Could city parks be profitable?

[Hotu Matua]

I am having problems with imaging a private profitable city park.

I mean, if all parks in a city were owned privately, woudln't the owners find thousand ways to use that property to cut the trees and build something profitable (a supermarket, a skyscraper, a gas station)? Wouldn't parks disasppear?

I am talking about a park with trees where you can go to read a book, kiss your lover or see your children play.

Edited December 1, 2009 by Hotu Matua

[Iudicious]

Privately, I can imagine a number of ways it could be profitable. You could sell space to put up ads in the park and rent out space for vendors all while preserving the natural aspect of the park. It wouldn't be too hard. Further, a park doesn't -have- to be run just for profit, as there is such a thing as charity.

[TLD]

I am having problems with imaging a private profitable city park.

I mean, if all parks in a city were owned privately, woudln't the owners find thousand ways to use that property to cut the trees and build something profitable (a supermarket, a skyscraper, a gas station)? Wouldn't parks disasppear?

I am talking about a park with trees where you can go to read a book, kiss your lover or see your children play.

You began witth the assumption the park is necessary at all.

But if people want parks, they will pay a fee to use them. Otherwise, the park is not important enough.

There would always likely be those who value parks and would provide land for such uses without cost.

[Zip]

I can easily imagine a profitable private/public park.

It could have controlled access with something like a mini midway for the kids, well kept grounds, nice flower beds, well maintained equipment for the kids to play on. I could see volunteers tending the flowers and watching out for the equipment and helping to guard the kids as they play which in turn would get them a free pass into the park...

After all the realization of rational persons in the area would be that without their support and patronage such a place would in all likelihood not exist.

And as Iudicious already pointed out, there is always charity.

Edited December 1, 2009 by Zip

[Hotu Matua]

Privately, I can imagine a number of ways it could be profitable. You could sell space to put up ads in the park and rent out space for vendors all while preserving the natural aspect of the park. It wouldn't be too hard. Further, a park doesn't -have- to be run just for profit, as there is such a thing as charity.

Thanks for your tips, Iudicious.

Certainly a park doesn't HAVE to be run just for profit, but the temptation would be hard to resist in many cases.

Take Central Park in NYC, for example. What is the cost of each acre of land in central Manhattan? Would owners resist the temptation to build apartment buildings, convention centres, a new airport, or sell their share to a big software company for a new campus? What are the chances of Central Park to survive?

[freestyle]

I am having problems with imaging a private profitable city park.

I mean, if all parks in a city were owned privately, woudln't the owners find thousand ways to use that property to cut the trees and build something profitable (a supermarket, a skyscraper, a gas station)? Wouldn't parks disasppear?

I am talking about a park with trees where you can go to read a book, kiss your lover or see your children play.

Can you imagine a land owner maintaining a beautiful city park where he charges vendors to lease space therin to sell, say, coffee, books, food, picnic supplies, etc? A nice place like that would seem to be of mutual value to the land owner, the vendors and the park patrons.

You might also imagine a private park that charges you a few bucks to access and park like private beaches sometimes do. If someone can provide for a nice place that people want to go, then that can be of benefit to the maintainer of the land and those who go there.

The answer is demand. The existence of public parks reduces and even eliminates the demand for private parks in most places. Some do exist though (Gramercy Park in New York, for example). I believe parks, in general, would be even nicer if they were not owned and operated by the government (which doesn't really react and respond to demand very well).

[turboimpala]

I own 3.3 acres of nothing but grass and trees and I'm not building gas stations and skyscrapers.

Why are you trying to imagine this park?

Are parks more important than freedom and individual rights?

Does the chance that Central Park might disappear make it acceptable for government to force citizens to pay taxes to fund the park?

[Jake_Ellison]

I am having problems with imaging a private profitable city park.

It's easy to imagine, especially in a world without property taxes and fees. Profitable means that income is higher than expenses. Since trees grow by themselves and are quite cheap to maintain, even the smallest entrance fee or advertizing will make a park profitable.

But, of course, there is no need to imagine, even in Manhattan (where land is quite expensive), and even with the government doing everything possible to make their owners' lives difficult, private parks still survive:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramercy_Park (fun trivia, that's the statue of John Wilkes Booth's brother in the picture)

In fact I'm pretty sure there would be more parks than there are now, since there clearly is a demand for parks, and free enterprise meets demand far more efficiently than the government. Personally, I would never buy an apartment without a park reasonably close. I assume people who plan on raising children would want them even more.

P.S. Country clubs and golf courses are "parks" too.

Edited December 1, 2009 by Jake_Ellison

[CWEarl]

I am having problems with imaging a private profitable city park.

I mean, if all parks in a city were owned privately, woudln't the owners find thousand ways to use that property to cut the trees and build something profitable (a supermarket, a skyscraper, a gas station)? Wouldn't parks disasppear?

I am talking about a park with trees where you can go to read a book, kiss your lover or see your children play.

This rings of leftist thinking, wherein something is so important that people must be forced to pay for it because they wouldn't do so voluntarily. Of course, this makes no sense at all, but it is the basis for even Conservative politics in Canada.

As a result, we have compulsory tax funding for public broadcasting, the "arts", and healthcare. It's amusing to watch politicians accuse one another of not caring about these values if they are unwilling to force the populace to pay for them.

The obvious question is: if it's so damn important, why can't it make a profit?

[JMeganSnow]

I agree with Jake that there may well be MORE parks in a fully rights-respecting society. Why? Because there won't be zoning laws that prevent people from making the best use of their space. There won't be public roads and public transport that determine how people can get around in cities and lead to issues like traffic congestion and an inability to expand. And the buildings and landscaping will likely be a lot more attractive because this is a way to help draw people in.

People like to have nice things, and when they keep their own money because it's not being flushed down the toilet by Mr. Gov't, they produce all sorts of things like this.

Of course, if there AREN'T more parks, so what? If people want grass and trees, they're free to buy their own flowerpots and windowboxes. They're free to take a weekend out of the city. Sheesh.

Edited December 1, 2009 by JMeganSnow

[Bob G]

I am having problems with imaging a private profitable city park.

I mean, if all parks in a city were owned privately, woudln't the owners find thousand ways to use that property to cut the trees and build something profitable (a supermarket, a skyscraper, a gas station)? Wouldn't parks disasppear?

I am talking about a park with trees where you can go to read a book, kiss your lover or see your children play.

One important principle from Fredric Bastiat it "The Seen and the Unseen". We, having been brought up in this mess of a mixed economy are only use to its poor thought processes. We see only what they have done and not what someone thinking freely could do when not encumbered by taxes and regulations.

If people want space not covered with buildings, someone will find a method of providing it. If we can't think of a way here, we don't really have the incentive.

Certainly, if a developer of a block of land discovered that he could get the price he wanted if there was land open as a park, he would find a way to provide it. There could be various methods. Just let freedom ring and wonderful things can happen.

[Weston]

The obvious question is: if it's so damn important, why can't it make a profit?

CWEarl makes a great point, and to add on it, if people do indeed want parks, then in a capitalist society where people turn most available land into industrial grey buildings and such, whoever could secure a small piece of real estate and convert the land into a park, could undoubtedly see huge profits in his future, because his is the only park in town, and it will surely be in demand.

[Hotu Matua]

Thanks everyone for your very interesting hints and tips.

And also for pointing out to the real core of the question

If something is really valuable, precious, demanded it will make profits.

If it is not, it won't.

Most people want to live near parks, so free markets will find their way to provide them.

It is just that I have grown surrounded by so much collectivism and mysticism, that it is sometimes difficult to me to work out these simple things.

[jmr]

Don't forget: parks increase the value of the land that surrounds them. People want to live/work close to parks.

[aequalsa]

Don't forget: parks increase the value of the land that surrounds them. People want to live/work close to parks.

A way they would(and currently do) come about is during the building of a subdivision. A contractor building 400 new homes would be very nearly out of his mind to not add parks to the area. It's a sunk cost, but adds so much value to the houses you do sell that it makes up for itself. That's to say nothing of the increased likelihood of selling them at all.

[John McVey]

A number of easy answers come to the top of my head, as well as Iudicious' good point:

A major developer/landowner owning a number of blocks can get more rent if there is a park nearby. Whether and where a park should be placed would then be a perfectly valid business judgement based directly on contribution to profitability.

A group of landowners could jointly get together and form a cooperative whose responsibilities include maintenance of the park.

A property developer selling plots could set up a contract where as part of the sale agreement the developer is contractually bound to to maintain the park indefinitely in return for a lump sum payment from the plot buyer.

I'm sure others could think of more - and that's the point. Men should be free to try whatever their business judgement tells them could be viable. No one solution is the right way to go - that kind of one-solution thinking is a step to collectivism.

JJM

Edit: "goog"? Gah.

Edited December 2, 2009 by John McVey

[John McVey]

A way they would(and currently do) come about is during the building of a subdivision...

Snap, dammit!

JJM