contrary to the purposes for which the park was established" or will "unreasonably impair the atmosphere of peace and tranquility maintained in wilderness, natural, historic, or commemorative locations within the park."
"Obviously, the superintendent decided that it was an appropriate use," Ms. Dickinson said in regard to the use of the Charlestown Navy Yard for a corporate party with an invitation list that numbered 3,500.
Now here's a kicker: the Park Service nets no profit from allowing special events on its grounds. Legally, all it's allowed to charge is "cost recovery" for overtime paid to rangers assigned to the event and any costs associated with the permitting process and managerial work, such as having maintenance crews outline where underground utilities and irrigation lines are so they aren't damaged by such things as stakes used to guy out tents.
In the case of the Alcatraz party, the FlavorGroup that arranged the affair for Toyota paid the Park Service a total of $23,000 -- $10,000 for administrative cost recovery and around $13,000 for management costs. The 750 party goers were not charged the normal $2 fee for setting foot on Alcatraz.
Comments
"As long as we fight with each other, and belittle and trivialize the significance of this or that park, rather than fight for enough funding in this rich country for all the parks, Congress has an excuse not to fund;"
Well the same could be said for welfare clients, Section 8 vouchers for housing assistance and agriculture subsidies for corporate farmers. Why quibble about who is truly in need of assistance when we are rich enough to fund all of it anyway? Bad argument all the way around.
I think it would be a very useful debate to look at ALL of the parks and determine if they really meet the criteria of national signifigance. The ability of temporarily elected members of Congress to saddle an agency in perpetuity with inappropriate and unecessary parks drains the system and makes it nothing more than a political spoils game.
I'll throw it out there again: is Keeweenaw (the cooper smelting historical park in Michigan), Steamtown, urban parks in NYC/NJ, S.F., L.A. and Cleveland, a former textile mill in Massachusetts and the Boston Navy Yard truly what constitute national treasures?
I'd be interested to hear some of your responses.
Speaking for the 'urban' park in L. A., that is the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area. It is mountainous terrain between the San Fernando Valley and Malibu. One of it's 'sites' is the old Paramount movie ranch still used for filming today. It is home to cougars, deer, bobcats and many varieties of raptors. And it's needed badly as both a wildlife corridor and as valuable park and open space for the all too densely populated region. Is it on the same level of wilderness or scenery as Yosemite, Sequoia or the Channel Islands. No. But it should be maintained as a park, either county, state or national. The designation doesn't really matter, except for which group of taxpayers pay for it.
Our family loved Steamtown. I also think the Park Service should include a steel mill and lumber mill in its list of historic sites before they're all dismantled and the scrap parts sold off to the Chinese. The concrete lookout towers on the Delaware beaches and the gun emplacements in the dunes of Cape Henlopen, guarding the entrance to Delaware Bay during WWII are another aspect of American history that will disappear forever if they're not protected.
-- Jon Merryman
Rocky Horror Picture Show was supposed to be fiction. This makes me ill. According to the news quotes and photos I've seen (there are lots on the web) there were a lot more than 750 people in attendance. According to the event organizer, he wished they had done a better job of restricting it to the people who were invited (he estimated over a thousand). He was quoted in the news saying people on the mainland were hearing about it as the night went on and somehow hopped on ferry boats to the island. What irks me more than anything is seeing these people climb all over the walls, bars, on top of furniture, shredding pillows and a mattress in some pictures. There are blogs that people have posted where they brag about doing drugs (ecstasy) at the "rave" on "the rock", the photos on the internet show that so many people ignored the regulations as set forth by the NPS. It's clear that once they let the cat out of the bag, there's no putting it back in. The concept of designated smoking areas was a joke. These Gen-whatevers aren't going to come back and bring their kids along for a history lesson... if they even have kids in the first place. And the Gateway reps calling it "educational" and environmentally sensitive and even being in a position of defending this crap really ticks me off too. I suppose if you're not wearing any clothes that's considered ecologically friendly? And no one outside of that party would ever consider buying clothes like the ones being modelled. And even if someone did, they'd probably be worn once if at all, then tossed by our throw-away society. How environmentally friendly is that?
-- Jon Merryman
"I also think the Park Service should include a steel mill and lumber mill in its list of historic sites before they're all dismantled and the scrap parts sold off to the Chinese."
Who'd a thunk that in 1916, when the the NPS began, that Americans such as Merryland would be clamoring for the inclusion of such places as lumber mills and steel making plants? Why not an old GM plant while we're at it. I hear they're looking to unload a few for pretty cheap.
As for the Santa Monica Mountains I found kath's observation telling, "The designation doesn't really matter, except for which group of taxpayers pay for it." It sounds like this is a Southern Californian who wants a park in her area and if the local government is not willing to pay for it she doesn't mind sticking taxpayers in faraway states with the bill for the acquisition and upkeep. The saving of open space and preserving a "wildlife corridor" is more important than the essential fairness of the way federal money is allocated for strictly local uses. I do not think it is the federal government's job to preserve open space in Los Angeles County. Call me a Philistine but I think the use of federal funds should be used sparingly and for what we used refer to as the crown jewels.
The history of the Santa Monica Mountains park is one of local activists unable to preserve open space through free market purchases of land. So instead some powerful friends and donors of local Congresspeople turned to them to achieve their ends through the use of federal money. It didn't hurt that many of these powerful friends benefited greatly through the sale of lands at inflated prices to Uncle Sam and of also having their adjacent property skyrocket in value by having it border non-developable natio0nl park land. This distortion of the original intent of the National Park Service makes it possible for almost any white elephant to be considered for inclusion in the system. While I personally have enjoyed hiking iin the Santa Monica Mountains NRA I don't think it is the job of the entire nation to preserve something that is more properly done by people in California.
Call me old fashioned but I think that states and local communities should be responsible for their own lands and how they are used and developed. It is a slippery slope to say it's okay for national parks to be created in this way but then be upset at wasteful subsidies, enormous military expenditures and a federal government generally running amuck. It most are not willing question the power being used by the heavy hand of Washington if it's for something they personally approve of, like a new national park area. I'm asking everyone to step back and see the bigger picture.
Mr. Beamis -- you invite us to call you 'old fashioned.' Your view is pre-constitutional. Had we relied on local communities, we Tetons would not have been preserved, just to name one. You can be cynical if you want about how they pieced together Santa Monica, but the truth remains the nation is better because Santa Monica is civilizing and enhancing an iimportant region of America that needs to function effectively as a great and civilized place to live.
Elsewhere you belittle members of congress because they are temporary, which of course is another idea at the foundation of our Nation and constitution. James Watt initiated a search in 1981 to review all the parks established in the 1970's because he suspected, as you seem to, that the System was infiltrated with inappropriate areas. It was quickly demonstrated that site after site was, in fact, suitable and appropriate, even if he had not known enough in the first place about the american nation to understand significance and Meaning and value to the nation. He quickly buried the report, changed the subject, and focused instead on preventing the identification of new areas.
Yours is actually a larger argument, about the value of nationhood and "forming one union." On his tour around Britain in the early 1700's Daniel Defoe noted that in many ways Britain and Europe still had not caught up to the Romans. He speculates: "It is true that the Romans being the Lords of the World, had the Command of the People, their Persons and their work . . . even their armies were employ'd in these noble Undertakings.. . . .But now the CasE is alter'd, Labor is dear, Wages high . . . . . so that as rich as we are, it would exhaust the whole Nation to build the Edifices, the Causways, the Aqueducts, Lines, Castles, Fortifications and other publick Works, which the Romans built with very little Expence. . . . ' Even the speed of transportation during such a rich time in England had not yet caught up to the Romans, when demand, and not infrastructure, was the limit on trade.
One of the ways America has taken advantage of the leverage you get as "one union," as a Nation, was to establish national parks and national public works. Abraham Lincoln spent much of his career trying to establish national public works, but it wasn't until the Civil War disenfranchised the regionalists in the South who had consistently opposed national leverage that some of the great nation-building congressional enactments occurred, helping to make America the great country it is. The idea of national parks came very soon after. It is important for me to know a site at Santa Monica in southern california or in the Blackstone Valley and Lowell in Massachusetts or in Lower Manhattan in New York or on a Homestead in Nebraska are part of what makes me an American.
Every significant site in America is not self-sustaining. Some that could be self-sustaining with a robust marketing and economic development plan do sometimes risk trading the integrity of their prime resources for funding leverage. You site Mount Vernon, yet many preservationists are concerned that the new airconditioning system, installed to enhance visitation, may be undermining the integrity of the structure. It would be better if we could first do the best job with the best preservation treatment for a park site, and then provide for the best balance of public enjoyment.
america is a greater country because we think as a nation and act as a nation, and our national parks reflect what we tell our elected officials we think is the best of america.
"Who'd a thunk that in 1916, when the the NPS began, that Americans such as Merryland would be clamoring for the inclusion of such places as lumber mills and steel making plants?"
Sorry, but the act of 1916 creating the National Park Service specifically directed the NPS to preserve historic as well as natural resources, and the Historic Sites Act of 1935 clarified and reinforced this aspect of the Service's mission.
Sites relating to industrial history might not make good material for pretty postcards, but no one with an awareness of the nation's history could deny their significance.
The consensus, from the comments so far, is for a strong national government that is indespensible to our ability to "function effectively as a great and civilized place to live". What would we do without them? Devolve into barbarism? At least I'm beginning to understand that the majority of national park supporters are also supporters of BIG government and feel that the ends justify the means. I personally am ashamed of the criminal theft of places such as the Tetons (with the corporatist help and self-motivated cunning of the Rockefellers) and Shenandoah from the poor mountaineers who formerly occupied those hills. It is a shameful blot on our nation's history as are many other park areas too numerous to mention. To their credit the administration of Shenandoah has at least conceded, with an interpretive sign that the park was essentially stolen from its lawful landowners to boost tourism in a depressed area. Sorry folks, our bad but enjoy the park.
I'm glad most of you are comfortable with the current way our government runs its affairs especially since the way parks are designated is similar to the ways that other projects get funded and wars started. Again I don't think you wish to question the means as long as you are personally satisfied with the ends. In this case "civilizing and enhancing an important region of America." Sort of sounds like what we are supposed to be doing in Iraq.