The New York Times recently published an article criticizing hedge fund investor John Paulson's philanthropic gift in December of $100 million to the Central Park Conservancy - the private non-profit that manages what is possibly the most well known park in the world. The donation is believed to be the largest ever to an American park.
The contribution raised an issue with the Times about "the unequal distribution of philanthropy." The publication questioned why Paulson's gift was directed toward the famous, well maintained and well-supported park situated in an affluent area as opposed, for example, to the dilapidated park in his native Queens. The Times pointed out the disparity between Central Park and the parks of New York where "bicycles and walking paths are cracked and pitted" and "natural areas are overgrown with invasive species."
In response, an article in Forbes found Paulson's decision "both defensible and understandable", explaining that the donation is in good hands with an organization that is as stable as the Conservancy with its $144 million endowment. Forbes went on to liken Paulson's choice with those who choose to support other institutions with solid reputations and endowments, such as Ivy League schools. The article allows that the wealthy can use their financial resources to control access to amenities otherwise unavailable to the poor. However, it points out that even the maintenance of Central Park cannot be taken for granted, siting how it had once been a barren and crime-ridden place before the Conservancy took charge of its maintenance, and that the park is open for all to enjoy and borders the low income areas of central and East Harlem.
Parks that lack such large endowments do not necessarily suffer from too little philanthropy, but too little funding from the city government which has cut the operating budget for the parks department from $367 million in 2008 to its current $338 million. This contrast with the steady increase in the city's overall budget reflects the raise in the cost of benefits such as public employee pensions and health care, causing park services to suffer in lieu of employee retirement costs.
In sum, Forbes finds that Paulson's support of Central Park allows the city to direct funds to more needy parks, and that he has "put his money where it's most likely to get the best return."
Read the original article here.