THE CURIOUS CASE OF PARK SPACE: AN ANALYSIS OF PUBLIC PARKS IN SANTA ANA, CA ______
A Thesis
Presented to the
Faculty of
California State University, Fullerton ______
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Arts
in
Geography ______
By
Juan Carlos Garcia Sanchez
Thesis Committee Approval:
Zia Salim, Department of Geography & the Environment, Chair John Carroll, Department of Geography & the Environment Jonathan Taylor, Department of Geography & the Environment
Spring, 2017
ABSTRACT
Public parks are important urban resources that promote health, enrich communities, and enhance the local environment. However, the literature on public parks suggests that these resources are not always equitably distributed. Research has shown that communities of color, characterized with low-household incomes and limited political weight, often lack adequate public park opportunities when compared to their more affluent counterparts. Empirical cases allude to recurrent themes within the framework of environmental justice as the drivers inducing the shortage of public parks in many marginalized communities.
The city of Santa Ana, California is a predominantly Hispanic community with a documented shortage of public parks. Using this city as a case study site, this study will implement a mix-method approach to address several questions about the inequitable distributions of public parks. Through in-depth archival research of park provisions, along with interviews of advocates and decision-makers, and cartographic analysis this study will attempt to answer the following questions. First, why is Santa Ana so park- poor? Second, are the drivers found in environmental justice literature present in Santa
Ana? And, what steps can be made to mitigate the shortage of public parks?
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ...... ii
LIST OF TABLES ...... v
LIST OF FIGURES ...... vi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... vii
Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1
Public Park Positives ...... 2 A Curious Case ...... 6 Methods ...... 7 Summary ...... 12
2. A BRIEF HISTORY OF PUBLIC PARKS ...... 16
From Agoras to Asphalt ...... 16 America’s First Grand Park ...... 20 Promises of Parks...... 23 Inequitable Distribution ...... 26
3. LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 30
Democracy on the Horizon ...... 31 Urban Public Facilities...... 33 The Environmental Justice Framework ...... 35 An Inverted Argument ...... 39 Environmental Justice for Public Parks ...... 40 Conclusion ...... 47
4. MINORITIES IN SANTA ANA, CA...... 49
Early Days of Santa Ana ...... 50 Ole’ West Justice ...... 51 Gentrification: Part One ...... 53 Destruction and Construction ...... 55 Braceros and Barrios ...... 56
iii “Greatest Generation” ...... 60 The Black Panthers ...... 62 Gentrification: Part Two ...... 65
5. RESULTS ...... 71
Why is Santa Ana so Park-Poor? ...... 71 Myopic Planning ...... 72 Socio-Economic Changes ...... 75 The Game of Politics ...... 80 Santa Ana: A Case of Environmental Injustice? ...... 83 Historical Marginalization ...... 84 Equity vs. Equality ...... 85 The Role of Non-Profits ...... 88 Fear of the Park ...... 90 The Cost to Play ...... 92 Mitigating Strategies ...... 95 Short-Term Solutions ...... 95 Medium-Term Solutions ...... 97 Long-Term Solutions ...... 108 Summary ...... 109
6. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ...... 110
Limitations ...... 115 Conclusion ...... 117
WORKS CITED ...... 120
iv
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. List of Interviewees...... 9
2. Budget Allocation: Selected Fiscal Years (1965-1966 to 2014-2015) ...... 83
3. Acreage Data for Digitized Parks and Joint-Use Sites ...... 101
v
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. Location of public parks and joint-use sites in Santa Ana, CA (2017) ...... 100
2. Total population within 1/2 mile of public parks and joint-use sites ...... 103
3. Park Service Areas for selected parks and joint-use sites ...... 105
4. Potential joint-use sites and adjusted park service areas ...... 107
vi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research represents countless hours of dedication and sacrifice by many people. First and foremost, I want to thank my advisor, Dr. Zia Salim, for his encouragement, patience, and for his unconditional commitment to me and the entire
Geography student body. Please continue to engage and promote students to learn beyond the classroom. I would also like to express my gratitude to my committee members, Dr.
John Carroll and Dr. Jonathan Taylor for their sound advice and insight. To all my professors and staff of the Department of Geography and the Environment, I am honored and humbled to have been part of this program, thank you.
Many thanks to the participants of this research for providing their time, knowledge, and experiences. A special thanks to the helpful staff of the Santa Ana
Library History Room and the Pollak Library University Archives and Special
Collections. I would also like to thank Greg Beringer and Scott Williams for their assistance with the cartographic component of this research.
I would like to thank my girlfriend, Anay Palafox, for her understanding and infinite support . . . YNWA. I want to thank my friends (too many to name) who have been a source of energy and motivation. And last but not least, I want to thank my family,
Alex, Moi, Monse, Mom, and Dad. Gracias por su apoyo incondicional, ustedes son mi inspiricion y mi fuerza. Si se pudo.
vii 1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
In 2012, an HBO documentary highlighted the deficiency of recreational outlets in the city of Santa Ana, California. Senior Vice President of Healthy Communities for the California Endowment, Anthony Iton, was interviewed in the documentary where he stated the following:
Orange County, California is one of the wealthiest counties in the United States . . . .it has a very high number of parks and park space. In fact per 1,000 residents in Orange County there is 41 acres of parks and open-space . . . but not in Santa Ana. (Chaykin, 2012)
The documentary continued with Latino Health Access President America Bracho talking with parents near the city’s downtown while children merrily played in the background. However, the surface these children played on was not your traditional sand- filled playground or bermuda grass field; these children played on an asphalt lot that hours prior served as the parking area for the adjacent county buildings. The dichotomy of these distant worlds is distinctive. The imposing downtown skyline for the center of government servicing one of wealthiest counties in the United States is juxtaposed with communities that in their majority are living below the poverty line and struggle with scarce public amenities to combat an increasing rates of childhood obesity, high cholesterol, and diabetes. This vast discrepancy in amenity allocation raises questions of power-relations, justice, and equity.
2
The Orange County Health Agency produced a comprehensive report in 2012, which provided statistical data pertaining to community health of the 34 cities in the county. Among the analyzed data, Santa Ana consistently placed last in the categories of crowded living conditions, adult poverty, unemployment, and adults with a high school diploma. Additionally, this report identified the number of public park opportunities as a highly influential factor to community health, and thus included a list of park acreage per
1,000 residents. Five of the 34 municipalities in Orange County were identified as having less than the minimal recommended three acres per 1,000 residents, by the Statewide
Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (2015). However, out of these five cities identified, only one had a population of more than 200,000, indicating a case of extreme stress in public park allocation. With a population of approximately 330,000; the city of
Santa Ana faces a serious park deficiency with an average of 1.5 acres of public park space per 1,000 residents (The Trust for Public Land, 2016).
Public Park Positives
Public parks are an important public resource that promote healthy behaviors, encourages a sense of community, and can be an economic asset. Access to clean and well-maintained public parks has been correlated with a plethora of health benefits. The health literature has identified a linkage between increased levels of physical activity and proximity to public parks. Coutts, Horner, and Chapin (2010) analyzed cardiovascular mortality levels and found that access to these public amenities had a substantial effect on mortality rates. This study highlights how communities with greater access to green open-space within a reasonable walking distance are associated with substantially better health and lower cardiovascular mortality rates.
3
Health research also recognizes how access to public recreation outlets are an important mitigating factor to combat obesity and other health issues, as a result of a sedentary lifestyle (Diez-Roux et al., 2007). This is especially the case in minority communities, where propensity for obesity is much higher (Ogden et al., 2006). Giles-
Corti, Broomhall, Knuiman, Collins Douglas, & Ng (2005) found that public parks can help mitigate increasing obesity rates by providing a venue for individuals to partake in habitual recreation. They argue that individuals residing within walking distance of a public park are three times more likely to attain the daily amount of recommended exercise (Giles-Corti et al., 2005). These trends of increased physical activity with increased access to recreational outlets have been found with children (Timperio,
Salmon, Telford, & Crawford, 2005) and adults (Evenson, Wen, Hillier, & Cohen, 2013).
Improved mental health, reduced levels of stress, and reduced levels of anxiety resulting from the positive therapeutic role that public parks play in urban environments have also been documented (Chiesura, 2004; Godbey & Blazey, 1983; Ulrich, Simons,
Losito, Fiorito, Miles, & Zelson, 1991). These studies highlight how public parks provide an opportunity for individuals to disconnect from the bustling city life. Other studies indicate that exposing children to public parks from an early age can potentially improve cognitive and social skills (Chawla, 2015; Taylor, Wiley, Kuo, & Sullivan, 1998). In addition, public parks and other green open-spaces lined with heavy tree canopy can provide a habitat for local wildlife while simultaneously filtering the local atmosphere and providing a cleaner environment by reducing levels of respiratory problems
(Escobedo, 2011). Finally, green open-space in urban settings has a cooling effect that
4 helps mitigate rising Urban Heat Island temperatures, thus reducing the risk of heat- related illness (Cummins & Jackson, 2001).
From a social perspective, public parks can create a sense of community among individuals that reside in close proximity but belong to distinct socio-economic groups.
Solecki and Welch (1995) argue that parks bordering such distinct communities can become “green walls” as perceptions of incivilities by the other groups can effectively suppress park use. However, Gobster (1998) has identified certain strategies and management styles that can produce an ambiance of inclusiveness regardless of individual background. Gobster’s (1998) work focused on Chicago’s Warren Park, where he identified that a socially diverse community translated to diverse visiting times resulting in a lively park landscape at various times of the day. Furthermore, the various lifestyles of the community allowed for multiple park uses, in which all portions of the park were constantly used, thus reducing the propensity for the park to become a derelict landscape. Over time, Warren Park became a prized possession of the local community, encouraging neighborhood participation to secure public funds to continue managing and maintaining this valued resource. In other words, rather than becoming “green walls,” public parks can effectively become “green magnets” (Gobster, 1998).
From an economic perspective, public parks can serve as a financial incentive for stakeholders and developers. Crompton (2001) argues that public parks should not be viewed as a financial burden, and suggests that the amenity of a passive public park can significantly increase real estate values. Through an overview of studies that compare property values of neighborhoods in the vicinity of public parks, Crompton (2001) demonstrates how a majority of these neighborhoods experienced increased appraisal
5 values. Crompton (2001) estimates a 20% increase in properties within walking distance of a well-maintained passive park, arguing that many municipalities hold a flawed view of public parks; aside from many health benefits, when properly managed, public parks can also serve as a revenue generating entity for the local economy (Crompton, 2001).
Unfortunately, the benefits a public park has to offer are not equitably available to all populations. According to Byrne and Wolch (2009), Geographic scholarship has been late to identify the distribution of public goods as an environmental matter. Thus, most literature on public parks largely derives from the leisure and health sciences that focuses mostly on park-user behavior (Floyd, Shinew, McGuire, & Now, 1994; Gobster, 2002).
For example, the various park preferences and diverse park-uses are often presented along ethno-racial lines. That is, the literature points to the diverse cultural practices that produce varying uses of public park spaces, suggesting that these results are a function of the individual rather than a function of the space itself. However, public parks are not apolitical spaces; they reflect a set of ideals, and represent a society’s perception of nature that can considerably affect who uses, and has access to them.
Byrne & Wolch (2009) point out that urban geography research has failed to make the connection between the dominant ideals imbedded in the institution of public parks, the varying uses of such, park attendance, and the distribution of public parks themselves. They argue that it is fundamental that public parks be viewed as the result of various decisions, perceptions, and ideals, because it effectively eliminates the idea of such spaces as innocuous. The reality is that urban public parks are fabricated pieces of nature within an urban environment. Thus, like other public facilities, such as jails, schools, and waste disposals, there was an intent in their formation and in their location,
6 and like all public facilities; public parks can provide a benefit or a burden to the local community. Health, social, and economic research validate public parks as a beneficial public resource, therefore, their exclusion from certain communities has the potential to be a case of environmental injustice.
A Curious Case
The movement for environmental justice emerged in the 1980s as a response to the lack of interest for marginalized communities by mainstream environmentalism.
While mainstream, environmentalism largely focused on human use and abuse of Earth’s environments, advocates of environmentalism did not address how man-made environments could also have adverse effects on marginalized communities.
Consequently, the environmental justice framework developed to “broaden the definition and scope of environmentalism, to include the basic needs of the poor and politically less powerful groups” (Johnston et al., 2000, p. 219). If environmental justice rhetoric champions the concern for human health and cleaner neighborhoods, then public park deficiency should be part of this narrative.
Inequitable distribution of public goods is not a novelty. Geographic research has been clear to identify contemporary cases where marginalized communities of color are burdened with unhealthy environments. Scholars have used the environmental justice framework to identify factors that induce such disparities. By attempting to understand the wrongdoings of the past, urban scholars can provide information to make better decisions for the future.
This study argues that the deficient allocation of public amenities in Santa Ana is not an isolated case but rather contributes to a greater discussion of environmental justice.
7
The contemporary characteristics of the Santa Ana context correlate with other empirical cases of built environments that have adversely affected the minority communities that reside in them. This thesis attempts to analyze the various decisions and social dynamics that have resulted in the current amenity-poor state of public parks in Santa Ana.
To address these issues, this study formulated a series of questions that will examine the park-poor conditions of a city situated in a county that largely features park- abundant municipalities. First and foremost, why does the city of Santa Ana lack its fair share of public parks, relative to neighboring cities? Second, does the case of Santa Ana align with identified cases of environmental justice? Lastly, what areas of the city are most stressed in terms of park deficiency; conjointly what effective mitigating efforts can help alleviate park deficiency?
Methods
This study utilized a mixed-methods approach that included a qualitative and quantitative component to address the research questions. The qualitative component addressed the historical development of Santa Ana over time, focusing on key policies, planning decisions, and population trends that have shaped its development. The qualitative component also examined these elements to analyze if park-deficiency in
Santa Ana presents indicators of environmental injustice. Additionally, the qualitative component attempted to identify innovative strategies to ameliorate public park shortages. The quantitative component of this research used digital cartographic tools to highlight areas in the city with a pronounced deficiency of public parks. Furthermore, this cartographic analysis attempted to identify potential sites where efforts could be prioritized to make small steps for a more equitable distribution of public parks.
8
The qualitative component of this research focused on compiling a list of drivers identified in the environmental justice literature to be the catalyst for public amenity inequities. These drivers were used to create a framework, in order to review multiple sources of data pertaining to the historical and contemporary development of Santa Ana and its public parks. Through this analysis, this study was able to determine if drivers of environmental injustice are present in the decisions and development of the city.
Furthermore, this analysis was instrumental in determining whether these drivers were contributing agents for the deficiency of public parks in Santa Ana.
Data for this study was collected using a combination of in-depth interviews and archival research. After gaining approval by the university’s Institutional Review Board office, a list of potential candidates for interviews was compiled. The interviewees were selected based on their knowledge, expertise, or political influence on the past and present development and allocation of public parks in Santa Ana. Potential interviewees were contacted via phone or email and asked to participate in this study at a time and location of their convenience. Participants were provided with a series of potential question and topics that the interview would cover, and notified that these interviews would be recorded to be transcribed. All but one of the interviewees consented to being recorded. None of the interviewees requested anonymity. Before commencing the in- person interview, the consent form was presented for the interviewee’s review and signature. The consent form also required the participants to indicate whether this research could use their full name and title or if the participant preferred to use a pseudonym. Every participant was provided with a copy of the consent form for their records. Each interview ranged from 25 to 55 minutes and a total of 16 interviews with
9
17 individuals were conducted. The recordings produced approximately 115 pages of transcripts. See Table 1 for the list of interviewees.
Table 1. List of Interviewees
Name Organization Title Group
Richard Decision- County of Orange Park Planner Ramella Maker
Administrative Services Manager Decision- Ron Ono City of Santa Ana and Former Landscape Architect Maker
Decision- Jessica Mears Santa Ana Unified School District Senior Facilities Manager Maker
Senior Community Planner Decision- Scott Kutner City of Santa Ana Neighborhood Initiatives Maker
Former Parks and Recreation Decision- Gerardo Mouet City of Santa Ana current Interim City Manager Maker
Community Engagement and Decision- Nancy Mejia Latino Health Access Advocacy Coordinator Maker
Rosalia Vargas Latino Health Access Employee and Promotor(a) Advocate
Ester Trinidad Latino Health Access Promotor(a) and Volunteer Advocate
Leanne Heninger Park Community Trinity Cristo Rey Advocate Luchinger Connection
King’s Kids Program Lupe Ortiz Trinity Cristo Rey Advocate Coordinator
Orange County Communities Joese Organized for Responsible Community Organizer Advocate Hernandez Development
Rubi Artesia-Pilar Neighborhood Community Organizer and Advocate Gonzalez-Woo Association Association President
Natalie Lighthouse Community Center Mariner’s Church Advocate McLaughlin Director
Tracy Wood Voice of OC Investigative Reporter Expert
Manuel Former City Historian and City of Santa Ana Expert Escamilla Current City Planner
Gustavo OC Weekly Editor of OC Weekly and author Expert Arellano
Madison Neighborhood Vice President of Neighborhood Jose Rea Expert Association Association
10
The interview transcripts were analyzed using a coding system. The list of codes were keywords and themes found in the literature indicative of environmental injustices.
Additionally, codes were used to identify concrete and potential efforts to enhance public park opportunities. Thus, the objective during the coding process was to determine if public park development in Santa Ana parallels that of sites with documented cases of disproportionate allocation of public parks, and to underline previous and ongoing strategies to ameliorate park deficiencies.
Archival research was conducted at the Santa Ana Public Library History Room,
California State University, Fullerton Pollak Library Special Collections, and the
Archives Department for the County of Orange. Archival data included newspaper clippings, magazine articles, budget reports, maps, and pictures, which described significant public park decisions in Santa Ana. Sensitive material was photographed or scanned on-site to be later analyzed. Budget reports for the Santa Ana Parks and
Recreation Department before 2010 were gathered from the public records in the Santa
Ana History Room, while years that are more recent were gathered from the city’s website. This information was used to understand the agency’s spending patterns with the changing social and economic environment of the city over time.
The quantitative component of this study applied a technique found in Sisters,
Wolch & Wilson (2010) to identify areas of the city that are considerably park-deficient and that should be considered for additional recreational opportunities. Sisters et al.
(2010) compiled cartographic information for potential park sites in Los Angeles, and used GIS software to create Park Service Areas for each potential park site. Sisters et al.
(2010) identified which future park site would be most effective in alleviating park
11 congestion. Similarly, this research gathered acreage data for Santa Ana’s public parks, as well as data from the 2010 Census, and used cartographic software to identify areas of acute stress by creating a Park Service Area for every municipal park in Santa Ana.
By way of public request to the Parks and Recreation agency, this study was provided with a spreadsheet of all municipal parks and their approximate acreage. The function of analysis for this project required input data to be in point format, therefore public parks in Santa Ana were digitized. Using a generic city park map available on the city website and cross referencing with Google Earth imagery, a total of 48 public parks and operating joint-use facilities were digitized. Every public park point was fact-checked as a functional park and not a recreational facility. In other words, during the digitizing process some of the listed locations included various facilities such as community centers, future park locations not completed, and gated sports facilities which are not fully accessible by the public. The final digitized point map had 41 individual park- locations and six joint-use facilities representing areas that are fully functional and accessible by the public at no cost.
Base map content was added to the map by including population from 2010. This data was acquired from the California State University Fullerton Geography Department server. Since census data includes census tracts for the entire United States, these were clipped to only include tracts within the Santa Ana city limits. A quantile interval system was used to classify population density data in the remaining Santa Ana census tracts; this system was able to most appropriately represent the population figures.
Using the newly formed park point map, a potential catchment area for each individual park was created. This was completed using the Geoprocessing Analysis
12 function to create Thiessien polygons. This tool created a polygon which had the unique property of enclosing an area around the park point that represented the closest geometric area to the park point. The created polygons served as a hypothetical catchment area for each individual park or Park Service Area (PSA). Eventually, each PSA would be joined with 2010 Census population data to identify approximately how many people each individual park served. More importantly, using acreage and population data, this analysis was able to calculate acres per 1,000 residents for each individual PSA, and illustrate the results in a choropleth map. The goal of this cartographic section was to indicate what areas in the city are most stressed with park deficiency, by comparing the acres per 1,000 rate for each PSA.
The analysis was repeated, however this second analysis included 7 potential joint-use sites that could alleviate areas highlighted with a high deficiency of parks.
Considering that Santa Ana is built-out, school lots can be important resources that can provide much-needed open-space. Therefore, the added sites only included elementary and intermediate school sites, high schools prioritized the use of their fields for their own athletic programs. The analysis provided vital information that can assist in efforts to identify and mitigate shortages of public open-space.
Summary
This thesis begins with a discussion of the public park as an institution in urban environments and outlines the research questions and methods used. Chapter 2 will provide an overview from parks’ philosophical inception in the Greek citadels, to their physical manifestation in European aristocracy quarters, and finally their production in contemporary times as fabricated nature for the use of common people. This chapter will
13 discuss the importation of the public park to American cities and examine the development of America’s first grand public park, New York’s Central Park. It then highlights how Central Park set the blueprint for developing nature as an ideologically charged landscape in the United States. Shifting to the Los Angeles metropolitan region,
Chapter 2 will also discuss the historical precedents that discouraged a region-wide plan that would have produced an abundance of public open-space, a repercussion that is still evident today. Finally, Chapter 2 will narrow in on Orange County, and the dynamics that transformed it from a handful of farming communities to a conglomerate of housing developments. This section will explore how early political and market forces substantially influenced the allocation of public resources.
Chapter 3 will provide an overview of the urban geography literature that focuses on issues dealing with public parks. To understand the development of public resources, this chapter reviews literature which has attempted to conceptualize critical factors that determine the spatial distribution of public facilities. Building on that theoretical grounding, this chapter reviews the watershed case, Hawkins v. Town of Shaw, which brought forth questions of race in matters of public resource allocation in the United
States. Further, Chapter 3, examines empirical cases that reinforce the issues of race and place and presents literature that probes the possibility of a hegemonic power as responsible agents for the historic pattern of undesirable living conditions in poor communities of color.
The literature review will also highlight how the environmental justice rhetoric has been reformulated to address the lack of positive amenities in minority communities, specifically public parks. The literature reflects trends of disparity where low-income
14 communities of color lack their fair share of public parks. While some literature focuses on the quantitative figures that denote this inequality, other literature highlights a variety of social factors that discourages usage and participation, thus limiting accessibility in already park-poor communities. The literature has also identified amplified public park disparities resulting from varying levels of activity by non-profit groups. Lastly, recent park literature explores the paradoxical results of park developments that raise the cost of living in the vicinity of this resource. By developing these resources without input or consideration for the local community, public parks can produce an ecological- gentrification in low-income communities. The literature recommends a variety of strategies that can reduce the propensity for eco-gentrification and prescribe suitable public park opportunities for the most stressed communities.
Chapter 4 will present a historical overview of Santa Ana, California. This chapter highlights important events that illustrate the overarching views of and towards minorities and immigrants over the years. This chapter provides context for Santa Ana as it transformed from a 19th century agricultural community, to a post-war suburb, through a stage of deindustrialization, as a gateway city to an influx of newly arriving Hispanic immigrants in the latter part of the 20th century, and through its current rebranding and revitalization efforts to situate itself as the vanguard city for Orange County.
The collected data is presented in Chapter 5. This data includes an overview of the key findings during the interview process, a series of tables and figures showcasing archival findings alluding to the three thesis questions and a series of maps resulting from the cartographic analysis of this research. Finally, Chapter 6 discusses the collected interviews, archival data and maps. Fundamentally, this chapter will discuss if these
15 findings can conclusively diagnose the state of public parks in Santa Ana as a case for environmental justice. Additionally, this chapter will point out the limitations of this thesis and provide questions for future geographical public park research. Finally, this chapter will recap the thesis questions, provide a synopsis of the finding, and articulate strategies that could improve this and other park-poor communities.
16
CHAPTER 2
A BRIEF HISTORY OF PUBLIC PARKS
A city is not built wholly for the sake of shelter, but ought to be so contrived, that besides their civic conveniences there may be handsome spaces left for squares, courses for chariots, gardens, places to take the air in for swimming and the like, both for ornament and recreation (Albertini, 1426).
Public open-spaces for recreation in urban settings are fabricated nature that have significant social and physical implications. Thus, it is important to review the evolution of these spaces and the implications that they perpetrate. The literature suggests that since their inception, public parks have been imbedded by their builders with an agenda of ethics and priorities.
From Agoras to Asphalt
Since their incorporation into urban spaces, public parks have provided a venue for residents to escape, explore, and enhance their living conditions. Planners and park historians trace the concept of public parks to the Athenian agora of ancient Greece
(French, 1983). The concept of the agora was to provide space for the exchange of ideas amongst free-born individuals. Other spaces, like the Imperial Roman fora, lacked the similar democratic quality due to their cluttered layout that discouraged the opportunity for public congregation. In other words, the Greek agora not only served as a welcoming platform for intellectuals to have an audience, but also provided ample space necessary for the training and development of the first athletes. Thus, the conceptual origin of public open-space for recreation is traced back to the agora.
17
According to Rosenzweig & Blackmar (1992), the word park first appeared during medieval times in the British Isles, describing hunting quarters built adjacent to homes of nobility. These spaces were confined private areas filled with small game for the purpose of recreational hunting. During the Renaissance, European cities reinvigorated these spaces by incorporating lavish residential gardens and walkways inspired by themes of the ancient Greeks (Cranz, 1982). The demand for quality gardens and walkways on behalf of the nobility inspired the rise of a new profession, the landscape architect. Lancelot “Capability” Brown, an 18th century landscape architect, would become an iconic figure as he established a distinct physical composition still present in contemporary parks. Brown’s style for a more natural, rounder, serene configuration was a stark contrast to the traditional symmetrical British lawn. The
Brownian landscaping school included features like a serpentine lake, an artificial river with smooth banks and scattered trees, all characteristics that have influenced and become synonymous with the modern public park (Chadwick, 1966). By the Victorian
Era, the large estate homes of the elite class included these landscaped parks in the form of herb gardens and strolling areas, however they remained largely for the sole use of their proprietors (Chadwick, 1966).
Industrialization increased during the Victorian Era, bringing forth a growth of
European cities through its by-products, the industry-worker and industrial towns. The
“industry-worker’ was predominantly from the countryside where space for leisure, recreation and nature was abundant. However, in the industrial town the worker resided in crowded spaces that were highly unsanitary with polluted environments due to the proximity to their source of employment (Taylor, 1995).
18
As dwellings in working-class districts rapidly expanded it was evident that minimal consideration for public open-space was being made. The following quote from
Gardener’s Magazine captures the state of green open-space deficiency in British industrial towns during this time.
The pale and sickly inhabitants of towns see nothing but brick walls stretching farther and farther in every direction around them, green fields become brick fields, pleasant hedge-paths converted into long lines of streets, and every opening closed, or closing from which a glimpse of nature could once be obtained (Loudon, 1841, p. 282).
Difficult working conditions, unfair wages, and unhygienic living quarters were brewing a violent and volatile working-class in the mid-19th century. Furthermore, the bourgeois class perceived and feared the “barbaric behavior believed to be inherent in an uneducated, newly urban, working class” (Taylor, 1995, p. 202). Thus, in an effort to mitigate issues of “overcrowding, poverty, squalor, ill-health, lack of morals and morale”
(Taylor, 1995, p. 202), the elite class promoted the development of the first public parks.
The popularity of philanthropic gestures in the form of land grants of the time propelled the public park movement with projects championed by the elite.
Consequently, the first common parks for the use of all residents were developed during the Victorian Era in London, with places like St. James Park and Hyde Park (Taylor
1995). The following text elucidates the perception of public open-space for recreation by the aristocracy.
The most expensive plot of land converted into (park) purpose cannot but be a good speculation, for the health of the toilers in great cities and large towns is one of the utmost importance. It is for this reason, if for no other that we heartily welcome the proposal which is about to be made for converting the banks of the River Lea into boulevards for the recreation for the inhabitants of East London (East London Boulevards, 1890, p. 248).
19
By the latter years of the 19th century, public parks and open-space were valued components of urban development. It was acknowledged that equitable access to parks and open-space would increase social morale, responsibility and, to some extent, allow individuals to make better economic decisions (Byrne & Wolch, 2009). Young (1995) argues that the park movement at the time promoted access to public open-space as an antidote for the decaying human spirit in dirty industrial agglomerations. In other words, because many of society’s problems were viewed as environmental in their origin, early public parks served as social control agents that transmitted ideals held by the bourgeois class (Young, 1995). For example, promoters and builders of these early public open- spaces implemented conduct codes which prohibit gambling, swearing, drinking, and spitting. These standards held implicit messages that underscored civic order and morals in public park visitors, providing a sense of belonging for those who sympathized with such ideals and excluding those who did not.
In addition, by cleansing and reviving swampy wetland environments in the city, parks would mitigate negative vapors and aromas producing cleaner environments.
Therefore, public parks fulfilled both a social function and a biophysical function as the
“lungs” of the locations they served. These views influenced an increasing number of policies, such as The Open Space Act of 1877 and the Disused Burial Grounds Act of
1884, which awarded governing bodies the power to purchase land and pursue public park projects in inner city spaces in the late 19th century (Jordan, 1994).
Eventually, the first public parks of the Industrial Age were developed under the romantic ideals of “rus in urbe” or the country in the city (Rozenweig & Blackmar,
1992). Considering the recent rural past of the industrial working-class, these spaces were
20 deliberately planned to emulate a more serene country-life. Cranz (1982) explains that spaces like the natural landscapes of woodlands, rolling hills and lakes were important components in recreating a country ambiance. Addtionally, Cranz (1982) describes how early public parks would be ideologically charged; conveying attitudes that aimed to civilize a hostile working-class by, for example, enacting the types of conduct codes mentioned above and ensuring “a full complement of human experience, acutely needed since office and factory work was perceived as routine and dull” (p. 62). The physical and ideological legacies of early public parks in Europe would heavily influence and be manifested it their North American counterparts.
America’s First Grand Park
In order to understand public parks in America, specifically those in urban environments, it is necessary to appreciate the development of New York’s Central Park.
The first of its kind, decades removed from its inauguration it continues to amaze individuals as an incarnated oxymoron. The bustling metropolis manufactured from glass and steel is juxtaposed by Brownian landscaping elements of lakes, ponds, and trees.
American cities lagged in the park movement in comparison to cities of Victorian
Europe (Rosezweig & Blackmar, 1992). Those with means in early America had the greatest access to open-space. The ownership of a carriage, a staple of the nobility, allowed the elite class to reside in the undeveloped outskirts away from the crowded central business districts. Additionally, the carriage gave way to a new form of recreation: promenading, the leisure choice of the upper-class. However, upper-class citizens and wealthy merchants argued that the streets of New York were becoming gridlocked as, “traffic, immigrant crowds, and dirty streets had impinged on the gentility
21 of lower Manhattan promenades” (Rosezweig & Blackmar, 1992, p. 28). Consequently, as population growth worsened congestion in New York’s boulevards, alternative spaces for recreation needed to be explored.
Wealthy Americans touring the cities of the Old World were left in awe by the grand public parks of the great cities like Paris, Vienna and London (Cranz, 1982). These grand spaces not only provided clean paths for the carriage-owning class to enjoy the scenery, but also gave the working-class an opportunity to enjoy pure nature rather than
“frequent boisterous amusements such as boxing matches or cockfights” (Rosenweig &
Blackmar, 1992, p. 28). On their return to America these individuals would advocate for the development of similar public projects, advising officials that providing individuals, especially working-classes, with innocent and cheap pleasures would ultimately detract them from expensive and vicious ones (Rosenweig & Blackmar, 1992).
Amongst the touring aristocracy was a merchant prince by the name of Robert
Bowne Minturn. Upon his return from an 18-month journey around cites of Europe in
1850, he was “aroused and inspired” by his wife Anna Mary Wendall to establish a public park that would rival those in European cities (Rosenweig & Blackmar, 1992).
The “American gentleman,” as Minturn would be later eulogized, called for a meeting to discuss the proposal for a public park amongst New York’s elite class.
Efforts to demand a grand park in New York City were also made by American poet and editor of The Evening Post, William Cullen Bryant. His continuous admiration for the European public parks and critique of their absence in American cities propelled the creation of a public park for all residents (Rosenweig & Blackmar, 1992). Pressure also came from American landscape architect and editor of The Horticulturalist, Andrew
22
Jackson Downing, who as early as 1840 urged for the great need of a public park in the growing American metropolis (Chadwick, 1966). Additionally, Downing and Bryant promoted centrally located public open-space that could be accessed by people from all parts of Manhattan island, rather than the proposed river-side park (Chadwick, 1966).
Unfortunately, as a result of an early death in 1852 during a tragic steamboat explosion,
Downing would never see the inauguration of Central Park.
Though it is unclear as to which single person is responsible for Central Park, what is clear is that Downing’s style and philosophy are perpetually imbedded in the development of Central Park; as the Park Commission appointed Fredrick Law Olmstead and Calvert Vaux, both students of Downing, to complete the park project (Rosenweig &
Blackmar, 1992). Thus, the design is largely based on Brownian principles that Downing acquired during his European excursions and passed down to his apprentices. “The plan was based upon large open meadows and lawns, backed by border planting of native material, natural materials kept and were emphasized as necessary” (Chadwick, 1966,
184). In 1857, after various bureaucratic hurdles, turbulent city politics, shifts in positions of power, 10 million dollars and 800 acres of the most expensive real estate in the United
States (Chadwick, 1966, p. 184), Olmstead and Vaux opened the gates of the largest urban public park, for the use of all residents: Central Park of New York City. The success of this grand project was immediate as the number of visitors reached the millions and land values adjacent to the park rose considerably. This success would inspire other American cities of significant size to consult park builders and attempt similar public projects. Fredrick Law Olmstead’s son would attempt to continue the
23 family’s park building legacy as he endeavored on a grand plan for public open-space in
Southern California.
Promises of Parks
At the turn of the 20th century, Los Angeles slowly developed into a metropolitan area, however the region still lacked a plan to harness its plentiful park opportunities.
Among the first critics was Dana Bartlett, a progressive Methodist minister who advocated for Los Angeles to become the epitome of the City Beautiful movement but stressed that, “no scheme for beautifying the city can be complete that does not include a comprehensive plan for a metropolitan park system” (Bartlett, 1907, p. 44). Griffith J.
Griffith, who donated land for Griffith Park, echoed concerns about a “park problem” that was exacerbated in areas of “substandard housing stock inhabited by the working poor,” (Hise & Deverell, 2000, p. 44) and indicated that disregard for the matter would compromise urban growth. In his editorial, ethnographer and activist for historic preservation in Los Angeles, Charles Fletcher Lummis (1909) criticized the lack of leadership, which severely dampened the inclusion of important public resources in the downtown area of the city.
We would have the finest parks in the world, and the finest public buildings, and all endowed beyond the dreams of avarice. As it is, nothing was left the city but the Plaza and some riverbed when we began to take notice (Lummis, 1909, p. 244).
As the national marketing of Southern California as the “land of sunshine” persisted the region experience accelerated growth, along with increasing population, and an unquenchable demand for space (Hise & Deverell, 2000). Davis (1998) highlights the incongruities of efforts by early city officials and developers to promote scenic landscapes of beaches and mountains while failing to invest in preserving these
24 resources. Young (2001) describes how, during the early years of the Great Depression, when the economy and employment should presumably have been at the forefront of politics, the distinguished citizens of Los Angeles instead voiced their concerns about the increasing shortage of public parks and recreation space. Furthermore, this collection of prominent figures reiterated an interpretation of public parks as an agent for social hygiene, social uplift, and social coherence for the poor working class in the congested city (Young, 2001). To address the issue, the Citizens Committee contracted Harland
Bartholomew and Fredrick Law Olmstead Jr. to commence a plan of Central Park- proportions.
According to Davis (1998), Fredrick Law Olmsted Jr., claimed that the social and economic prosperity of Los Angeles and the surrounding areas were directly correlated to accessible recreational spaces. Olmstead Jr. criticized how the region’s advertised picturesque scenery was being “eroded on all sides by rampant, unregulated, private development” (Davis, 1998, p. 62), thus jeopardizing the steady tourism revenue these resources would produce. Consequently, Olmstead Jr. and Bartholomew denounced the dominant posture of speculation for personal profit, instead argued that, “the benefits of parks bought now will accrue largely in future years and even to future generations”
(Olmstead & Bartholomew, 1930, p. 11).
In 1930, Olmsted Jr. and Bartholomew’s firm presented park plans and recommendations to the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce (Hise & Deverell, 2000).
Their plan included a network of parks and greenbelts that would have substantially increased the number of acres for recreational space and miles of beach frontage. The
City Project is a non-profit organization that strives to attain Olmsted’s vision of a green
25 utopia by redeveloping spaces like the Los Angeles River to their natural state. This organization has estimated that the Olmstead-Bartholomew plan would have provided
71,000 acres of parkland in the populated areas of Los Angeles and an additional 92,000 acres in the undeveloped outlying areas, these would have been connected through a system of greenbelts that would have extended 440 miles throughout the southland region
(The Olmstead Vision, n.d).
Aside from maintaining and enhancing recreation opportunities, the fundamental component of this plan was the strategic distribution of public parks and greenbelts.
These spaces would have been sited to the advantage of the neglected working-class- districts located south and east of downtown. According to their report,
Those in lower incomes generally live in small-lot single-family home districts, and have more children and less leisure time in which to go to distant parks and recreational areas. These families comprise 65 percent of the population, and they should be given first priority, not only for their own good but for the welfare of the community (Olmstead & Bartholomew, 1930, p. 22).
In other words, Olmstead Jr. and Bartholomew’s plan would not simply increase the number of public parks in the region, but more fundamentally it made the equitable distribution of these resources an essential component. By including these amenities in working-class districts, the authors pursued not only equality but equity. Today, the underserved spaces that the Olmstead Jr.’s plan was intended to alleviate continue to be among the most stressed areas in regard to public open spaces (Wolch, Wilson, &
Fehrenbach, 2005).
Unfortunately, the Olmstead Jr. and Bartholomew plan for a green utopia was never realized. Instead, city officials continued the mass propaganda of ‘sunshine,’ attracting people from all over the country. Developers continued to provide extensive
26 housing projects that encroached upon every imaginable topography. The population growth coincided with the era of the automobile, which would eventually facilitate the mass exodus of the white middle-class from decaying urban centers. Post-WWII white- flight would further intensify suburban housing developments, effectively converting
Southern California into the notoriously sprawling region it is today. It has been almost a century since the Olmstead Jr. and Bartholomew plan for the Los Angeles region was proposed, and although public parks have been developed, there are certain areas of the greater Los Angeles region that continue to lack their fair share of these resources.
Inequitable Distribution
As the patchwork of suburban housing development stretched throughout the
Southern California region, it followed the interstate highway and expanded south to
Orange County during the post-war years. Because the small towns that composed
Orange County had largely maintained their agricultural origins for the first half of the
20th century, there was an abundance of flat, undeveloped land (Wood, 2011).
In terms of public park development, county records indicate that philanthropic efforts for large regional parks were complemented by smaller local donations (Wood,
2011). Although these resources provided recreation outlets for the emerging towns, the lack of foresight and profit-driven development suppressed efforts to further expand public park projects. Eventually, rapid population growth forged the innovative “planned community,” a staple of Orange County. Planning practices in these communities included securing public amenities, such as parks.
The elite class and land barons of Orange County were largely responsible for the development of early regional parks. For example, land for the county’s first regional
27 park, Irvine Park, was donated by rancher James Irvine in 1897. A decade later, the
O’Neil family’s land donation would also become a regional park that would bear the family name (Wood, 2011). These early recreation opportunities were complemented by small municipal parks such as Hewes Park in Orange, Pearson Park in Anaheim, Birch
Park in Santa Ana, and Fisher Park on the north bank of Santiago Creek.
By 1950, the booming housing market drastically interrupted the steady development of public parks in Orange County’s 13 incorporated cities (Wood, 2011). In one decade, the county’s population tripled from 216,000 to 704,000 (from 1950 to
1960). This growth largely remained in the northern portion of the county and led to ten new municipalities being incorporated. Regardless of the growth, there was an overwhelming attitude by the Board of Supervisors and the highly influential local newspaper to denounce spending tax dollars on anything other than private development
(Wood, 2011). Thus, the physical landscape of older Orange County cities embodied the priorities of these influences: profit-driven development, minimal availability of public amenities, and favorable conditions for the proliferation of small businesses.
By the 1960s, housing developments were reaching the undeveloped area of south
Orange County. With the passage of legislation such as the Quimby Act in 1965, new housing projects were mandated to set aside land for public use or pay fees for the purpose of public park improvements (How Quimby Act, 1997). Subsequently, new housing developments in the second half of the 20th century, specifically those in the south portion of the county, were preemptively developed with a full array of public resources (Wood, 2011).
28
An article in The Los Angeles Times in 1973 depicted the undeniable truth to the disproportionate allocation of public resources, even at that time (Wong, 1977). This early article compared the disparity between the available public parks in south and north
Orange County cities, by comparing the planned communities of Irvine with the urbanity of the county seat of Santa Ana. By contrasting the quality of public parks but, more importantly, the efforts made by city officials to encourage fiscal allocation for such resources, Wong (1973) highlighted the superior state of public amenities in the cities of south Orange County.
That same year the county Parks Department compiled a list of public park acreage in its 26 cities. The 1973 inventory for parks identified that 4 of the 5 cities with the least park acreage per 1,000 residents were located in north Orange County (Wood,
2011). There was, and continues to be, a distinguishable and disproportionate allocation of public parks between older urban centers and the newer exurban municipalities of
Orange County. North Orange County cities would eventually become the destination for newly arrived immigrants, predominantly from Latin America. This influx of immigrants into older cities produced the mass exodus of the middle-class to newer suburbs, where the physical environment included an abundance of positive public amenities and discouraged negative ones. It is this dynamic that brings to the forefront a discussion of environmental equality.
Stemming from the Civil Rights movement, the nascent environmental justice movement questioned the agencies responsible for the production, allocation, and management of urban public goods. Therefore, this study suggests that the disproportionate allocation of public parks in certain cities of Orange County is not
29 happenstance, but rather that it follows a discourse that allowed cleaner built communities for historically dominant groups while subjecting historically marginalized communities to burdensome environments.
30
CHAPTER 3
LITERATURE REVIEW
The distribution of public amenities such as public parks is unequivocally a matter of urban planning; however, planning can be subject to various forces including political influences, social factors and financial incentives. Thus, this study situates urban planning within the scholarship of urban spatial theories, most specifically those of
French philosopher Henri Lefebvre. His writings refute the idea of democratic urban space within the “capitalist city,” and present strategies to reclaim urban space through the inhabitants. Other spatial theorists present urban conceptual models which support
Lefebvre’s writings regarding the corrosive force of highly privatized urban spaces and their implications on public resource allocation. Such conceptual models suggest an urban landscape where public allocation strategies are highly influenced by issues of efficacy in lieu of equity.
Accordingly, urban planning researchers have identified public goods allocation as a facet of development that has adversely affected communities of color and other minorities in the United States. Scholars have highlighted recurrent themes of inequality, where disenfranchised communities and those with limited financial capacity are disproportionally burdened with unhealthy, dangerous, and often toxic environments.
Thus, in an effort to address the burdens placed upon these communities, academics and social justice activists developed an environmental justice framework. This discourse
31 revisits Lefebvre’s principles on citizens’ rights to reclaim urban spaces. More importantly, the concept of environmental justice has evolved from challenging the location of polluting facilities, to the disproportionate allocation of positive public amenities, including public parks.
Democracy on the Horizon
The shift in governing policies from Keynesian ideals and the pro-union social welfare state to the neoliberal, capitalist, consumer-driven state has substantial ramifications on the physical layout of cities. In his work, Marxist theorist, Henri
Lefebvre, presents how space can take various forms, from the absolute natural state, to a socially produced space, and even an imagined production of space (Purcell, 2002).
Fundamentally, Lefebvre recognizes that the production of urban space and the ability to manipulate social perceptions of space is a valuable tool to reaffirm social structure.
Lefebvre articulates, “(space) serves as of thought and of action; that in addition to being means of production it is also a means of control, hence domination, of power”
(Nicholson-Smith, 1974/1991, p. 26). Thus, urban space that is produced by profit driven motive by a small minority, as opposed to urban spaces for the needs of the collective, cannot represent a true democratic city.
Purcell (2013) supports Lefebvre’s claims, arguing that the idealized democratic state has yet to be attained. According to Purcell (2013), a true democracy in which citizens are autonomous and act as their own collective governing body conflicts with the ever-expanding realm of transnational corporations and neoliberalist markets.
Additionally, Purcell (2013) points out how the shift in policies has introduced capitalistic forces to functions previously in the hands of government. In other words, as
32 outsourcing and selling of public assets has become the contemporary modus operandi, this dynamic places the responsibility of governance in groups like non-profits and private entities whose agenda might not always be for the best interest all of residents.
Nonetheless, while Purcell (2013) interprets Lefebvre’s idea of democracy as an unattainable horizon, he argues that we must strive for that horizon because ultimately the struggle for a democratic utopia is in itself democracy.
Lefebvre conceptualizes certain rights that residents must exercise to make substantial strides towards a more democratic state in his “contract for citizenship.”
Among those rights, Lefebvre identifies the “right to the city” as a critical element towards democracy (Purcell, 2002). Purcell (2013) interprets the “right to the city” as a demand by city inhabitants to take hold of urban space as a collective group and appropriate such space to meet the needs of the community as a whole. The “right to the city” dispossesses hegemonic powers from the production of space and concurrently entitles citizens to participate as a collective unit. The “right to the city” encourages residents to engage, communicate, find solutions, and become active members of a greater community which Lefebvre refers to as “urban society” (Purcell, 2013).
Lefebvre argues that the contemporary neoliberal city is an effective agent in suppressing the collective force of its residents. The nature of contemporary urban spaces advocates for capital accumulation and a profit-driven ethos, by imposing a value system that privatizes every aspect of society, including space. Thus, when space attains a value and acquires the qualities of private property, the production of such space becomes the apparatus to reaffirm hegemony and power. Additionally, rather than being active participants of urban life, the residents of the capitalist city are reduced to mere
33 consumers. The “right to the city” opposes the capitalist production of space, giving inhabitants the opportunity to reaffirm their citizenship by participating in decisions- making to create and re-create space in a matter that the consensus agrees better suits their needs (Purcell, 2013).
Urban Public Facilities
Lefebvre’s writing conceptualized space within the capitalist city as a function of the value system, where its production is largely based on its potential to produce profits.
In other words, space as private property is only valuable when financial gains can be generated. However, when space is created for the purpose of providing public services, the potential for financial gains is replaced by the space’s ability to reach its maximum capacity of users with minimal investment.
The distribution of urban public goods follows a spatial pattern whose dynamics are distinct from classical location models. Urban public facilities operate under a highly- politicized domain that is influenced and constrained by various factors. Although most components of urban space follow the traditional Von Thunen model that seeks to maximize land-use based on proximity to markets, public resources do not. Teitz (1968) was the first to reject the Von Thunen location models to describe the dynamics of urban public facilities. His work highlighted the importance of public facility distribution in the modern city, arguing that since birth, through education, and much of adult life, humans interact with and within public facilities, thus public facilities should be analyzed as sovereign entities. Teitz (1968) suggested an alternate theoretical basis for urban public facility allocation, arguing that as a product of policy and policy-makers, public facilities are largely dependent on their potential efficiency. However, unlike efficiency in the
34 private realm which largely follows Von Thunen’s ideals of equitable development over time, equity is not a factor when distributing public goods. Symons (1971) elaborates on this point, indicating that the limited financial capacity of agencies to provide public resources often translates into a matter of economics, thus siting of public resources is often determined by cost-effectiveness rather than what is most equitable. Accordingly, spatial theory illustrates that the allocation of urban public facilities is largely driven by fiscal, bureaucratic and political forces that overlook balanced disbursement while prioritizing cost and efficacy.
While theoretical models provide an explicit set of principles, these remain largely neutral when dealing with the social fabric and power dynamics of a particular community. In other words, while theoretical models provide a conceptual framework, these fail to address the organic relationship that exists between decision-makers and those affected by allocation decisions. Furthermore, these relationships must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis as each community will exhibit their own unique set of dynamics.
The first attempts to contest issues of inequitable distribution were complicated by the fact that there was no legal precedent, and that access to information was limited.
However, the passage of the Civil Right Act in 1968 gave social justice advocates the de jure ammunition to pursue the equitable advancement of their communities. Andrew
Hawkins and the residents of the town of Shaw, Mississippi would forge the legal precedent to demand equitable access to public services in the watershed case Hawkins v.
Town of Shaw (Sisters et al., 2010).
Hawkins and other African-American residents of Shaw argued that services such as upgraded street lighting, sanitary sewers, and appropriate water infrastructure were
35 abundantly allocated by town officials in neighborhoods with predominantly white households. Additionally, they contended that the facilities available in their neighborhoods were dilapidated and inadequate for the number of residents they served
(Sister et al., 2010). By 1971, the case went to the United States Fifth Court of Appeals, who ruled this as a violation of the 14th Amendment in favor of Hawkins and the residents of Shaw. The court explained that although no evidence indicative of ill motives on behalf of city officials against any particular group was found; the lax attitude by town officials given the tense race relations of the time was just as destructive when dealing with the delicate issue of equal protection (Sister et al., 2010). Moreover, this ruling incited further interest by urban academics and social rights advocates to analyze public facility allocation, and more importantly, to identify the elements that trigger disproportionate allocation of public resources.
The Environmental Justice Framework
In an effort to address the concern of equitable urban living spaces for all people, scholars and social justice advocates developed the environmental justice framework.
According to the Dictionary of Human Geography, the environmental justice movement is a response to “the limitations of mainstream environmentalism in particular its role in reproducing structures of inequality and thus is considered an oppositional or counter hegemonic form of environmentalism” (Pulido, 2000a, p. 219). This movement promotes the equitable distribution of environmental quality while seeking justice against those factors that undermine the health and well-being of certain communities (Pulido, 2000a).
In other words, the rhetoric of this movement attempts to reduce the strain of pollution
36 and unhealthy environments in communities that lack the political weight, financial power or the appropriate knowledge to resist their adverse situation.
In 1984, the accidental release of flammable gas from a pesticide plant in Bhopal,
India caused an explosion that killed 2,000 rural residents. The catastrophe echoed stateside and by 1986 the United States Environmental Protection Agency had pressured
Congress to not overlook the incident in India, leading to the passage of the Emergency
Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (What is EPCRA, 2016). This legislation required facilities to report their activity and the chemical content of any byproduct resulting from their operations. Consequently, this legislation facilitated access to information of emissions in residents’ neighborhoods, thus increasing the public’s knowledge of potential dangers in their own backyard (What is EPCRA, 2016).
Increased access to information, the judicial precedent of Hawkins v. Shaw and public concern for environmental justice allowed for one of the first comprehensive studies of environmental hazards in the United States. In 1987, civil rights leader Dr.
Benjamin Chavis, in conjunction with the United Church of Christ, explored the possibility of environmental racism in the landmark study Toxic Wastes and Race in the
United States. In their study of toxic and hazardous facilities, they argued that siting of polluting facilities near predominantly minority populations could not be explained as mere coincidence. Additionally, the study pointed out that larger forces were purposely siting polluting facilities in communities with limited financial power and little political weight, inhabited by a high percentage of minority residents. According to the extensive report, “Race proved to be the most significant among variables tested in association with the location of commercial hazardous waste facilities” (Church of Christ, 1987, p. 8).
37
This comprehensive project found this trend to be consistent throughout the urban regions of the United States. Thus, by highlighting the concentration of hazardous environments in minority communities, this study provided the quantitative arguments for other scholars to question the correlation between adverse environments and those who reside in them.
Bullard (1990) identified patterns of environmental inequities and reiterated a profound correlation between race and place that is pointed out in the Church of Christ report (1987). His work focuses in the American south and gives concrete examples of sites where minority groups, predominantly African-Americans, are burdened with toxic environments. In the five communities of the “Dixie” region he examines, Bullard (1990) points out a high propensity of disamenities such as incinerators, waste dumps, and toxic facilities near minority communities. He argues that such situations in communities characterized with high concentrations of African-Americans are partly resulting from relaxed environmental regulations and minimal public opposition. In other words, businesses and decision-makers will likely follow the path of least resistance when siting a polluting facility. However, Bullard underlines the historic issue of race in these locations, and its implications manifested in the built environment. Bullard adds that individuals living in the vicinity of these disamenities very seldom have the option of
“voting with their feet” as social mobility amongst minorities in Dixie America still suffers remnants of historic discrimination in the workforce, education, and housing.
In Southern California, the burden of undesirable land use is largely placed on several Mexican-American enclaves. For example, Boone and Modarres (1999) examined the city of Commerce and its historical development as an industrial district.
38
Alluding to Teitz’s (1968) argument, Boone and Modarres point out that locations with a high concentration of toxic facilities cannot simply be examined through a racial lens but must consider political and economic forces. Further, they argue that decision-makers in
Commerce allowed for significant incentives to develop into an industrial enclave in the post-war years. This introduces the question of sequence: are industrial sites purposely sited by dominant groups in communities of color, or does the devalued housing stock in toxic environments funnel those with limited financial capacity to reside in undesirable areas? Boone and Modarres (1999) concluded that Commerce was strategically positioned with copious amount of industrial space to service a growing Los Angeles.
Nonetheless, they point out that the prevailing post-war sentiments towards Mexicans were not positive. Thus, the politically dominant group of the time would have likely disregarded any public disapproval to locate undesirable land-uses near Mexican-
American enclaves (Boone & Modarres, 1999). This exemplifies how social fabric and populist notions have substantial influence on decisions of allocation.
Pulido (2000b) argued that “white privilege” bears a degree of responsibility for public nonchalance towards environmental inequalities, particularly in Southern
California. She suggests that historical precedents of discrimination in the form of housing covenants and unlawful loaning practices have laid the groundwork that allowed social mobility for some, while suppressing it for minorities. This dynamic ultimately transcended to inequalities in the built environment. Pulido (2000b) presents similar arguments as in the case of Hawkins v. Town of Shaw, that although most whites do not have malicious intents in the form of white supremacy, by maintaining the status quo, whites continue to accrue the historic social and economic benefits of their skin color.
39
For example, the ability to move into cleaner and newly developed suburbs has been predominately a “white privilege.” However, because socio-economic mobility is viewed with minimal malicious or negative implications, the mechanism of “white privilege” is rarely held accountable when addressing the environmental injustices in the inner-city. Nonetheless, Pulido (2000b) argued that because white-dominated suburban real estate has historically been recognized as cleaner, friendlier, and more profitable real estate, inner-city real estate has been largely relegated as the acceptable location for undesirable and polluting land-uses.
Pulido (2000b) attempts to redefine environmental justice theory by addressing the larger structural forces in play. She demands to not simply accept the high concentration of polluting facilities in the inner-cities of Southern California, but instead to consider the historic advancements of certain groups that have allowed for the higher appraisal of suburban real estate in comparison to the inner-city. Fundamentally, Pulido
(2000b) makes a statement about power dynamics and race, and how these are elements that provide a platform to encourage and tolerate environmental inequalities.
An Inverted Argument
The aforementioned cases reflect the traditional environmental justice discourse where the burden of undesirable land-uses is largely placed upon minority communities.
However, at a time when these communities are experiencing historic levels of childhood and adult obesity, increased rates of heart conditions, high cholesterol and minimal levels of physical activity, urban scholars have broadened their environment justice argument to address issues of health. Rather than focusing on the high concentration of negative amenities, a new discourse has emerged disputing the lack of positive amenities in
40 predominantly low-income, minority communities. In other words, the traditional environmental justice rhetoric has been reconstructed to a form of “inverted argument.”
This is an argument that maintains a justice ethos in its concern for human health, but redirects its efforts in advocating for the equitable distribution of positive and desirable land uses, such as public parks.
Access to clean and well-maintained public parks provide a plethora of health, social, environmental and economic benefits. As pointed out, public health research recognizes that accessible public parks are an important factor when determining the likelihood of obesity and other health issues as a result of a sedentary lifestyle (Garcia et al., 2009). Consequently, the built environment is being considered as a contributing element to the increasing rates of illnesses affecting large portions of minorities in the
United States (Day, 2006). In short, parks can have a significant health and social impact in minority communities. Unfortunately, the benefits of a public park are not equitably available to all populations, and research indicates that patterns of park deficiency are most prevalent in minority and low-income communities. The following are examples of empirical cases that identify disproportionate allocation and access to public parks.
Environmental Justice for Public Parks
The complexity of measuring an abstract concept like equity for public amenities results in a lack of general blanket statements regarding the level of parity in urban communities with distinct socio-economic characteristics. In other words, although some studies have identified the archetype pattern of minority or low-income communities faced with minimal public park opportunities, these do not represent results of all of the public park scholarship. In fact, some studies have identified instances where minority
41 groups have potentially better access to public parks; however, the literature points out that availability of these resources does not always equate to equal accessibility by all groups. The literature identifies issues of accessibility to be most prevalent in populations characterized with high concentration of low-income minorities, which, coincidentally, are the same communities challenged with increasing health problems emanating from sedentary lifestyles. Subsequently, when park opportunities are inaccessible by those who are in most need of them, they are irrelevant in the promotion of healthy environments, thus becoming part of a wider environmental justice issue.
Wolch et al. (2011) conducted a longitudinal analysis of over 3000 children in
Southern California where they identified the health implications of both parks and recreation services. In this study, cohorts of children from distinct communities were evaluated over the course of eight years to pinpoint the health effects resulting from access to these resources. This study reflected conventional environmental justice results wherein individuals from low-income minority communities suffered from limited access to public parks and were deprived from physically-active recreational programs.
Evidently, these individuals suffered from higher than average body mass indexes, a strong indicator of potentially at-risk individuals.
Another empirical example of park-poor spaces can be found in Wolch, Wilson, and Ferenbach (2005). This study examines the available park space in the City of Los
Angeles and compares these spaces with race, ethnicity, and socio-economic status. Their findings suggest a negative correlation between public parks and low-income communities in central and south Los Angeles. These communities were largely characterized as having a large presence of minorities such as Latinos, African-
42
Americans and Asian-Pacific Islanders. In contrast, Wolch et al. (2005) found a positive correlation between public open-space in west and north Los Angeles and communities whose socio-economic profile is mainly affluent and with a high concentration of non-
Hispanic Whites. Fundamentally, Wolch et al. (2005) suggest that park availability does not always translate to high-quality amenities, and thus suggests that further efforts should explore not just quantity but the condition of these amenities as well.
Accordingly, Boone, Buckley, Morhan Grove, and Chona (2009), Vaughan et al.
(2013), and Jenkins et al. (2015) identified other forms of inequities in spaces that have fair distributions of public parks. Boone et al. (2009) and Vaughan et al. (2013) found similar results in Baltimore, Maryland and Kansas City, Missouri, respectively. By comparing census tracts, socio-economic characteristics, and the city’s available public open-space, both studies found census tracts with a large African-American presence to have equal or greater access to public open-space as those characterized with a high percentage of White affluent population. However, these studies identified that open- space opportunities in African-American communities were deficient in terms of acreage and aesthetics compared to those available in White communities. Furthermore, these studies identified that open-space opportunities in African-American communities had a greater amount of dilapidated and unmaintained park facilities. On the other hand, public park facilities in white neighborhoods benefited from better upkeep and cleaner facilities.
Jenkins et al. (2015) reinforces that disparities in park quality correlate with the socio-economic standing of the local community. Their study of parks of two different cities in the same county in Alabama produced results where low-income minority communities were serviced by low-quality parks, while high-income communities
43 experience higher park quality. In short, despite communities having equal access to park space, the provided facilities suffer and reflect remnants of historic separate but equal policies. These early discriminatory policies provided the platform for inequities in terms of the physical state and access to public parks.
While public parks may be physically available within a reasonable distance, serious safety concerns can constrain individuals’ ability to partake in the use of such spaces. For example, in Phoenix et al. (2009) identified repellant characteristics that discouraged park users, regardless of their proximity to public parks. This study found
Latino and African-American neighborhoods to be very walkable, which should have translated to increased access and use of nearby public parks. Nonetheless, Cutts et al.
(2009) analyzed social drivers affecting these communities, such as neighborhood crime and traffic fatalities, in order to identify other factors that might hinder park use. Their results indicate a growing concern for these contextual factors, even for residents with minimal walking distance to public parks. In other words, although park opportunities in
Phoenix appear to be well distributed, issues of community safety contribute to lessen the effectiveness of these recreation outlets. Additionally, this study found similar results as
Boone et al. (2009), in that public park opportunities were smaller in terms of acreage when compared to parks in predominantly white neighborhoods, thus increasing the propensity for overused facilities and park congestion in minority neighborhoods.
Stodolska, Shinew, & Acevedo (2013) also explore urban hardship elements within Latino communities that hinder their access to safe recreational outlets. This study analyzed how unsafe environments, crime, and other urban stressors restricted Mexican-
American teenagers in Chicago, Illinois from participating in outdoor recreation. The
44 authors argue that limited financial power in this community limits adolescents’ opportunity to participate in private supervised outlets for recreation, funneling Mexican-
American teenagers to public unsupervised recreation outlets. Regrettably, public parks have attracted anti-social behavior including gang activities, which have severely damaged the perception of parks as a public domain. Although these public amenities are found in walkable parts of Chicago, access to these places often means crossing gang boundaries. In-depth interviews proved that a majority of Mexican-American teenagers refrain from the use of certain public parks during specific hours due to the large presence of gang-affiliated individuals and the perception of rival gang territory.
Furthermore, the participants identified certain public parks that they viewed as accessible, as these spaces were recognized as territory for the local gang. Therefore, public parks can remain inaccessible when the environment surrounding these spaces instill a sense of fear in potential park users, thus reducing available open-space for recreation and amplifying environmental injustice.
Public parks are ideologically charged spaces that reflect ideals embedded by their builders; these serve to promote specific lifestyles, and behaviors while alienating others. Thus, the public park scholarship has identified factors that propagate the marginalization of groups from these spaces; a dynamic that amplifies issues of environmental justice. According to Byrne (2012) potential park users may be deterred when the physical configuration of public open-space solely reflects leisure ideals of a dominant group. Byrne (2012) looks at the Santa Monica Mountains Recreational Area, an area designed to provide urban dwellers with the experience of a large regional park.
Byrne’s (2012) initial data indicates that many Hispanics live within a safe commuting
45 distance of the recreation area. Byrne’s (2012) findings indicate, however, that the actual use by the large Hispanic population is much lower than would be expected given the potential catchment of this recreation area. Byrne’s (2012) findings pointed to various factors that contributed to the low number of Latino participants. First, this recreation area reflected leisure ideals solely representing that of a dominant group whereby the various park amenities encouraged activities foreign to Latinos, effectively marginalizing potential users. Also, this recreational area was deprived of any direct source of public transit, a major obstacle considering that was the primary mode of transportation for many Hispanics. Finally, Byrne (2012) found there to be a lack of bilingual information at the recreation area complemented by minimal outreach to include the Latino community in the vicinity. In short, Stodolska et al. (2013), Cutts et al. (2009), and Byrne
(2012) illustrate that availability of public parks in some communities can be irrelevant if negative social factors discouraging park use exist. Ultimately, park-deprived areas can be further stressed when access to these spaces are hampered by these social factors.
Other public park literature has highlighted the increasing role of politically active groups and how their efforts to secure public funds has bolstered disproportionate allocation through their ability to secure funds for public amenities. The following cases reflect how non-profit groups assumed roles of the local government resulting in a political dynamic that exacerbates public parks inequities. Joassart-Marcelli, Wolch, and
Salim (2011) investigate the increasing role of non-profit organizations in Southern
California and their efforts to secure funds for public parks and their services. Wolch et al. (2005) explains how park-bonding measures in Los Angeles work unfavorably to allocate public amenities in areas of most stress.
46
Joassart-Marcelli et al. (2011) argues that non-profit organizations assume the responsibilities of local government park agencies, particularly during times of fiscal restructuring when parks and recreation departments are given least priority.
Unfortunately, their results indicate fluctuating levels of participation by non-profits in cities across Southern California; activity which they argue is largely correlated with social-economic status and race. This study identified affluent suburban cities as having prominent and well established non-profit groups, while cities characterized with low- income minority populations had minimal, if any, active non-profit groups.
Similarly, Wolch et al. (2005) identified Proposition K in the city of Los Angeles, as a park-bond program that intensified park-allocation disparities in the city. Initially this measure was created to make financial resources available for all communities to enhance and pursue public park projects. However, this study found habitat conservation groups and other volunteer groups in affluent communities to be significantly better organized and informed, and more able to take full advantage of funds provided by
Proposition K than those in low-income communities. Thus, funds were consistently directed to park-rich areas, while park-poor areas continued to struggle with limited resources to secure funds for public parks. By identifying these political patterns, these types of studies aim to improve and assist communities that lack the resources to successfully secure park funds. Fundamentally, they serve to mitigate the opportunity for further environmental injustice by disrupting the chronic misallocation of public funds to areas with ample resources.
The production of public parks in traditionally park-poor areas is important; however, it should be an inclusive process that takes into consideration the livelihood of
47 all residents in the vicinity. Wolch, Byrne, and Newell (2014) recommends that developers and decision-makers incorporate a strategy that allows the community to voice their concerns and desires in park-building projects and provides a platform for all members of the community to participate in the process.
Wolch et al. (2014) points out how strategies to increase the stock of public open- space in urban areas can have paradoxical repercussions when the demands of the local community are overlooked in the development of new amenities. Additional they articulate how new public open space can considerably increase attractiveness and the cost of living, particularly in low-income communities. Consequently, in a form of ecological gentrification, these strategies have the potential to disenfranchise low-income individuals out of their communities, possibly displacing them into other areas with the same park-poor conditions. Thus, when managed carelessly, park-projects can be counter-productive in efforts to ameliorate park deficiencies and reduce levels of environmental justice. Wolch et al. (2014) recommend adopting an inclusive approach when providing parks in traditionally park-poor areas. Additionally, this study recommends that urban developers avoid cookie-cutter proposals, and instead focus their efforts tailoring their developments to the particular needs of the community. Ultimately, a more inclusive bottom-up approach can provide results that are more meaningful and effectively mitigate further injustices.
Conclusion
Scholars have indicated that public resource allocation is not based on equity but efficiency. However, the literature reveals that using such strategy incites patterns of disproportionate allocation where minority communities are burdened with unhealthy
48 environments. Advocates of social equity demand environmental justice when it comes to disamenities but also allocating a fair share of positive amenities, which include public parks. The literature presents empirical evidence of inequities not simply in public park allocation but in park access and park funding. This thesis will attempt to contribute to the environmental justice literature by addressing the issue of disproportionate allocation of public resources in Santa Ana, California.
This thesis argues that the current park-poor state of Santa Ana is not an isolated case in an otherwise park-abundant area, but rather another empirical case of environmental injustice. This research suggests that spatial distribution of public goods should not be reduced to mere equations of efficacy, but rather follows the premise of environmental justice pioneers, one that considers the unique social dynamics and cultural narrative of a case study site. I argue that the notions of “environmental racism” and “white privilege” brought forth in Pulido (2000b) and Boone and Moddares (1999) are pertinent and instrumental in understanding the physical configuration and development of public parks in Santa Ana.
49
CHAPTER 4
MINORITIES IN SANTA ANA, CA
History books recount the rich and colorful history of this once-small western town. Santa Ana would flourish as the gold-rush came to an end and west-bound migrants flocked to secure a portion of this agricultural paradise. Its early success, strategic central location, and ample space allowed the early town to develop as the prominent center of commerce and politics for the infancy of Orange County.
The city would play a crucial role during WWII efforts and serve as homecoming host as the region rapidly transformed into a sprawling suburbia. Eventually newer housing developments and deindustrialization would promote a shift in the city’s social and ethnic composition, a trend that has continued well into the turn of the 20th century.
Today, revitalization efforts in Santa Ana’s central business district have brought about a new age that attempts to reaffirm its status as the prime city of Orange County.
However, it is important to review the history of this city under a refined scope. In doing so, it is evident that certain groups have been marginalized from the polished view of “The Golden City.” Throughout much of its history, there have been events indicative of dominant groups cultivating an ideology of apprehension when it comes to minorities and immigrants. Thus, as Boone and Modarres (1999) indicate that the power dynamics of a particular place can have implications on the physical environment, it is fundamental to merge inquiries of hegemony into a review about the development of Santa Ana.
50
As this chapter navigates through Santa Ana’s history, it will make reference to events that shed light on such perceptions and sentiments reserved for its minority populations over the years. These events are important because they are part of the city’s history. Moreover, they are proof that a dominant group has been able to exercise their privilege to influence the rights, the political decisions, and physical landscape available to minority communities in Santa Ana.
Early Days of Santa Ana
Since being founded in 1869, Santa Ana has experienced an influence of diverse cultures as ownership of the city has changed from Spanish, to Mexican, and eventually
American. The location where the city lies today was originally part of the Spanish
Territory of Alta California, a parcel of which would be granted to Sergeant Jose Antonio
Yorba as Rancho Santiago de Santa Ana for his service in the exploration mission with
Gaspar de Portola (Marsh, 1994). During its Rancho days, the area was a pastoral paradise where cattle grazing complemented the few adobe homes. Decades later,
Kentucky businessman William H. Spurgeon would purchase a portion of the land from the Yorba family descendants (Marsh, 1994). Legend describes that Spurgeon rode by horseback to inspect the land, but could not see anything because of the abundance of tall mustard plants. By climbing a sycamore tree in the downtown area, he was able to have a better view of the landscape. He approved of the land and purchased 74.2 acres from the
Yorbas (Parker, 1963). It is here that Spurgeon founded Santa Ana and lived to serve as the first general store owner, first postmaster and the first mayor of the city as it became incorporated to Los Angeles County in 1886 (Marsh, 1994).
51
Representatives of towns located south of the San Gabriel River struggled for political recognition as their participation was hindered by the expensive trek to Los
Angeles. As the region’s politics became increasingly dominated by Los Angeles, there were various attempts by leaders from the towns of Santa Ana and Anaheim to secede from Los Angeles County and become their own entity (Orange County Archives, 2016).
After months of lobbying and various failed votes, on June 4, 1889 the measure to create a new county south of Coyote Creek was finally passed. Two months later, the city of
Santa Ana was selected to become the county seat for the newly formed Orange County
(Orange County Archives, 2016).
By the time the counties separated, Santa Ana was recognized as a prominent agricultural town, an important transportation hub and an appealing getaway for urban elites (Marsh, 1994). Its large properties and Victorian homes made the sleepy town an attractive destination for the well-to-do. On the other hand, minority populations of
Mexicans and Chinese would remain largely as the source of domestic help and cheap manual labor (Arellano, 2006). This early social dichotomy would be fundamental in sculpting a social stratification that has propelled hegemonic sentiments for certain peoples while shaping the social perception of Orange County as the contemporary bastion of white conservatism (Arellano, 2008)
Ole’ West Justice
Francisco Torres was a farmhand at the home of revered Orange County Polish actress Madame Helena Modjeska. When his wages for a week’s work were not paid in full, the young Mexican laborer left the premises irate (Brennan, 2004). House administrators explained that a portion of his wages were being held for tax purposes.
52
Torres would return to demand the foreman give him his full pay, and as he argued with the supervisor the situation escalated and eventually turned into a scuffle (Martinez,
1992). There were no eyewitnesses to report the exact turn of events that followed.
However, while there were contrasting narratives of a violent attack and Torres’ claim of self-defense, these were circumstantial to the facts that remained. Captain William
McKelvey, a well-respected white war veteran was dead, while a young man of Mexican descent had fled the scene (Brennan, 2004).
Eventually, Torres would be found in San Diego. Although authorities advised to transport and try him in Los Angeles to avoid heightened tensions in Orange County, that advice was ignored and authorities returned him to Santa Ana to begin the prosecution
(Martinez, 1992). As he waited in his cell, several masked men broke into the county jail, guards failed to report the break-in and Torres was dragged several blocks to the corner of Sycamore and Fourth in downtown Santa Ana where they decided to take the law into their own hands (Brennan, 2004). On August 13, 1891, Francisco Torres suffered the one and only public lynching in Orange County history (Pfeifer, n.d.). Torres would be found the morning after on the corner of Fourth and Sycamore with a sign pinned to his chest that read, “Change of Venue” (Martinez, 1992).
Torres never received a fair trial for the crime he allegedly committed, and soon after his death county officials would make a nonchalant effort to investigate who took part in the lynching of Torres (Brennan, 2004). Eventually the case was closed, and the coroner’s jury would ignore the lack of physical evidence on the case and record those responsible for the lynching as “persons unknown” (Brennan, 2004). Additionally, local newspapers would report the lynching as an act of valor and as the physical manifestation
53 of the townspeoples’ sentiment about the events that occurred (Brennan, 2004). Thus,
Torres’ crime was not that he allegedly killed a white man in a position of power but more importantly is that he represented the accepted stereotypes of Mexicans at the time; brute, imprudent and violent. The lynching of Francisco Torres represents an early overarching prejudice towards a subordinate working population.
Gentrification: Part One
By the late 1800s delicacies of semi-tropical fruits such as lemons, peaches, oranges and others had transformed Santa Ana into a prominent agricultural hub (Paragon
Agency, 1887). Its elevated status over neighboring communities encouraged developers of the Southern Pacific Railroad to extend a terminus stop for its Los Angeles line in
Santa Ana (Marsh, 1994). Eventually the Santa Fe Railroad line would also connect to the developing town. Not far after, the Pacific Electric Railway would further propel
Santa Ana’s downtown corridor as a point of interest in the southland (Marsh, 1994). The expansion of the railroad through the area provided job opportunities, many of which were taken up by Chinese immigrants (Gould, 1995).
Early Chinese migrants were initially brought to Orange County to do agricultural work, primarily for the celery operations in the Westminster area (Gould, 1995).
However, as the network of railroad tracks reached Santa Ana, Chinese workers found agricultural employment and relocated closer to the area (Gould, 1995). Early Sanborn maps indicate that by the late 1880s Chinese migrants had developed a prominent
Chinatown adjacent to the central district in Santa Ana (Gould, 1995, p. 5). The events that led to the demise of this early ethnic enclave are vital to understand how
54 contemporary decisions to displace minority communities from the downtown district should not be seen as a novelty.
In 1903, the city purchased several parcels of land in the downtown for the construction of a new city hall on Main Street (Gould, 1995). As the construction completed and personnel moved into the new building, there was an overwhelming discontent with the large presence of Chinese workers and businesses in the vicinity
(Arellano, 2014). In an effort to address the issue, city officials conducted inspections in the conglomerate of Chinese households under the pretense of halting illicit gambling activities (Gould, 1995). As the inspection was underway, city officials found their ideal suspect for a validated expulsion from the premises: they encountered a man that was quarantined due to a severe case of leprosy (Arellano, 2014).
City officials immediately called for a meeting and determined that the
Chinatown and its residents were a threat to public health (Gould, 1995). Considering the overwhelming negative rhetoric reserved for Chinese people throughout the state, specifically as a result of the Chinese Exclusion Act, the immediate response was a mandate to evacuate the Chinese households (Arellano, 2014). Once evacuated and with a large crowd of spectators present, the Santa Ana Chinatown was burned to the ground on May 25, 1906 leaving no trace of its existence (Arellano, 2014). Records indicate this
Chinatown would have stood between Main Street and Bush Street facing Third Street in downtown Santa Ana. Presently, there is nothing to commemorate or even indicate the location of this once thriving Chinatown (Arellano, 2014). Today this location serves as the parking lot for recently constructed work-live lofts that are part of redevelopment efforts in downtown Santa Ana.
55
Destruction and Construction
The 1920s and 1930s proved to be challenging for Santa Ana and the surrounding areas as residents were confronted with difficult times. Residents were faced with the perpetual issue of water deficiency, and a crippling stock market crash in 1929 (Hallan-
Gibson, 1986). Four years later the National Guard would report to duty in response to the 1933 Long Beach earthquake. The earthquake would claim the lives of a dozen people across the county and cause substantial damage to the older buildings in Santa
Ana (Hallan-Gibson, 1986). Eventually many of the damaged structures would be replaced or rebuilt through the Works Progress Administration (Brunet, Jones, & Shields,
1990), a program that would also revitalize the social fabric by putting city residents back to work (Bitetti, 2006).
Finally, in 1938 the Santa Ana River broke its banks causing one of the worst natural disasters in the history of Orange County; 68,400 acres of land would be heavily affected by the flood (City of Santa Ana, 2016). The river was identified as having the greatest flood hazard west of the Mississippi River, persuading the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers to construct a dam and channelize portions of the river (Gold, 1999). In recent times, there have been some efforts by environmental groups to restore portions of the river to its natural state. However, the Santa Ana River continues to be channelized almost in its entirety as it bisects through Orange County (Beers, 2014).
As aerospace and aviation industries began to establish in cities across the southland in the early part of the 20th century, Santa Ana’s situation near major transportation lines made it a prime location. The original Glenn L. Martin Aviation
Company was founded in 1912 in Santa Ana, it would later merge with Lockheed
56
Corporation to create Lockheed Martin, today a world leader in military contracts
(Lockheed Martin, n.d.). Finance would also be introduced to Santa Ana, as the infant county required title and land deed operations to be managed (Parker & Parker, 1963).
Thus, the Orange County Title Company was formed through the merger of two smaller companies. The financial firm would later be renamed First American Financial
Corporation, and today it is one of the largest firms providing financial services nationally and to countries around the globe (Marsh, 1994).
By World War II, Santa Ana was prepared with the necessary services and infrastructure to contribute to wartime efforts. The city’s strategic location near the coast and the abundance of open space in the surrounding areas were ideal for military operations. Consequently, the Santa Ana Army Base and other military stations were established (Marsh, 1994). These facilities were fundamental in the national exposure of the city as individuals from all parts of the country enjoyed the Mediterranean climate and amenities that Santa Ana had to offer at the time. These individuals would eventually be responsible for rapid population growth in Santa Ana and the surrounding areas as many would relocate with their families to the southland after the war (Marsh, 1994).
Braceros and Barrios
The presence of Mexicans significantly increased during times of war as a shortage of manpower in American agriculture necessitated the Bracero program, the largest foreign worker program in the United States. In an effort to fulfill manual labor duties, the federal government commenced the legal temporary contract of agricultural laborers from Mexico in 1942. Consequently, agricultural towns of the American
Southwest would receive a heavy influx of Mexicans, and Santa Ana was no exception
57
(Marsh, 1994). As the war came to an end, Santa Ana not only had a substantial presence of Mexican workers, but many employers continued to utilize Mexican immigrants as a source of cheap manual laborer, prompting the permanent relocation of many braceros post-war. These workers would ultimately congregate in the unincorporated barrios of the county (Marsh, 1994).
Named after Civil-War-hero-turned-congressman John A. Logan, the Logan barrio has the unique distinction of being the original Mexican barrio in Santa Ana due to its location within the city limits (personal communication, February 6, 2016). Originally planned as right-of-way property for commercial purposes, the Logan barrio was a conglomerate of pre-assembled houses that served as temporary housing for railroad workers (Garcia, 2007). Commercial use never took hold in the area and over time the section housing became permanent households that covered the triangular area made by the diverging tracks of the Santa Fe and Southern Pacific lines (Garcia, 2007). By 1930, the Logan barrio had a variety of amenities including an elementary school, a church, and grocery stores which would all cater to the large contingency of Mexican families
(Garcia, 2007). Restrictions on social mobility for Mexicans in the Southwest propelled the barrio into a vibrant community for Mexicans from all social strata, including professionals, businessmen, servicemen and field workers (Irazabal, 2012). Eventually, the demand for cheap manual labor would continue the growth of other barrios in the city such as the Delhi and Artesia barrios (Gonzalez, 2007).
Unfortunately, these colorful spaces would remain mostly unincorporated and greatly suffer from lack of investment and infrastructure (Irazabal, 2012). Like Santa
Ana’s Chinatown, barrios would also suffer from unfavorable political decisions, as these
58 spaces were to provide the path of least resistance for future development projects
(Garcia, 2007). For the rest of the city, the barrio and its residents represented manual labor, subservient, and foreign. Similar to how African-Americans were forced into separate institutions, Mexicans represented the segregated faction of society in the
Southwest, particularly in their school system (Gonzalez, 1990). However, February 18,
1946 would be a turning point for school segregation in Orange County, as Judge Paul
McCormick would preside over a case that would set the legal precedent for the national landmark desegregation case of Brown v. Board of Education (Gonzalez, 1990).
In 1947, the sons and daughter of Gonzalo and Felicitas Mendez were denied enrollment to a school in the Westminster school district due to the segregation of schools based on race at the time. Gonzalo found this unjust situation replicated in other school districts where Mexican students were enrolled in substandard “Mexican schools”
(Kandil, April 17, 2016). Soon other parents would voice their displeasure for the lack of academic opportunity provided to children with Spanish surnames (Kandil, 2016). With the financial help of Gonzalo Mendez, Thomas Estrada, William Guzman, Frank
Palomino and Lorenzo Ramirez, a class action lawsuit against the Westminster, Garden
Grove, El Modena, and Santa Ana school districts was put forth (Kandil, 2016). The plaintiffs challenged the school districts on their discriminatory and forceful placement of students into different schools based on race
Represented by civil rights attorney David Marcus, the Mendez v. Westminster case made its way to the United States District Court in Los Angeles in 1947 (Gonzalez,
1990). The defense argued that their practice of separating children into different schools was not based on race, but rather a practice based on educational needs. In other words,
59 school administrators believed that cultural and language limitations of Mexican children would impair a normal learning experience for Anglo children (Gonzalez, 1990).
Additionally, district representatives expressed their efforts to provide all children with equal facilities on the basis of the decision of Plessy v. Ferguson (Gonzalez, 1990)
On the other hand, Marcus argued that by providing separate facilities there is an unintended effect to deny equal protection (Gonzalez, 1990). Judge McCormick would agree that the public education system should reflect social equality and must be available to pupils from all backgrounds. Ultimately, Judge McCormick would highlight the distinction between social and physical equality, affirming that the American school system is based on providing a socially just opportunity rather than the mere opportunity to access to a facility. Therefore, regardless of equivalent facilities, the separation of individuals in an academic capacity was inherently unjust (Gonzalez, 1990). The courts would rule in favor of Marcus and the parents, with a decision to end school segregation in Santa Ana and the surrounding areas. Most importantly this case would provide substance and a legal precedent seven years later for the landmark desegregation case of
Brown v. Board Education.
Parents that fought against discriminatory practices in the education system did not receive praise for their efforts until recent times. In fact, civic leaders and even history books rarely mention this accomplishment for social justice. The long overdue acknowledgement for the families that ended school segregation in Orange County was finally made in 2000, when a newly built school in Santa Ana would bear the names of
Felicitas and Gonzalo Mendez (Kandil, 2016). Three years later, novice director Sandra
Robbie would bring this important case to life when she decided to direct her Emmy
60
Award-winning documentary; Para todo los ninos/ For all the children (Garcia, 2016).
Finally, in 2011 President Obama awarded Sylvia Mendez, daughter of one the plaintiff families, the Presidential Medal of Freedom for her family’s contribution to the fight for social justice (Kandil, 2016).
“Greatest Generation”
Postcards of the post-war era portray Santa Ana as a place of progress and prosperity. The thriving central business district lured renowned retailers, as Montgomery
Ward, J.C. Penny and Sears lined the streets of downtown (Bitetti et al, 2006).
Furthermore, the 1950s marked the largest physical growth in the city’s history as it annexed land that essentially doubled its 1940 size (City of Santa Ana, 2006). With returning servicemen and a rise in industrial jobs, Santa Ana experienced one of the largest increases in its population from 1950 to 1960 (Moorman, 1963). Thus, with an increasing population and additional space, commerce was no longer anchored to the central business district, as an American icon introduced itself to Santa Ana’s northernmost boundary. In 1958, anchored by Bullock’s Department Store, Santa Ana developed its first shopping mall, Fashion Square (today: MainPlace Mall), located in the northernmost part of the city (Reed, 2008).
This sentiment of progressiveness and independence was reflected even in local government as city residents affirmed their self-governance by voting to become a
Charter City in November of 1952 (City of Santa Ana, 2017). This change allowed the city to follow a system of government defined by the people rather than that mandated by the State. According to former city historian, Manuel Escamilla (personal communication, February 6, 2016), the new governing policy was championed by city
61 manager Carl Thorton, to allow decision-makers to seize the opportunity of rising land values and transform this once-agricultural town to a grown city with subdivisions of tax- producing land uses. Finally, Santa Ana reaffirmed itself as the political center for
Orange County with the building of a new state-of-the art County Courthouse, completed in 1969 (Ball, 2001).
Nonetheless, the strides made in economic progress of the city would be overshadowed by the lack of social progress. Like many other suburbs, selective bank loans and redlining practices effectively encouraged only a particular type of resident to the freshly annexed neighborhoods. It was this de facto segregation that allowed mass suburbanization during this time to become an exclusive “white privilege.” Thus, despite emerging minority communities in the city, U.S. Census data indicates that in 1950,
98.8% of the residents in Santa Ana were non-Hispanic White, a community that would maintain a supermajority status well into the Civil Rights Era. Thus, Santa Ana reflected
America as a whole at the time: predominantly white and middle-class.
Former Santa Ana City Historian Manuel Escamilla, explains that the city was not necessarily the final destination for immediate post-war white-flight from other urban centers, but rather part of a two-stage process. Santa Ana served as a stepping stone for working-class whites to advance on the social ladder as they moved away from older areas and eventually relocated to newer suburbs in other parts of Orange County
(personal communication, February 6, 2016). One of the major catalysts for the dominant group to further alienate themselves from Santa Ana was the decision that resulted from the 1967 Reitman v. Mulkey decision. This case, which would go all the way to the
Supreme Court, was brought when a Santa Ana landlord denied an African-American
62 military couple’s application to rent an apartment outside of the “black area” (Johnson &
Riggins, 2009). The courts viewed this as a denial of the Equal Protection Clause granted through the Civil Rights Act and ruled in favor of the Mulkeys. The court’s decision would introduce fair housing laws in California and have a substantial effect on the movement of African-Americans in and out of Santa Ana (Johnson & Riggins, 2009).
The Mulkey decision allowed the introduction of a neglected minority to the Santa
Ana housing market for the first time. African-American families, composed of returning servicemen and industry workers were congregating en mass in the Artesia district west of downtown, an area that came to be known as Little Texas (Carvajal, 1994). Census data indicated that by 1970, African-Americans in Santa Ana represented roughly 4% of the city’s total population but 68% of the county’s total Black population. Unfortunately, the growing diversity, changing demographics, and inclusive policies of the city created some uneasiness. As national trends of political activism ascended, these would foster a negative perception of African Americans in Santa Ana that would once again trigger violent events towards a minority community in the city.
The Black Panthers
Minority communities across the nation were no longer accepting their previous roles in society during the 1960s. African American communities organized and empowered their citizens, and among the vanguard of this movement were the members of the Black Panther Party. Although the Black Panther branch in Santa Ana was small, their presence marked an important episode in the city’s history.
When 24-year-old Santa Ana Police Officer Nelson Sasscer was shot dead in the predominantly African American neighborhood along Artesia (renamed Raitt) Street,
63 there was little deliberation about the possible suspects of the murder. Authorities were immediately in a panicked search across the Little Texas district for Santa Ana Black
Panther Party leader, 22-year-old Daniel Lynem (San Roman & Arellano, 2009).
Tensions between the group and authorities were already heated when party leadership had been vocal about police abuse. As in the case of Francisco Torres, there was no direct evidence that Lynem or any other members were involved in the shooting of Officer
Sasscer, but the facts that remained were sufficient to arrest Lynem. Sasscer, a respected
Vietnam War veteran and Rookie Officer of the Year in the prior year, was shot down dead in the same streets walked by an outspoken group that had gained notoriety for violent tactics: no warrant was needed. Lynem was found and arrested on June 5, 1969
(San Roman & Arellano, 2009).
Days later the District Attorney charged Lynem and two fugitive Black Panther members with the murder of Officer Sasscer (San Roman & Arellano, 2009). As a search got underway for the two remaining fugitives, search tactics for this operation would further amplify racial tensions. African American residents reported police forcing themselves into their households to interrogate families at gunpoint on the whereabouts of fugitives Nathaniel Odis Grimes and Arthur Dewitt League (San Roman & Arellano,
2009). Community leaders would condemn police harassment while the department responded to criticism by arguing that policing in such communities had made substantial advancements, particularly by discouraging the use of derogatory terms towards residents
(San Roman & Arellano, 2009).
Once the two fugitives were found, District Attorney Cecil Kicks would coincidentally drop all charges against Lynem, who despite the lack of evidence had
64 already served a full month in jail (San Roman & Arellano, 2009). Lynem would later find out that his arrest was likely due to a series of outlandish testimonies forced out of other Black Panther Party members. Eventually, an all-white jury would find Arthur
Dewitt League guilty of second-degree murder in the case of Officer Sasscer. As a result of the events, Santa Ana Black Panther activities ceased and the party was dismantled
(San Roman & Arellano, 2009).
The Santa Ana Black Panther trial would eventually contribute to positive changes in the community. The scarred image of the police department would force new leadership that would bring about a change in policing strategies from the traditional hardline approach to a more effective community policing (San Roman & Arellano,
2009). Most importantly, these events encouraged the creation of a Human Relations
Commission, providing a space for residents to report any police complaints (San Roman
& Arellano, 2009).
Today, Officer Sasscer is eulogized every spring when respect is paid to all the
Santa Ana men and women that have fallen in the line of duty. Coincidentally, a public park in the middle of a business plaza near downtown would be renamed in honor of
Officer Sasscer (Bush, n.d.). On the other hand, the history of the Black Panthers in Santa
Ana, the prominent African American community, and their contributions to social justice and a new order in police practices has been largely ignored. Their stories and accomplishments have been relegated to old newspaper clippings and one recent oral history publication (Johnson & Riggins, 2009). Aggressive deindustrialization and rising property values would be a factor for African Americans to relocate elsewhere, as this
65 once vibrant community dwindled to the current state of comprising just 1% of the city’s total population (Johnson & Riggins, 2009).
Gentrification: Part Two
Irazabal (2008) describes this concept of “white flight” as the decentralization of central business districts and their surrounding neighborhoods to the suburban outskirts in response to a growing concentration of immigrants and minorities in central downtown areas. During the 1970s, as Santa Ana experienced its peak black population in 1975
(Johnson & Riggins, 2009) and the beginning of mass migration from Latin America, widespread decentralization and white-flight occurred (Haas, 1991). Fresh master- planned municipalities that offered sanitized neighborhoods commenced the southward expansion of the county. Newly incorporated cities of the Irvine Ranch in south Orange
County attracted white-middle class residents and businesses from older north county cities. Additionally, the departure from older urban centers like Santa Ana had substantial implications for business and housing as the cities lost a prominent portion of their tax base (Haas, 1991).
These vacant businesses and housing opportunities would be supported and occupied by waves of newly arriving immigrants from Latin America, predominantly
Mexico and largely undocumented. Beginning in 1970s, a mass migration of people from
Mexico was propelled by a network of kinship in the established barrios of Santa Ana
(Haas, 1991). Thus, Santa Ana transformed into a gateway city and popular destination for Spanish-speaking immigrants. By 1980, residents with Spanish surnames made up
44% of the total population in Santa Ana (Haas, 1991).
66
The central business district of Santa Ana was transformed into a safe haven for
Mexican immigrants where they could speak their native language and find familiar food, affordable services catering to their needs, and inexpensive housing (Haas, 1991). With an exponential growth in its Spanish speaking population, city councilmembers and owners of downtown properties that once thrived with brand-name retailers reconsidered their business model. In a top-down approach these parties would attempt to cater to the growing Latino market by creating the Fiesta Marketplace.
Created in 1989 this downtown business corridor would provide services that would attract Spanish speaking clientele not just from Santa Ana but across Orange
County. However, in recent times this area has transformed into a contentious space which has brought forth a difficult business climate for Latino-catering businesses and has rekindled age-old sentiments towards working-class immigrants.
Immigration, almost exclusively from Mexico, continued during the 1990s and up until the turn of the century. By 2000, Santa Ana was ranked 1st in the state with the largest foreign-born population (Mena, 2003). According to the 2000 U.S. Census,
Mexicans alone would make up 65% of the residents in Santa Ana. Spanish would become the lingua franca of the city as reports indicated that 74% of the residents spoke
Spanish, making it the highest-concentration of Spanish speakers in the nation (Lelyveld,
2001). However, this large presence of an immigrant working-class had a significant impact on the financial capacity of residents. For example, while the average median household income in Santa Ana stood at $43,412 in 2000, predominantly immigrant census tracts in the vicinity of downtown reported an average of $26,893. That same year medium household incomes for Orange County were reported at $58,820. The growing
67 socio-economic disparities between this immigrant ethnic enclave and the rest of Orange
County coincided with a series of anti-immigrant political agendas that heightened at the turn of the century.
According to Arellano (2006), “Orange County is the Mexican-bashing capital of the United States.” Arellano (2006) explains how certain decisions and actions taken by residents have exposed the racial undertones deep-rooted in the Orange County ethos.
Beginning in 1994, residents organized to create the California Coalition for Immigration
Reform, the group responsible for creating Proposition 187. This legislation would have denied public services to any undocumented immigrant and any child born in the United
States to undocumented parents (Arellano, 2006). The same group would inspire Aliso
Viejo native Jim Gilchrist to form the Minutemen Project, a quasi-militia of private citizens that would take upon themselves what they believed to be unfulfilled duties by the U.S. government to protect the US-Mexico border (Arellano, 2008). More recently, police departments across the county have expanded their jurisdiction to assist the
Immigration and Customs Enforcement efforts to find and deport undocumented immigrants. The contract between Immigration and Customs Enforcement and local law enforcement in Santa Ana, allowed police to hand over any detained undocumented individuals, including those detained at routine traffic violations and other minor offenses, to be prosecuted by immigration agents (Arellano, 2006). This collaboration by law enforcement agencies was highly controversial, as it damaged community relations and propagated a hostile view of the police. For these reasons, Santa Ana recently moved to terminate this practice (Kwong, 2017).
68
Arellano (2006) suggests that these anti-immigrant agendas are developed in an effort to maintain the surgically manicured portrait of Orange County as a white, conservative, and affluent entity. However, the county seat of Santa Ana is the antithesis of this, ranking amongst the densest cities in the nation, with the highest percentage of
Spanish-speakers in the country; a city that a 2004 Nelson Rockefeller Institute of
Government report ranked first in the nation under the Urban Hardship Index, ahead of cities like Detroit, Atlanta and New Orleans (Nelson A. Rockefeller, 2004). Arellano
(2008), sheds lights on this incongruity writing, “Santa Ana is lesson, warning, and code word in Orange County for cities that don’t pay close attention to the folks moving in.
Poverty? Can’t exist in Orange County” (p. 60).
To mitigate the image of a poor immigrant city to the rest of Orange County, city officials in Santa Ana have aggressively pushed for redevelopment efforts in the central business district and surrounding communities in the early 2000s. Through a series of concessions to developers and property owners, the Fiesta Marketplace was dismantled to give way to a New Urbanist planning philosophy and businesses that cater to a more
“diverse” clientele (Londono & Gonzalez, 2015, 185). However, Latino residents and
Latino-catering businesses argue that redevelopment efforts have effectively marginalized them and out-priced their ability to continue to patronize downtown district businesses, creating a toxic environment between the community, businesses and decision-makers (Medina, 2011).
The changing direction of the city officials was clear by 2006 when the city refurbished its landmark water tower overlooking Interstate 5, and changed the city motto from “Education 1st” to the current, “Downtown Orange County.” (Gonzalez, 2015, p.
69
186). Eventually, the rebranding of the Latino business district from the Fiesta
Marketplace to the New East End amplified the rhetoric of a new era in the central business district that would focus on an upwardly mobile clientele (Pimentel, 2014).
Londono & Gonzalez (2015) suggest that an upwardly mobile demographic in Santa Ana excludes the majority immigrant population. Community leaders expressed their discontent during a 2011 debate that aired on National Public Radio local affiliate KPCC, declaring that the redevelopment efforts were a disservice to the community and an irresponsible effort that prioritized transient consumers instead of low-income residents and tenure-business owners of downtown (Mantle, 2011).
Plans to redevelop a Latino-catering business district in a city that is almost 80%
Latino is most startling, especially when one considers that Santa Ana is the only city of its size in the country with an all-Latino city council (Arellano, 2007). In other words, revitalization efforts to attract an upscale clientele are not the elaborate plan of an Anglo- dominant governing body. Quite the contrary, these redevelopment efforts have been spearheaded by elected Latinos sitting in city council. The editor of the OC Weekly,
Gustavo Arellano, describes the situation, “It’s a line I have been saying since 2003, before it was white people gentrifying here in Santa Ana, now its Mexicans gentrifying
Mexicans. That’s progress right?” (personal communication, August 25, 2016). Thus, as minorities and immigrants from all backgrounds in Santa Ana continue their struggle to be recognized and take part in the narrative of the city (Cocoletzi, 2016), the rhetoric of marginalization for these groups in Santa Ana continues to be accepted, even by Latinos in positions of power.
70
Through this brief overview of Santa Ana, this research attempts to highlight the clear conflicts between those in positions of power and the minority communities. There is an obvious pattern of exclusion and discrimination that has existed in the treatment of these communities, even in contemporary times. Therefore, this research begs the question: considering the patterns of discrimination and uneven power dynamics exhibited over the years by mainstream dominant groups towards minority communities, can it be assumed that the same attitude has prevailed in planning decisions? Could these attitudes have an influence on the allocation of positive public resources? If so, can these decisions be correlated to the current amenity-poor state, more specifically the distribution of public parks, in Santa Ana?
71
CHAPTER 5
RESULTS
The shortage of public open-space for recreation uses in Santa Ana, and Central
Orange County for that matter, is not a novelty. This has been a pressing matter which was highlighted by local agencies and regional government decades ago. Thus, this begs the question of why Santa Ana was not allocated with its fair share of public parks and why it continues to be burdened with disproportionate allocation of these resources.
Through interviews with decision-makers, advocates, and experts, and an analysis of archival and statistical data, this study attempts to address these research questions: why is Santa Ana so park-poor? Fundamentally, is public park deficiency in Santa Ana triggered by environmental justice drivers identified in the park literature? Finally, what strategies should Santa Ana consider to mitigate this issue?
The findings of this research are primarily qualitative in nature, but are supplemented by quantitative data. In this chapter, I present my findings by highlighting the major themes found in the collected data. The following sections address each of the research questions individually.
Why is Santa Ana So Park-Poor?
The evidence suggests that during the period of greatest urban growth in Santa
Ana (1950-1960), the planning practices and economic incentives to include public resources such as parks were simply not there. An ethos of individual freedoms,
72 entrepreneurship, and libertarian ideals inculcated by the city’s founder, William H.
Spurgeon, was exacerbated by the local newspaper. Thus, few stakeholders endorsed the idea of providing public amenities, a decision that would cement Santa Ana’s planning future and limit its capacity to address future needs. More recently, a shift in the city’s demographics have mobilized hegemonic groups to prioritize issues of community safety over community building.
Myopic Planning
The evidence suggests that early stakeholders of the region, including in Santa
Ana, were land speculators whose main objective was to produce profits from their land holdings. In turn, these “Lords of Orange County” as Arellano (2006, p. 7) refers to them, represent the image of the “gentleman farmer” engraved in American folklore. This noble character is identified with self-attained wealth from his successful estate and reveres libertarian ideals. Consequently, this ethos of profit seeking and autonomy from government translated to minimal inclusion of public amenities.
In fact, archival records indicate that from the time of its founding until the end of
WWII, the three parks in Santa Ana were largely the result of philanthropic efforts, not government planning. Birch Park, Santa Ana’s first park, was gifted by the Birch family in 1900 to honor their late father, Alfred W. Birch. The land was gifted with the stipulation that it would remain a public park in perpetuity.
Later, efforts by the Boy Scouts Organization to honor decorated war hero, Jack
Fisher and his fight for veteran services led to the establishment of Jack Fisher Park in
1932. Three years later the city purchased land on the banks of Santiago Creek, but it was funds from the federal Work Progress Administration that allowed Santiago Park to be
73 completed. The city would create its first Parks Department in 1935 after the completion of Santiago Park.
The Parks Department’s first grand project would not begin until 1947. Although park officials struggled with delayed funding to complete all park amenities in the 17- acre project, Memorial Park was partially opened to the public in 1948. Gold Star mothers from all parts of the county were present on the day of the inauguration, as the park was to serve as a “living memorial” to their fallen sons. A newspaper article reports that one of the mothers expressed, “hope that in its small way the park can serve as a constant reminder of the benefits of peace” (Gold Star Mothers, n.d).
Population data indicates that by 1950 Santa Ana was in full post-war suburbanization. As landholders experienced a decline in agriculture, many took the opportunity to sell their land as prices skyrocketed. The “gentleman farmer” was being replaced by the housing developer, but they too remained loyal to libertarian ideals.
These ideals became emboldened as the local newspaper, the Santa Ana Register (today,
The Orange County Register), managed by R.C. Hoiles, gained influence and pushed an agenda of individual liberty above everything else. According to former Santa Ana City
Historian Manuel Escamilla (personal communication, February 6, 2016), the Santa Ana
Register would condemn anything public, from schools to libraries, because private property in Orange County became a sacred entity.
According to former Orange County Park Planner, Richard Ramella (personal communication, June 5, 2015), development in the region was spurred by both freeways that extended further away from urban centers and decreasing agriculture economy. Thus, many landholders were enticed to sell their properties to the highest bidder. However,
74
Escamilla (personal communication, February 6, 2016) indicates that because decisions remained in the hands of a network of ranchers and entrepreneurs, even after post-war development, Santa Ana still lacked a clear plan for what would constitute the city’s political and economic development. Consequently, to move away from the old guard of small agricultural representation, and move towards an economy of corporations, Carl
Thorton was hired as the city manager in 1951. By the following year Thorton established his vision for Santa Ana, as he assisted in drafting the City Charter that created the current government structure of the city. That structure would include a 6- member council and one mayor, all of whom would be elected by city residents, at large.
Escamilla explains that, “[Thorton’s] approach was, if Orange County is going to have a big city, Santa Ana is going to be that city” (personal communication, February 6, 2016).
By the end of the 1960s, the Parks Department had expanded its stock of facilities, building 18 parks which included a zoo donated by Judge Ed Prentice with the provision that the park keep 50 monkeys at all times (Illingworth, 1975). Park projects throughout the city during this time were overseen by Bomo Koral, a visionary figure who promoted the expansion of public parks. Koral’s goal to “provide a park within walking distance for everyone,” (Illingworth, 1975, p. 6) was forward-thinking for the time. Despite his efforts, however, dedicated parkland was simply not enough for the booming population that had doubled in ten years, reaching 150,000 by 1970.
Ron Ono currently serves as the Administrative Service Manager but began working for Santa Ana Parks and Recreation Department as a Landscape Architect in
1969. Ono (personal communication, September 8, 2016) explains how Santa Ana had reached its current city limits by the time he started and that the city was beginning to
75 respond to the exploding population. Ono describes that some elements of the 1975
Quimby Act were included in the City Charter, which allowed the Parks and Recreation
Department to secure land in new housing developments to be zoned as open-space.
Consequently, housing tracts near the city limits were planned and developed with residential amenities including schools and public parks.
“The city was built out like a doughnut, almost no parks in the center of town and plenty of them in the outside,” explained Ono. He argues that, “cities coming out of the
Irvine Ranch had an opportunity to plan out the development and wanted to include open space amenities. In Santa Ana, we were reacting to the development” (personal communication, September 8, 2016). In other words, the city had reached its capacity in terms of space by the 1970s, and it was only then that city officials were beginning to consider and address the shortage of public parks. Arellano elucidates the situation, arguing, “We are suffering the consequences of very myopic city planning” (personal communication, August 25, 2016). These early planning decisions would prove difficult to reverse as emerging economic policies would intensify urban development.
Socio-Economic Changes
Newspaper reports indicate that by 1960, the issue of inequitable park space for the growing population of Orange County was being reviewed and analyzed at the regional level. The following was reported in The Los Angeles Times on Sunday,
September 20, 1959:
A major public park shortage exists and will grow worse in the future in Orange County. That is the opinion of several top officials including the staff of the Stanford Research Institute, who recently handed county government leaders a complete economic study of the county (Unknown, p. 6).
76
The Orange County Chamber of Commerce understood that access to areas of recreation was fundamental to the quality of life and the economic vitality of cities.
Former planner for Orange County Parks, Richard Ramella, articulates that at the time when the county was experiencing rampant development, the Chamber wrote to the
Orange County Board of Supervisors, demanding that they address the shortage of public parks (personal communication, June 5, 2015). “There was no planning, plans were being filed and approved and there was no rhyme or reason,” said Ramella. “No one at the time was thinking about parks, to the extent that the county didn’t even have a parks department” (personal communication, June 5, 2015). Ramella explains that since these recommendations came from the Chamber of Commerce, County Supervisors understood the gravity of the situation.
The County Board of Supervisors organized a committee of several department heads to look further into the matter. The Board even mandated a “no substitution” rule for their meetings. In other words, the Board required the full commitment of its delegates to present a solution to the issue of public open space.
As pressure from the Orange County Chamber of Commerce pushed the county to examine and address public park deficiency for the growing population, municipalities needed to allocate financial resources to attain the regional and local recommendations for public open-space. However, a demographic shift in Santa Ana resulting from white- flight and immigration hindered its financial capacity to pursue the regional and local standards of park acreage.
The County study coincided with a statewide survey of park-users aimed at creating a “Regional Recreation Plan.” This state study was conducted to identify what
77 forms of recreation were most prevalent in what areas, in an effort to make state funds available for agencies to pursue recreation projects accordingly. However, the prerequisite to receive those funds was that the applying jurisdiction needed to have a state-certified General Plan. The County pooled all its resources and looked at plans from other agencies to finally develop its first Regional Master Plan for public parks in 1963.
The plan was certified by the state the following year.
The Master Plan for Regional Parks was the blueprint to provide much needed park and open-space to the residents of Orange County. According to Ramella, this plan identified over 100 potential park sites throughout the county and prioritized them based on the recreational needs identified by state Regional Recreation study. Ramella, who worked on the plan explained, “I would drive the major arterials to establish travel time and broke Orange County into population basins and tried to provide facilities within each of those basins” (personal communication, June 5, 2015).
The county’s residents overwhelmingly supported the efforts of the newly developed Regional Parks Department, and according to a June 6, 1963 article in the
Orange County Register, “Several cities and organizations asked that park sites affecting their areas be given a higher priority.” However, the lack of available space in municipalities that had historically pursued intense housing development meant that these older cities had few opportunities for the development of Regional Parks. Therefore, apart from a handful of sites, a majority of the proposed Regional Park sites were located in the undeveloped southern Irvine Ranch area.
Of all the Regional Parks developed none were within the borders of Santa Ana.
Tracy Wood, an investigative reporter for the Voice of OC, explained that the creation of
78
Mile Square Park, the only regional park near Santa Ana, was a mere happenstance. In her article, Wood (2011) describes how fortunate timing and political scheming by a rookie County Supervisor named David Baker, was the only way central Orange County was able to secure one of the 25 proposed Regional Parks.
Ramella indicated that the Master Plan of Regional Parks provided guidance for the appropriate number of public parks based on population projections. According to
Ramella, “We based our priority plan on meeting the demands of population growth based on 6 acres per 1,000 residents” (personal communication, June 5, 2015). The
County would attempt to attain this goal by taking responsibility for providing 60% of all projected parkland in the county and recommended that municipalities be responsible the remaining 40% of parkland.
By this time, Santa Ana was already experiencing a substantial increase in its population and had limited areas for park development. The city’s population growth propagated further housing development which in turn strained the stock of public parks, as these facilities coped to serve a growing number of users. The Sunday edition of The
Los Angeles Times on June 5, 1977, printed an editorial piece that highlighted the vast differences in the state of park facilities that were found in Santa Ana and Irvine.
This editorial highlighted the difficult conditions that Santa Ana faced in its efforts to maintain and fund its public park facilities and programs, respectively. The editorial describes various factors that led to the poor state of parks facilities in Santa
Ana, which included facilities being overused, vandalism in some cases, and a lack of community support to provide tax dollars for public parks. According to the editorial,
“Three times in 5 ½ years a park bond measure failed at the polls. The last casualty was a
79
$4.6 million measure in 1972” (Wong, 1977, p. 6). While the city’s Parks Department struggled financially, an article in the November 1970 issue of The Santa Ana News Story boasted about the city having the second lowest tax rate not just in Orange County but in
Los Angeles County as well (“Let’s set the city’s,” 1970). In short, the consistent opposition by residents of Santa Ana to public spending coupled with minimum taxes in comparison to other municipalities, resulted in a crippled park system.
Conversely, newly incorporated Irvine had substantial support from its largely middle to upper class residents. “In June, 1974, the Irvine electorate gave the City
Beautiful concept a resounding vote of confidence, passing a $16 million bond for new parks and a $2 million measure for bike trails” (Wong, 1977, p. 8). Thus, Irvine has benefitted from aggressive support of politically active residents; additionally, it has been able to secure its extensive share of recreational resources.
In the wake of a statewide measure that reduced revenue from property taxes.
Santa Ana intensified the use of available land for large retailers and other businesses.
Proposition 13 provided property owners with manageable rate of property tax increase over the years, while at the same time rolling back property taxes to the 1976 assessed value level of properties. In other words, cities with lean budgets, like Santa Ana, would seek to complement lost property tax revenue by encouraging development of tax- generating land uses and reducing fiscally-burdening land-uses, like public parks, as an item of low fiscal priority.
In summary, Santa Ana’s early efforts to become the focal point of Orange
County resulted in intense urbanization primarily with residential and commercial land- uses. The changing demographics of Santa Ana resulting from decentralization affected
80 substantially affected the city’s fiscal capacity. Additionally, approval of the statewide measure, Proposition 13, in 1978 amplified tax-generating development to cope with the significantly reduced contributions of property taxes to the city’s general fund. In other words, Santa Ana, which already had some of the lowest taxes in the region, would increasingly try to attract large retailers and other businesses rather than pursuing the development of open-space for recreation (seen as a tax burden). Since Proposition 13 was adopted, Santa Ana has not completed a new park project larger than one acre.
The Game of Politics
Dramatic changes in demographics started shifting Santa Ana to a minority- majority city in the 1970s. The city transformed largely into a Spanish-speaking immigrant enclave where Hispanics represented 65% of the population by 1990.
Nonetheless, the political power and monopoly on decisions about the city remained largely in the hands of the native born, middle-class, and homeowner voting bloc.
However, community safety concerns by this group have established a strong police alliance which perpetuated a cycle of increasing budget appropriations for policing.
Consequently, funding for community development projects including parks, lack the political appeal for increased investment.
There are two main political factors influencing the allocation of public funds in
Santa Ana: the at-large voting system and the role of homeowner associations. While public policy research indicates that at-large voting has a high propensity to dilute votes cast by minority groups (Welch, 1990), Santa Ana continues this practice in electing ward representatives (Gerda, 2017b). In other words, residents of Santa Ana have an opportunity to cast a vote for all six councilmembers without necessarily living in other
81 wards. This system has encouraged councilmembers to continuously appeal to the (more affluent) homeowner voting bloc, in some instances ignoring or voting against policy that is in the interest of the constituents in their wards.
Joese Hernandez, a community organizer for Orange County Communities
Organized for Responsible Development (OCCORD), a non-profit whose purpose is to advocate for more inclusive and responsible planning, explains how this voting system marginalizes candidates that seek more community development. According to
Hernandez, candidates for city council in Santa Ana often come from these homeowner groups, whose campaigns are aggressively financed by a deep-pocketed police union in return for pro-policing measures. Thus, the at-large voting system in Santa Ana facilitates the election of candidates whose platform pledges to increase policing.
Nancy Mejia, Community Engagement and Advocacy Coordinator for Latino
Health Access, expressed concerns about the highly influential role of homeowner associations in the allocation of public funds. Mejia stated, “In the history of Santa Ana, the folks that have spoken the loudest are those that have more resources” (personal communication, October 21, 2016). However, Mejia argues that residents in these areas tend to prioritize issues of public safety to maintain and increase the property values of their communities.
Similarly, Rubi Gonzalez-Woo, community activist and president of the Artesia-
Pilar Homeowner’s Association, points out that more affluent areas in the city have already secured or were developed with amenities, including parks. An article in The Los
Angeles Times on June 4, 1991 explains how residents in the affluent community of
Floral Park sought to protect their public amenities, “Some residents near Jack Fisher
82
Park, however say they are worried that too many ‘outsiders’ are using the park and bringing problems such as overcrowding, litter, loud music and graffiti to the neighborhood” (Martinez, 1991). Thus, the political priorities of residents in affluent neighborhoods are not necessarily to attain additional park space, but rather to protect their existing resources and neighborhoods.
Mejia points to an overall decline in crime in Santa Ana over the past 30 years, but acknowledges that Santa Ana continues to have a serious crime issue. Nonetheless, she argues that responding to crime in the city solely with continuous allocation of public resources to policing hinders the possibility of a more holistic approach.
More and more residents have been saying we need improve public safety, but they are not saying we need more police officers. When you look at the city budget, a budget is about priorities . . . just by looking at the budget you can say that the priority is policing this community. . . We are still seeing these proposals for gang injunctions, we are still (using a) very old model of policing that has not been working (personal communication, October 21, 2016).
Results from a budget analysis report by advocacy group Resilience OC, underlined the disparities in allocation for correctional measures particularly for youth,
“Santa Ana will spend 19.5 million this year arresting youth and $15.3 million on what the study calls ‘positive youth development’ like libraries and parks. Furthermore, in an editorial, Medina (2017) argued that the city should stray away from, “a one-dimensional approach to the violence in our community by proposing increases to the already disproportionate spending on the Police Department.” Instead, he recommended a shift in the dialogue to focus on “non-suppression, non-punitive” responses to the violence in
Santa Ana.
In short, the political dynamic in Santa Ana, supported by neighborhood groups, has the potential to suppress the allocation of public amenities such as public parks.
83
Consequently, community development projects lack political attractiveness when compared to political platforms calling for increased policing. However, recent efforts by advocates argue that investing in public resources that give positive affirmation and spaces of restorative justice, like parks, could be more effective than policing and incriminating strategies in addressing the issue of crime at its core.
Table 2. Budget Allocation: Selected Fiscal Years (1965-1966 to 2014-2015)
Percent of Budget for Fiscal Year Parks and Recreation 1965-1966 10.30% 1969-1970 13.00% 1979-1980 6.30% 1989-1990 6.05% 1999-2000 7.00% 2009-2010 7.90% 2014-2015 9.30%
Santa Ana: A Case of Environmental Injustice?
The academic literature has identified several cases where the inequitable distribution of public parks represents a case of environmental injustice. These cases have pointed to several specific drivers which have facilitated the occurrence of environmental injustice. In this section, five key factors are identified from the empirical literature and situated within the context of the case study to assess whether Santa Ana represents a case of environmental injustice.
84
Historical Marginalization
Research in Baltimore, Maryland indicates how the historical precedent of segregation and discrimination impacted the allocation of public parks (Boone et al.,
2009). Though their findings indicate that predominantly African-American neighborhoods have access to more public parks, these are smaller in acreage when compared to public parks in predominantly white-suburban neighborhoods. Furthermore, parks in African-American communities had much larger service areas which resulted in a higher propensity for park congestion as compared to predominantly white neighborhoods. Accordingly, parks in African-American communities of Baltimore were not only small in size but overused, which would deteriorate the quality and functionality of these spaces. As a result, Boone et al. (2009) identified the historical precedent of discrimination as a driver conducive to the unequal allocation of public parks.
As described in this study’s review of local history, minorities have consistently been victims of discrimination in Santa Ana, from the burning of a prominent Chinatown, to the segregation of schools, to the housing covenants that restricted African-Americans and Mexicans from certain neighborhoods. More recently, aggressive redevelopment efforts in the city’s central business district have displaced low-income minority neighborhoods, mainly of Mexican immigrants, while new businesses subsidized by city dollars have replaced small Latino-owned businesses. Arellano describes the early perception of minorities,
If you’re Mexican, you are going to have to live in camps and you’re going to be picking these crops. And we’re not going to let your children go to school with our children. If you’re Chinese, well we’re only going to allow so many Chinese before we burn you out. And you’re definitely not going to come here if you’re African American. Why? Because this is Orange County and Black people just don’t go to Orange County (personal communication, August 25, 2016).
85
Hernandez, whose organization advocates for a participatory process when it comes to development, stresses the adverse effects that early patterns of marginalization have had.
For a long time the people at the top making decisions were still mostly white, it is a long story but there is a racial component . . . who could get loans? Not brown or black people. Who now has assets and can pass that down to their children and grandchildren, mainly affluent folks (personal communication, September 20, 2016).
In other words, Santa Ana is not short of examples that reflect recurrent marginalization of minority communities. Although these events do not explicitly connect to the issue of public parks, they speak to the structures that have allowed historically privileged groups to secure decision-making power. This hegemony probably played a role in the ability to secure resources for some while denying them to others.
Equity vs. Equality
The environmental justice literature on public parks identifies issues of equity as opposed to equality as a driver of disproportionate allocation. Boone et al. (2009) and
Vaughan et al. (2013) argue that the public parks in low-income areas of Kansas City,
Missouri suffered from dilapidated park amenities that would, in turn, affect usage over time. Sister et al. (2009) highlight how the physical configuration of park space can serve to encourage or alienate certain groups. Therefore, public open-space for recreation cannot simply be allocated for the purpose of equality, but must invoke a sense of equity in the form of maintenance and services.
According to Hernandez,
The word equity as opposed to equality brings up the issue of those that have more giving some of that which they have in order for those that have little or nothing to be able to get a little boost up or support (personal communication, August 20, 2016).
86
Community organizer Rubi Gonzalez-Woo describes how the city’s park authorities should not focus their resources in one area but should, instead, invest in all of the facilities across the city. Gonzalez-Woo argues, “We need to develop these areas to benefit the community and provide all parts of town with the same types of amenities that we see in other areas” (personal communication, August 22, 2016). Furthermore,
Gonzalez-Woo points out how existing facilities could provide more.
What we find is an uneven distribution of services where some park programs have some of the services while others have none. Our parks have so much potential but there is a lack of financial resources to bring them there. I guess I would like to see the parks used more efficiently (personal communication, August 22, 2016).
Nancy Mejia, Community Engagement and Advocacy Coordinator for Latino
Health Access, a non-profit group which has actively promoted health for Latinos in
Orange County, reiterates a sentiment of inequity as more affluent and active communities are able to secure resources. Mejia adds that the lack of opportunities for residents in low-income neighborhoods, produces an unequal cityscape, to the point where they are completely different cities.
I think when you start lifting up voices that have not been heard and you start questioning the way things are, whenever you question the status quo there will be tension. Why don’t we have the same opportunities like those in Floral Park? We are in the same city but we see two very different stories (personal communication, October 21, 2016).
Senior Community Planner in Neighborhood Initiatives for the city of Santa Ana,
Scott Kutner understands that the Parks and Recreation Department needs to reexamine its service model.
We have some parks in the city that have no services. If you go to Campesino or Cesar Chavez Park there are very few things there. I mean there is grass and some parking spaces and some play equipment but there really isn’t anything there to
87
bring people together into the park for an event or any service. So, it’s not really a full-service facility (personal communication, 2016, October 6).
Furthermore, Kutner agrees that maintenance of public facilities could also be improved.
Kutner explains, “We have done a poor job as a city maintaining our public owned facilities, especially in the area of parks and recreation. It is just a known fact” (personal communication, October 6, 2016).
Acting City Manager and former Parks and Recreation Director Gerardo Mouet also agrees that parks in Santa Ana have struggled with maintenance issues but argues that these are simply effects of having to serve such a large population.
The city is 27 sq. miles for 340,000, it’s very densely populated . . . Our restrooms, in our parks, we clean them once a day but after a few hours people come up to me and say that we have not cleaned them for weeks. We have cleaned them, we have so many people that it gets overused. Places like Irvine, they have less people using their facilities (personal communication, October 11, 2016).
Nonetheless, Kutner continues to work as a liaison between decision-makers and community organizations and offers one way to address these issues.
The city needs to commit financial resources to make it happen . . . if the city council can move in that direction to completely renovate the community centers, (loans) can be paid back in 20 years. So that all of these dilapidated centers that need a facelift can improve their services. Rather than having $1 or $2 million each year, let’s capitalize on $20 million and have something to work with that can provide real change to the city (personal communication, October 6, 2016).
Thus, public parks and recreation programs in Santa Ana should be prime candidates for financial resources. The lack of investment in these spaces will affect the functionality and convert overused parks into ineffectual derelict spaces. Ultimately, parks should include services that engage and promote their usage by the local community. As Mouet explains,
88
without their involvement, everything goes to hell. You can build a great park but if people are not vested in it or it doesn’t meet their demands . . . they are your insurance policy in government services. It’s people getting involved and caring (personal communication, October 11, 2016).
In short, public park managers in Santa Ana should seek to reduce strain on their facilities by pursuing appropriately sized service areas. Thus, by providing well-equipped and maintained facilities in all parts of the city, Santa Ana can provide an equitable park experience for all users. Furthermore, the potential success of a public park depends on the ability of park managers to tailor recreational programs to the needs of the local community. Doing so will engage the community, encourage more users, and reinforce the need to continue investing in parks and recreation.
The Role of Non-Profits
As public parks become items of low-fiscal priority, advocacy for public parks and park program often became the mission of non-profit organizations. Joassart-Marcelli et al. (2013) indicate that social factors can affect levels of activity amongst these organizations. Their results suggest that disparities in levels of activity can exacerbate recreation inequalities as certain groups are better structured to secure resources.
Similarly, Wolch et al. (2005) found that bond dollars for park projects were likely to be secured by participatory groups with the expertise and resources to write successful applications. Therefore, disproportionate levels of activism in participatory and non- profit groups, which in turn create differences in recreation and service levels, is a strong indicator of environmental injustice.
Recently, Santa Ana has been pro-active in developing a well-structured plan for non-profit groups to participate in decision-making. The city has outlined a methodology by which groups can become recognized entities and begin to outline their goals. More
89 importantly, efforts by city officials are aimed at providing training, tools and leadership skills for non-profits to continue advocating for themselves. However, the economic and social realities of residents continue to pose an obstacle for individual participation.
Rosalia Vargas, an advocate and employee of Latino Health Access, describes the adverse situation of many families in Santa Ana.
If you look at just this area of Santa Ana (downtown), you will find low-income families, lacking resources, lack of opportunities, people that rarely vote or do not have the opportunity to vote. These folks are focused on their daily tasks, on providing for their family, on finding the means to pay rent. When a person is tired, when the focus is on something else, when there is [sic] . . . financial limitations or the lack of academic preparation, you can see that we are the perfect group for someone else to decide about our future (personal communication, August 18, 2016).
Ester Trinidad, a long-time activist of Latino Health Access, explained how the participatory structure at council meetings marginalizes some members of the community. Trinidad explained how during various council meetings in which open- space solutions were being debated, mothers with young children had to leave before their opportunity to provide public comments because the meeting had been scheduled for a weekday evening and extended well into the night. Thus, a process that is not sensitive to the general needs of all of its participants could be viewed as a strategy to marginalize or suppress their input.
Gonzalez-Woo describes how activism is a learning process that does not happen overnight. In order to secure resources, it takes consistent pressure from residents to hold city officials accountable. Unfortunately, this participatory process is time-consuming, creating a distribution of resources that favors the most active neighborhoods.
Everybody has a difficult life . . . I mean it has taken me 20 years to learn about the process. For a long time I blamed one neighborhood for getting everything that they have but I have learned that the reason they get those things is because
90
they do the follow-up phone calls and they put pressure on those officials. It’s very hard for the everyday person to do that, but that is the way you get things in your neighborhood. (personal communication, 2016, August 22)
Figures from the city’s Community Planning office indicate that there are approximately 400 non-profit, faith based, and neighborhood organizations in the city.
Kutner explains that these organizations vary in size, socio-economic characteristics, and goals. However, he contends that one of the goals of the city is to identify the differences between those that attain “output” and those that do not, and moreover, to provide the necessary tools for all organizations to have productive civic engagement. Kutner explains,
I think ultimately the city makes better public policy decisions to the extent that residents are engaged and have an opportunity to be engaged . . . a message we drive home in this building is that how we do things is almost as important as what we do (personal communication, October 6, 2016).
In other words, public park allocation and maintenance is often correlated to political activism by local residents. However, varying levels of activity in non-profit groups that result from an organization’s social dynamics have translated to a lack of equitable distribution of public park resources in Santa Ana. Therefore, city officials should continue to pursue strategies that encourage and support the most marginalized residents to take part in the participatory process.
Fear of the Park
The accessibility of public parks can be hindered by perceptions of fear.
Stodolska et al. (2013) point to the fact that public parks in urban areas can discourage users when the environment that surrounds them promotes a sense of insecurity.
Therefore, social factors that deter the use of public parks are also identified as drivers of environmental injustice.
91
These social factors can include gang activity, unsafe streets, or a personal sense of alienation from the community. When these factors are present in an already park-poor area such as Santa Ana, access to these spaces is further limited. In other words, a park can be rendered as defunct regardless of the park proximity, if the environment surrounding it is perceived to be a threat.
Jose Rea is an active member of the Madison Neighborhood Association.
According to Rea, the neighborhood is fortunate to have both a park and a bike trail.
However, he understands that reports of incivilities or violence related to either amenity will deter residents from using these resources. So, he explains, there is a continuous effort to maintain these facilities.
We try to discourage dumping by residents and worked with the city on a plan for graffiti abatement. Just beautifying it and cleaning the bike trail. We felt that by increasing the use of the bike trail we can discourage any negative activities. (personal communication, October 20, 2016)
Unfortunately, not all parts of the city have the same level of organization to be able to address similar situations. Not too far from the Madison Neighborhood is Minnie
Street, a neighborhood that had been documented with extreme urban hardships but has been redeveloped to enhance quality of life (Day et al., 2007). Natalie McLaughlin is the director of Lighthouse Community Centers, an outreach ministry of Mariner’s Church.
For the last 20 years, this organization has managed a community center in the area where they provide homework help for youth and English as Second Language (ESL) classes. In 2010, the group opened a mini turf field in one of the most park deficient areas in the city. However, she explains how issues of safety in the area make it difficult for parents to allow children to participate in activities that take place outdoors without supervision.
92
Safety is very important to us. We would like to have supervision of that area especially at night because our residents will report that they saw young adults hanging out and if the parents don’t feel comfortable, the kids will more than likely not participate (personal communication, October 18, 2016).
Leanne Luchinger and Lupe Ortiz both work for a faith-based organization that began a Friday Field Day program. Their organization, Trinity Cristo Rey, is fortunate to have a field and playground area that they have opened for children in their neighborhood to utilize. They feel that the strategic location of their facility could have a larger catchment area considering the severe lack of public parks in the vicinity. Yet, the community response and utilization of the space has been hesitant as a result of factors that stimulate fear. Luchinger explains,
Tell me if I am wrong Lupe, but it is not unusual to hear a gun go off in the middle of the night. So those are real things in Santa Ana . . . one of the biggest concerns here in Heninger Park is the flow of traffic. People not stopping at the stop signs, or they drive too fast. Folks have small kids and they want to go with them and bike and play outside. Like when I was growing up we played in the street. Now parents can’t really allow that (personal communication, August 13, 2016)
In short, social factors around public parks that promote a sense of insecurity or fear can substantially depress the use of that space by the local community. Proximity to a public park is irrelevant when the local community refuses to participate because of fear of the surrounding environment. In areas that are highly park-deficient these social factors can further intensify environmental injustice.
The Cost to Play
Park systems that are managed within the context of the market will likely suffer implications that derive from privatization. Scott (2000) contends that park agencies which operate their facilities for the purpose of producing profits can have adverse effects on economically vulnerable populations. Additionally, the model of privatized open-
93 spaces for recreation will likely solidify a clientele base with the purchasing power for the provided services. However, adopting this entrepreneurial approach in the context of public parks can deny access to those that are financially burdened or even alienate them over time. Therefore, the idea of managing public parks as an entity of the market has also been identified as a driver for environmental injustice.
With a predominantly Latino population, the most popular sport in Santa Ana is soccer. Unfortunately, the city does not have enough fields for all of its soccer leagues, thus there is a constant battle over space and who can provide the most dollars to secure these spaces. Though the city and school district promote youth sports, the problem has been dealing with adult soccer leagues that provide a steady amount of revenue and have substantial political weight.
Mouet, the former director of Santa Ana’s Parks and Recreation Department, argues that he has found it difficult to address public facilities being used by one specific group for one specific purpose. Mouet explains that they have allowed adults to continue their soccer leagues but have limited the operations to the Centennial Sports Complex and the Santa Ana Stadium.
There is a lot of politics when it comes to soccer leagues. I have scars of trying to do the right thing. Back in 2002 we recognized that most if not all our athletic fields had become monopolized by adult soccer leagues. Kids could not play in their neighborhood parks. They wanted to hang me when I changed it (personal communication, October 11, 2016).
Schools in Santa Ana have also pushed for a more youth-oriented use of their space. Jessica Mears, the Senior Facilities Planner for the Santa Ana Unified School
District, describes the district’s support for non-profit youth sports over adult leagues to use their facilities.
94
If you are a for-profit group there [are] higher fees and the reason for that is that we want to give priority obviously to non-profit youth groups. That’s who those fields are intended for and that’s who we want to give priority (personal communication, September 1, 2016).
Mouet further argues that the city not only wants to support youth recreation in its facilities but more importantly, they incentivize local participation. Mouet describes that in order for youth sports teams to continue using sports facilities, teams must be in their majority composed of children from the immediate neighborhoods of the field being used. According to Mouet, the purpose of this regulation is to decrease the propensity of children ousted from participating in recreation but more importantly to facilitate access to recreation at the local public park within a reasonable walking distance. Thus, his efforts continue Bomo Koral’s vision to provide residents with a park within a reasonable walking distance of 1/4 mile to 1/2 mile. Ultimately, he contends, the city has an issue of space that needs to be addressed to provide residents with the resources to maintain a positive and healthy lifestyle.
The reality is that there is just not enough space in the city for the number of leagues and adult teams we have in the city. You are talking about a highly political issue . . . As far as the youth they just need to anchor to something positive. People need positive affirmation and parks can provide that (personal communication, October 11, 2016).
In short, as Santa Ana struggles with limited access to public parks, inaccessibility is amplified when private entities take ownership of these spaces for their recreational actives. Adult soccer leagues in Santa Ana have proven highly profitable which has allowed their continuous use of open-space in the city. Therefore, to increase the available access to public parks, public park managers should refrain from adopting business-like agenda when managing these facilities, and instead focus their efforts on multiple uses of public parks that have no financial burden to the residents.
95
Mitigating Strategies
After speaking with public parks advocates, decision-makers of park provisions and experts of city policy, consistent themes emerge as to how Santa Ana can mitigate the shortage of public parks. These range from short-term, to medium-term, and long- term solutions. Nonetheless, the overarching theme by all parties is that these solutions will take a holistic approach where collaboration is key.
Short-Term Solution
Community center and recreation-oriented sites in the city have been working vigorously to provide much needed open-space, by using their own facilities as “park space.” However, limited personnel, inadequate infrastructure, and the lack of information restrict their ability to expand their programs. Members of the programs operating at these sites argue that immediate action by decision-makers to complement their existing programs can be a starting point, as illustrated by the following examples.
Trinity Cristo Rey is a faith-based organization with both church and school facilities located in Heninger Park (ironically, this neighborhood in Santa Ana has no public parks). Ortiz and Luchinger began coordinating a “Friday Field Day” during the school year, where kids in the neighborhood could use the school grounds as a pseudo- park. Although they would like to expand the program and the services, they are frustrated with the lack of information from the city regarding the type of activities they can engage in. Additionally, because of liability issues and lack of resources for safety or supervision personnel, the program remains a once-a-week event.
If they could just focus more energy because some of the things that hold us back are some fears for city regulations that affect how we can use the property. For example, can we get sued if we decide to use our space in a more open way? We
96
are not asking anybody to give us money, we just need to figure out the best way to use it (personal communication, August 13, 2016).
The mini-field of the Community Lighthouse Center on Minnie Street would also like to see their efforts complemented by park officials. Unlike the location of Trinity
Cristo Rey, the mini-field of this site is located adjacent to a major arterial, McFadden
Street. The mini-turf is separated from the street only by a chain link fence. Program
Director McLaughlin explains how their initial agenda of providing academic assistance to kids in the neighborhood has expanded beyond what the organization expected, which has posed challenges.
We like to say that space was quite literally dead and is something that grows life . . . I don’t think that the church envisioned to be there this long. There are some challenges we didn’t foresee as far as how often maintenance would be needed . . . There is a lot of volunteers and community members that are interested in partaking but the one thing the city can uniquely provide is safe conditions with oversight and management (personal communication, October 18, 2016).
Corazones Verdes is a park located in the 92701 ZIP code, the most park poor area in Santa Ana. This small park was created largely through the advocacy of Latino
Health Access volunteers and residents of the local community. It features a half-acre playground and a multi-functional community center where a variety of activities take place. During my interview with Rosalia Vargas, who works at the community center, I was able to get an idea of the various services that this center provides. The interview was stopped when an elderly man walked in seeking immediate legal advice. Vargas stepped away and upon her return she explained that because there are various functions that the center and park perform, their resources are dramatically stretched thin.
We are almost all volunteers but there is still a lack of funding for the classes. It is an independent project where we are continuously looking for funding sources but at the moment we are sustained by the community. We try not to depend on state
97
funds or any grants because we know that that can immediately change (personal communication, August 18, 2016).
Sites like these can provide immediate solutions because they are locations that are already operating recreation programs. In other words, these sites simply need augmented administrative or minimal infrastructure to complement the open-space opportunities already there. By addressing the needs of these existing locations, city officials will gain allies in addressing larger and more complex park projects.
Medium-Term Solution
Public schools in Santa Ana hold a considerable amount of real estate in the city.
Schools are often located within an accessible distance for residents. Thus, advocates for healthy communities have pushed to access schoolyards and playgrounds and transform these spaces into fully functional recreational spaces.
Mejia, from Latino Health Access, explained that initially there was apprehension by school district officials regarding the use of their facilities for recreation purposes.
According to Mejia, schools view their facilities as an investment, thus issues of liability and concerns about vandalism are at the forefront. Nonetheless, the model of joint-use was applied in one of the most park-poor neighborhoods in the city, at Willard
Intermediate School, and has proven to be highly successful.
The Willard Joint-Use agreement was completed as a result of Proposition 84 funding that was acquired by city officials. Once the funding had been secured, the city reached out to school district officials to utilize the acquired funds for the redevelopment of Willard’s athletic fields. The Willard project includes a full-length turf field with lighting, a new track, new basketball court, and a small play area for kids.
98
The school district has been very proactive in addressing the city’s recreational needs. They have completed a state-of-the art Sports Complex which include areas of recreation for the community and continue to pursue other joint-use agreements.
According to Senior Facility Planner Mears, the school district’s position is one that encourages a healthy lifestyle because district officials understand that ultimately youth that participate in recreation have increased cognitive skills, which ultimately complements the learning process in the classroom and contributes to better students.
There is a positive reaction from our end. We are always looking for opportunities to build projects that will benefit our students. We are always looking for funding for these opportunities because obviously you cannot build them without money (personal communication, August 1, 2016)
Former Park Director Mouet, shed light on the complicated nature of joint-use agreements. According to Mouet these agreements are a collaboration between two public agencies, both of which are overseen by a board of politicians who can be voted out of office. Thus, joint-use agreements will be part of the solution only if those making decisions believe that the issue of public open-space for recreation is a priority.
Joint-use requires different opinions, there are 5 school board members all of which are politicians. There are 6 council members and a mayor and they are all politicians . . . Critical decisions are often difficult to be made when it comes time to make them (personal communication, October 11, 2016)
This research has applied a cartographic analysis using Geographic Information
Systems to highlight areas of Santa Ana where park managers and school district official should seek to implement additional joint-use agreements. The purpose of this analysis is to identify which school sites are best strategically located and can effectively provide areas of recreation in highly deficient areas of the city. Figure 1, the first of a four-map series, is a basic locator map that identifies the current public parks that are available to
99 the public at no cost. Figure 1 also includes the current joint-use agreement sites listed on the city’s website. However, this first map does not include recreational facilities that have a financial burden on users or that remain fully enclosed and require access through an authorized park official (i.e. tennis centers). This map is complemented by Table 3, which lists the facilities by name and their calculated acreage.
100
Figure 1. Location of public parks and joint-use sites in Santa Ana, CA (2017).
101
Table 3. Acreage Data for Digitized Parks and Joint-Use Sites
Number Name Type Acres 1 Adams Park Public Park 6.25 2 Angels Community Park Public Park 1.84 3 Birch Park Public Park 2.51 4 Bomo Koral Park Public Park 10.03 5 Cabrillo Park Public Park 8.34 6 Carl Thornton Park Public Park 33.81 7 Centennial Regional Park Public Park 66.21 8 Cesar Chavez Campesino Park Public Park 6.55 9 Chepa's Park Public Park 0.43 10 Corazones Verdes Park Public Park 0.39 11 Delhi Park Public Park 6.48 12 Edna Park Public Park 3.22 13 El Salvador Park Public Park 7.88 14 Eldridge Park Public Park 1.47 15 Fairview Triangle Public Park 0.81 16 Fisher Park Public Park 1.85 17 French Park Public Park 0.32 18 Friendship Park Public Park 0.10 19 Garfield Elementary School Joint-Use Site 2.44 20 Godinez High School Joint-Use Site 10.41 21 Griset Park Public Park 6.57 22 Heritage Park Public Park 6.79 23 Jerome Park Public Park 12.07 24 Lillie King Park Public Park 10.57 25 Mabury Park Public Park 6.44 26 Madison Elementary School Joint-Use Site 1.37 27 Madison Exercise Park Public Park 0.25 28 Madison Park Public Park 6.11 29 McFadden Triangle Public Park 0.83
102
Number Name Type Acres 30 Memorial Park Public Park 16.94 31 Memory Lane Park Public Park 0.52 32 Monroe Elementary School Joint-Use Site 2.55 33 Morrison Park Public Park 5.39 34 Portola Park Public Park 8.88 35 Prentice Park Public Park 0.79 36 Riverview Park Public Park 7.91 37 Rosita Park Public Park 8.78 38 Saddleback View Public Park 1.27 39 Sand Pointe Park Public Park 6.82 40 Santa Ana Flag Plaza Public Park 1.16 41 Santa Anita Park Public Park 3.79 42 Santiago Park Public Park 33.31 43 Sarah May Herb Garden Public Park 0.16 44 Sasscer Park Public Park 1.15 45 Spurgeon Park Joint-Use Site 4.73 46 Valley High School Joint-Use Site 19.04 47 Willard Intermediate School Joint-Use Site 5.53 48 Windsor Park Public Park 11.26
Figure 2 includes population data for Santa Ana from the 2010 Census.
Additionally, the map includes a buffer of 1/2 mile around each facility, which is considered a reasonable walking distance from a public park. This map highlights areas of high population density that are not within a reasonable walking distance to a public park or joint-use site.
103
Figure 2. Total population within 1/2 mile of public parks and joint-use sites.
104
In Figure 3, the park points include only fully functional parks. In other words, the city park inventory includes facilities that are maintained by the Parks and Recreation
Department. However, some of these facilities lack the qualities of a true public park.
The sites not included in this map have one of the following criteria: less than 1/4 of an acre, there is no visible green space, or there is no permanent play equipment. A total of seven parks met this criteria and were not included in this analysis. Using the remaining points, Thiessen polygons were used to create hypothetical park service areas (PSA) for each individual park and joint-use point. Next, using the underlying census data and acreage information, acres per 1,000 residents for each PSA was calculated. The goal of this analysis was to identify which public parks or joint-use sites service a large portion of the population which results in park congestion or overuse of facilities. Darker shades of green are PSAs that suffer from significantly lower levels of acres per 1,000 residents while lighter shades are PSA that are closer to the city goal of 2 acres per 1,000 residents
(Gonzalez, 2012).
105
Figure 3. Park Service Areas for selected parks and joint-use sites.
106
The fourth map in the series, shown in Figure 4, uses the information from Figure
3, but also includes seven additional points of school sites. The Thiessen polygon analysis was used again to create new PSAs around the added potential joint-use sites.
The purpose of this analysis was to implement joint-use agreement in strategically located schools to alleviate areas of high stress located in the central part of the city
(shown in Figure 3). In other words, to reduce the amount of dark shade to lighter shades of green.
As the map shows, adding these strategic locations will reconfigure the PSAs, particularly in the central part of town. Although PSAs in the central area of the city did not change to the lightest classification, they did improve from the being the most park- deficient classification. Additionally, the goal is to reduce PSAs to a more appropriate size that will in turn result in less stress on public park facilities. In other words, by reducing the size of the PSA not only does the propensity for park congestion reduce but it can also reduce maintenance cost, and ultimately provide more equitable recreational open-space opportunities for residents of Santa Ana.
107
Figure 4. Potential joint-use sites and adjusted park service areas.
108
Long-Term Solution Santa Ana city officials are inclined to sell off properties to mixed-use housing or commercial developers rather than being land owners. In other words, in a dense city like
Santa Ana, open parcels of land are an opportunity for officials to create tax-producing land-uses. Thus, advocates for desperately needed amenities, like public parks, are taking a stance and demanding that planning officials address the land-use needs of communities before any transactions for publically owned land are made.
Various non-profits have collaborated to bring decision-makers to the table in order to negotiate the use of vacant lots in ways that would benefit the local community through the creation of a Community Land Trust. This model would give stewardship of the land to advocacy groups that will decide what land-uses will benefit the community most. Joese Hernandez is part of one of the organizations involved and describes the situation as follows,
What we realize is that at the end of the day the community has to be part owners in the land because things are not going to change . . . They have a vision, elected officials and developers have a vision for Santa Ana, for downtown that may or may not align with what the community’s needs are (personal communication, August 20, 2016).
The Community Land Trust model to address the lack of parks and open space in
Santa Ana is a long-term solution. There are several obstacles aside from financial resources: decision-makers have to take part, but most importantly, people have to be involved, and have to mobilize and be vested in this solution. Nonetheless, Hernandez is optimistic about this fight, and suggests that the even if they cannot attain their goals immediately, there are other rewards.
You start to realize that as we fight for these things we are building leadership and social awareness. So any fight won or lost, we do not lose because you will gain
109
more leadership skills yourself . . . we don’t win every fight but we win in fighting (personal communication, August 20, 2016).
Summary
Early planning decisions, a demographic shift along with a statewide measure resulting in reduced tax revenue, and a concentration of fiscal resources in public safety have all impacted the allocation of public parks in Santa Ana. Additionally, the five drivers identified by the parks literature as conduits of environmental injustice have been manifested in Santa Ana’s public parks. Thus, this research affirms the park-poor state of
Santa Ana as a case of environmental injustice.
This research presents the participants’ perspectives on several mitigating steps that can be taken to ameliorate public park shortages. There are examples of currently operating public spaces which can be complemented with administrative efforts to become fully functional recreational opportunities. The expansion of joint-use agreements between school and city officials, particularly in areas of pronounced park- deficiency, is highly encouraged. Lastly, establishing a working coalition between decision-makers and advocates can empower the community to appropriate urban spaces to meet their specific needs.
110
CHAPTER 6
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
This study has found that the disproportionate allocation of public parks and open-spaces for recreation in Santa Ana has been the result of multiple social, political, and financial factors. Additionally, the findings suggest that the drivers of environmental injustice identified in empirical public park literature are manifested in the Santa Ana case. Finally, this study has also highlighted some short-term, medium-term, and long- term efforts to mitigate park deficiency.
Santa Ana is suffering the consequences of early myopic planning. Responses by interviewees of all selected groups pointed to the lack of foresight early on to allocate and preserve open-space for recreational purposes. Park archives reveal trends that mirror those found earlier in Victorian Era parks, where donors and philanthropists championed the promotion of public park resources. This philosophy was reshaped as the demand for private property effectively promoted mass suburbanization while suppressing efforts for public resources.
The increased emphasis on private property and the defamation of anything public is critical to the early development of Santa Ana. Although this factor is not the sole contributor to the present shortage of public parks, more receptive policies for public resources at an early stage would have encouraged additional park projects. Therefore,
111 the populist notion of privatization embedded in the psyche of early decision-makers in
Santa Ana set forth a pattern of urban development with implications difficult to reverse.
This study also found that economic factors have substantially hindered Santa
Ana’s ability to address regional standards for public parks. While newer suburban municipalities not only proactively planned for recreational resources, they also benefitted from a financially healthy tax base as they attracted middle and upper-class residents from older urban centers. Land area for recreational use, already a challenge in older, centrally located cities, was further limited as financially strapped cities, like Santa
Ana, opted for tax-generating land-uses in response to Proposition 13.
In other words, Santa Ana’s tax revenue deteriorated as a result of white-flight to newer suburban communities. In their exodus, upwardly mobile white populations were able to secure cleaner and healthier environments. These findings support Pulido’s
(2000b) claims where she identifies decades of institutional racism, in the form of housing covenants, redlining, and discriminatory loaning practices, that allowed whites to attain social and financial assets to secure healthier living environments. Consequently, urban centers like Santa Ana had to cope with undesirable land-uses and a growing population of working class minorities. Santa Ana would in turn aggressively promote commercial development in its remaining vacant areas to ensure a steady flow of tax dollars. Ultimately, public park projects in Santa Ana suffered from economic forces that sponsored commercial growth while suppressing open-space for public recreation as a burden on the city budget.
This study has found that in more recent years the focus of decision-makers, when it comes to public spending, has been largely placed on public safety. The city’s financial
112 records indicate that the city’s general fund allocation for police has been on the rise over the last 30 years. In response to a regurgitated narrative of a crime-ridden city, politically active neighborhood groups continue to prioritize policing over community development projects. In Santa Ana the native born, homeowner voting bloc is the most politically active and has substantial influence in decisions about elected officials that will ultimately determine public spending. The increase of financial resources for policing has surged in tandem with a major shift in demographics, as the city has emerged as a predominantly Spanish-speaking immigrant enclave.
However, simply increasing police presence does not address the problem of crime at its core. In fact, increased criminalization and policing can potentially have the inverse effect of deteriorating community relations (Cabrera, 2015). On the other hand, investment in youth programs and an environment that promotes positive affirmation are more effective in redirecting adolescents from taking part in criminal behavior (Gerda,
2017). Therefore, the contemporary trend of quid pro quo politics has forged an environment where financed campaigns continue the allocation of financial resources for police. Conversely, aggressive investment in recreational programs and spaces for recreation will produce better long-term results and will enhance the health and well- being of the community (Medina, 2017).
The results also indicate that the five drivers of environmental injustice in other empirical cases of park inequities are represented in Santa Ana. The results point to a historical marginalization of minorities, both through de facto and de jure discrimination.
These decisions have produced inequities in the physical landscape, whereby certain
113 areas of the city enjoy an appropriate number of public amenities while other areas have a limited amount of them.
The environmental justice literature also suggests that public parks lack functionality when they fail to serve their most immediate catchment population. In other words, the lack of recreational programs and services, as well as the intense use of some facilities that degrades park quality, manifests environmental injustices. Public parks should seek to maximize their usage primarily from residents in the vicinity by providing culturally appropriate recreational amenities and programs. Furthermore, park managers should aim to maintain appropriate sized park service areas that prevent crippling overuse and congestion of facilities, thus increasing park equity.
Disproportionate political activism by non-profit groups is another driver that is present in Santa Ana. Though this research suggests that the city provides a mechanism for all groups to participate in the decision-making process, it is evident that serious social factors suppress participation by vulnerable populations. Consequently, groups with active participants gain more social and intellectual capital to assemble competitive proposals for park projects. In turn, unbalanced participation across non-profit groups in
Santa Ana have exacerbated the uneven distribution of resources and ultimately affected the allocation of public parks and recreational resources.
The literature on public parks also identifies perceptions of fear as a contributing factor to environmental injustice. Interviewees attest to various social elements that instill a sense of fear and deter individuals from using Santa Ana public parks, regardless of their proximity. While homeowner groups argue that such perceptions validate increased policing, advocates of marginalized communities argue that because of a precedent of
114 tense police relations, policing does not equate to public safety in Santa Ana. Therefore, park managers should focus on park projects to improve and reaffirm safety. Projects for surveillance equipment, increased lighting, and amenities for increased pedestrian traffic are all strategies that can ameliorate perceptions of fear and encourage the use of a park that might have otherwise been viewed as dangerous.
Finally, when public parks are managed with the purpose of generating profits, public parks may no longer be accessible by all residents. When for-profit organizations are allowed to have access to athletic fields or recreation centers, their activities might not be within the financial capacity of all residents. Additionally, managing public resources for profit creates a market where activities that prove to be most financially successful will be favored by park managers. Public parks in Santa Ana should be managed outside of market forces to deter the monopolized use of these spaces. This strategy will most likely require decision-makers to appropriate funds to subsidize recreational opportunities for all residents.
The results have also provided various strategies that decision makers can implement to address the park-poor state of Santa Ana. Immediate strategies include
Asset Based Community Development, where efforts are not focused on creating something new but rather in investing in the resources that are already in place. Non- profit and faith-based organizations are currently operating spaces for recreation, but struggle to enhance their programs to accommodate more users. Since these sites already have a working model along with the brick and mortar facilities, complementing them with information, equipment, or personnel can prove to be highly cost-effective.
115
Considering the limited amount of space, Santa Ana must look for innovative strategies to improve their substandard acreage to resident ratio. The results suggest that joint-use agreements have proven to be a successful model. Therefore, park and school district officials should pursue an increased use of public school lots as a short term- solution. This strategy should focus its efforts in areas of the city where high density overlaps with large park service areas.
Lastly, the results suggest that long-term solutions can include the partnership between decision-makers and residents where park deficiency rates are most pronounced.
This partnership should allow the community to take stewardship over underutilized publicly owned lots. The Community Land Trust provides the framework that gives ownership to marginalized communities to re-appropriate spaces for land-uses that are lacking in their neighborhoods, including open spaces for recreation. Ultimately, communities where the built environment is jeopardizing their health and well-being should exercise what Lefebvre calls “right to the city”. These communities should be given an opportunity to participate in the decision-making process about their urban environment and to demand their fair share of positive public amenities.
Limitations
As this research aimed to shed light on environmental justice and park provision in Santa Ana, it is evident that certain limitations existed for this topic. These limitations included sample size of interviewees, the exclusion of private sources of recreation, and technical limitations in the cartographic analysis of public parks. Future research should aim to address these limitations.
116
The specific focus on public park provision in one municipality necessarily reduces the number of key figures that can contribute meaningful information.
Additionally, this study prioritized having a small collection of individuals that would provide counter arguments and diverse opinions on the matter, rather than having a biased sample from one specific group. Future research on this matter can aim to expand the number of contributors from each area.
This study recognizes that private recreation in the form of fitness centers and country clubs are part of the urban landscape in Santa Ana. While these facilities often seek to attract residents in their vicinity, especially fitness gyms, their financial burden makes them inaccessible to all residents. However, the popularity of these venues for recreation has increased the amount of these facilities in Santa Ana over the last decade.
Future research should consider these private facilities and the role they play in efforts to provide recreation opportunities.
The cartographic analysis of public parks in Santa Ana also faced technical limitations. First, park service areas created by Thiessen polygons are hypothetical catchment areas wherein those living within a particular polygon are presumably serviced by their corresponding park point. However, this analysis is solely based on geometrical proximity that does not take into consideration user behavior. In other words, park users may be inclined to frequent other parks based on their personal preference, amenities a park offers, recreational programs, and social stress factors. Therefore, future research should include park user information to identify recurrent patterns of where individuals frequent facilities outside of their park service areas.
117
Additionally, data collected from park service areas reflect approximate estimates about the base layer census tracts. This data is constrained by census tracts that are not entirely part of one park service area. In other words, when a park service area bifurcates a census tract, the data in the attribute table for that park service area is not adjusted.
Attribute tables for park service areas reflect information of all households of a bifurcated tract, even those that are in the adjacent park service area. Consequently, there is a margin of error to the information that results from operational features that limit the ability to select which individual households to include or exclude in the park service area. Future studies could aim to refine the units of analysis to smaller levels, such as census block groups.
Conclusion
On October 4, 2016, Santa Ana elected officials and Parks and Recreation staff stood before a small crowd of children, parents, and cycling enthusiasts on a ½ acre parcel on the floodplain of the Santa Ana River. The land was part of the 2006 Santa Ana
River Plan that aimed at increasing the city’s public park acreage by identifying areas along the floodplain to be converted for recreational use. After six years in the making and at the cost of 1.2 million dollars, the Memory Lane Park was completed. Santa Ana’s
City Manager at the time, David Cavazos, gave some comments about the commitment this municipality had to improving the quality of life by providing more recreational resources. Moments later, children stepped forward and conducted the ribbon-cutting ceremony that officially opened Santa Ana’s newest public park facility.
Unfortunately, even with the addition of Memory Lane Park, increased number of bike lanes, and other proposed pocket parks in the city, residents of Santa Ana continue
118 to struggle with scarce recreational opportunities. Data from a 2016 Trust for Public Land report indicates that in acres of parkland Santa Ana averages 1.5 acres of parkland per
1,000 residents. Nonetheless this figure is substandard when compared to the recommended minimum of 3 acres per 1,000 set by California’s Department of State
Parks and significantly less than the standard set by the National Recreation and Park
Association of 9.5 acres per 1,000 residents.
However, results from the 2016 elections portend an inauspicious immediate future of public spending for parks and recreation. Councilmembers elected in 2012 in what is referred to as “Santa Ana Spring,” alluding to the Arab Spring Revolution in the
Middle East that same year, pursued and were receptive of community development projects (Elmahrek, 2012). Additionally, that council pushed to decentralize power from ten-term mayor, Miguel Pulido, and voted to limit mayoral terms (Elmahrek, 2012). Most importantly, that council removed Paul Walters, former police-chief, from the city manager position, replacing him with former Phoenix, AZ city manager, David Cavazos
(Elmahrek, 2013). Cavazos, along with the “Santa Ana Spring” council, made mitigating efforts to address park deficiency in the city.
Historically dominant political forces in the city mobilized to regain the stronghold on the city’s politics. New council members, backed by the police union were voted into office and delivered on restoring the status quo. By January of 2017 they successfully used political scandals to remove city manager Cavazos from power. Most recently, the new council voted to eliminate the Community Enhancement Program which earmarked funds for local youth programs (Gerda, 2017c). The police-backed faction of the city council have instead proposed to fill vacancies in the police force
119
(Gerda, 2017c). So, the current political climate in Santa Ana suggests that public spending for parks will again be relegated to an item of low fiscal priority.
In conclusion, this thesis contends that Santa Ana’s current park-poor state has serious health and social implications that should be prioritized and addressed. This study has shed some light on past decisions which have substantially contributed to the park deficiency in Santa Ana. Moreover, results from this thesis identify the severe shortage of public parks in Santa Ana as a case of environmental injustice. Fundamentally, this thesis argues that it is incumbent upon decision-makers and stakeholders to work alongside advocates and residents to rectify this situation. By recognizing the severity of inadequate public park opportunities, and accepting mistakes made in the past, Santa Ana can move forward to take small mitigating efforts that increase public park opportunities. Finally, by providing an equitable and rightful environment to all communities, residents of Santa
Ana can persevere towards a more healthy and positive life.
120
WORKS CITED
Alberti, L., B. (1426). On the Art of Building in Ten Books. (Rykwert, J., Tavernor, R., & Leach, N.Trans.). Massachusetts, CN: MIT Press. (Original work published 1452).
Arellano, G. (2006, May 8). O.C. can you say . . . ‘anti-Mexican’? Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/2006/may/08/opinion/oe-arellano8
Arellano, G. (2007, August 7). Bad signs for Santa Ana. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/2007/aug/02/opinion/oe-arellano2
Arellano, G. (2008). Orange County: A Personal History; I’ve Been Taking Notes. New York, NY: Scribner
Arellano, G. (2014, December 30). Santa Ana deliberately burned its Chinatown in 1906- and let a man die to do It. OC Weekly. Retrieved from http://www.ocweekly.com/news/santa-ana-deliberately-burned-down-its- chinatown-in-1906-and-let-a-man-die-to-do-it-6446664.
Ball, G.D. (2001). Santa Ana in Vintage Postcards. Chicago, IL: Arcadia Publishing.
Bartlett, D.W. (1907). The Better City: A Sociological Study of the Modern City. The Neuner Company Press.
Beers, J. (2014, August 27) The Santa Ana River is ready for its Renaissance. OC Weekly. Retrieved from http://www.ocweekly.com/news/the-santa-ana-river-is- ready-for its-renaissance-6431325.
Bittetti, M. Ball, G. & Santa Ana Historical Preservation Society. (2006). Early Santa Ana; Images of America. Charleston, SC: Arcadia Publishing.
Boone, C. G., & Modarres, A. (1999). Creating a toxic neighborhood in Los Angeles County: a historical examination of environmental inequity. Urban Affairs Review, 35(2), 163-187.
Boone, C.G., Buckley, G.L., Morgan Grove, J., & Sister, C. (2009) Parks and People: An Environmental Justice Inquiry in Baltimore, Maryland, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 99 (4), 767-787.
121
Brennan, P. (2004, April 29). Strange fruta. OC Weekly. Retrieved from http://www.ocweekly.com/news/strange-fruta-6380269
Brunet, E., Jones, J.L., & Shields, D. (1990, June 29). Depression Landmark: WPA Buildings. The Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/print/1990-06-29/news/li-597_1_administration- building
Bullard, R. D. (1990). Dumping in Dixie: Race, class, and environmental quality. Boulder, Colorado: Westview.
Bush, G.M. (n.d.). A tribute to fallen heroes. The Los Angeles Times.
Byrne, J. (2012). When green is white: The cultural politics of race, nature and social exclusion in Los Angeles urban national park. Geoforum, 43, 595-611.
Byrne, J. & Wolch, J. (2009). Nature, race and parks; past research and future directions for geographic research. Progress in Human Geography, 33 (6), 743-765.
Byrne J., Wolch, J., & Zhang, J. (2009). Planning for environmental justice in an urban national park. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 52 (3), 365- 392.
Cabrera, Y. (2015, October 2). Study casts doubt on effectiveness of Townsend gang injunction. Voice of OC. Retrieved from http://voiceofoc.org/2015/10/study-casts- doubt-on-effectiveness-of-townsend-gang-injunction/
Carvajal, Doreen. (1994 January 30). Bittersweet nostalgia: Housing gains disbanded much of Santa Ana’s Black community. The Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from: http://articles.latimes.com/1994-01-30/local/me-17103_1_santa-ana
City of Santa Ana. (2017). Facts and Figures: Santa Ana City Government. Retrieved from http://www.ci.santa-ana.ca.us/facts/
City of Santa Ana. (2006). Chronology of Annexation Map. Santa Ana, CA.
City of Santa Ana. (2016). History of the Santa Ana River. Park, Recreation and Community Service Agency. Retrieved from http://www.ci.santaana.ca.us/parks/documents/historyandhistoricaltimeline.pdf
Chadwick, F. G. (1966). The Park and the Town. New York, NY: Fredrick A. Praeger.
Chawla, L. (2015). Benefits of nature contact for children. Journal of Planning Literature, 30(4), 433-452.
122
Chaykin, D. (Writer), & Chaykin, D. (Director). (14 May 2012). Latino Health Access: A model of community action. [2]. In J. Hoffman & S. Nevis (Producer), The Weigh of a Nation. City, United State of America: Home Box Office Inc.
Chiesura, A. (2004). The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landscape and Urban Planning, 68, 129-138.
Church of Christ Commission on Racial Justice. (1987). Toxic waste and race in the United States; A national study of the racial and socio-economic characteristics of communities with hazardous waste sites. New York, New York: Chavis, Benjamin.
Cocoletzi, E. (2016, March 6). A Santa Ana Native son on what’s next for Orange County’s greatest, most hated city. OC Weekly. Retrieved from http://www.ocweekly.com/news/a-santa-ana-native-son-on-whats-next-for- orange-countys-greatest-most-hated-city-7030362
Coutts, C., Horner, M. & Chapin, T. (2010). Using geographical information system to model the effects of green space accessibility on mortality in Florida. Geocarto International, 25, 471-484.
Cranz, G. (1982). The Politics of Park Design. Massachusetts, CT: MIT Press.
Crompton, J.L. (2001). The impact of parks on property values: A review of the empirical evidence. Journal of Leisure Research, 33, 1-31.
Cummings, S.K., & Jackson R.J. (2001). The built environment and children’s health. Pediatric Clinics of North America, 48(5), 1241-1252.
Cutts, B.B, Darby, K.J., Boone, C.G., & Brewis, A. (2009) City structure, obesity and environmental justice: An integrated analysis of physical and social barriers to walkable streets and park access. Social Science and Medicine, 69, 1314-1322.
Davis, Mike. (1998). Ecology of Fear; Los Angeles and the Imagination of Disaster. New York, NY: Vintage Books.
Day, K. (2006). Active living and social justice: Planning for physical activity in Low- Income, Black and Latino Communities. Journal of the American Planning Association, 72(1), 88-89.
Day, K., Anderson, C., Powe, M., McMillan, T., & Winn, D. (2007). Remaking Minnie Street: The impacts of urban revitalization on crime and pedestrian safety. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 26(3), 315-331.
Diez Roux, A.V., Everson, K.R., McGinn, A.P. Brown, D.G., Moore, L., Brines, S., & Jacobs Jr., D.R. (2007). Availability of recreational resources and physical activity in adults. American Journal of Public Health, 97, 493-499.
123
East London Boulevards. (1890, August 30). The Gardener’s Chronicle, 8(3). London.
Elmahrek, A. (2012, December 18). Council majority chipping away at mayor’s authority. Voice of OC. Retrieved from http://voiceofoc.org/2012/12/council- majority-chipping-away-at-mayors-authority/
Elmahrek, A. (2013, October 22). Santa Ana council officially welcomes new city manager. Voice of OC. Retrieved from http://voiceofoc.org/2013/10/santa-ana- council-officially-welcomes-new-city-manager/
Escobedo, F.J., Kroeger,T., & Wagner, J.E. (2011). Urban forest and pollution mitigation: Analyzing ecosystems services and disservices. Environmental Pollution, 159, (8), 2078-2087.
Evenson, K.R., Wen, F., Hillier, A., & Cohen, D. (2013). Assessing the contribution of parks to physical activity using GPS and Accelerometry. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 45, 1981- 1987.
Floyd, M.F., Shinew, K.J., McGuire, F.A. & Now, F.P. (1994) Race, class, and leisure activity preferences: marginality and ethnicity revisited. Journal of Leisure Research, 26, 158-73.
French, Jere Stuart. (1978). Urban Space: A brief history of the city square. (2nd Edition.). Dubuque, IA. Kendall Hunt Publishing Company
Garcia, L. (2016, April 25). Preserving history. El Don, 93(9). Santa Ana, CA.
Garcia, M. (2007). Santa Ana’s Logan Barrio: It’s History, Stories and Families. Santa Ana Historical Preservation Society: Santa Ana, CA.
Garcia, R., Bracho, A., Cantero, P., & Glenn, B.A. (2009). “Pushing” physical activity and justice. Preventive Medicine, 49, 330-333.
Gerda, N. (2017a, March 27). Santa Ana youth need More ‘Positive’ Spending, Says New Study by Health Advocates. Voice of OC. Retrieved from http://voiceofoc.org/2017/03/santa-ana-youth-need-more-positive-spending-says- new-study-by-health-advocates/
Gerda, N. (2017b, January 20). Santa Ana council rejects district elections proposal. Voice of OC. Retrieved from http://voiceofoc.org/2017/01/santa-ana-council- rejects-district-elections-proposal/
Gerda, N. (2017c, January 18). Santa Ana city manager accepts deal to resign amid ouster effort. Voice of OC. Retrieved from http://voiceofoc.org/2017/01/santa-ana-city- manager-accepts-deal-to-resign-amid-ouster-effort/
124
Gerda, N. (2017d, February 9). Santa Ana council kills plan for youth programs. Voice of OC. Retrieved from http://voiceofoc.org/2017/02/santa-ana-council-kills-plan-for- youth-programs/
Giles-Corti, B., Broomhall, M. H., Knuiman, M., Collins, C., Douglas, K. & Ng, K., . . . Donovan, R.J.(2005). Increasing walking: How important is distance to attractiveness and size of public open space? American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 28, 169–176.
Gobster, P.H. (1998). Urban parks as green walls or green magnets? Interracial relations in neighborhood boundary parks. Landscape and Urban Planning, 41(1), 43-55.
Gobster, P.H. (2002) Managing urban parks for racially and ethnically diverse clientele. Leisure Sciences, 24, 143-159.
Godbey, G., Blazey, M. (1983). Old people in urban parks: An exploratory investigation. Journal of Leisure Research, 15, 229-44.
Gold, S. (1999 October 3). 1938 Flood: A watershed for the county. The Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/1999/oct/03/local/me-18228.
Gold Star Mothers help promote new Santa Ana’s new city park as memorial. (n.d). City Parks Archive. Santa Ana Public Library History Room. (Newspaper Clipping)
Gonzalez, G. (1990). Chicano Education in the Era of Segregation. Denton, Texas: University of North Texas Press.
Gonzalez, R. (2012, August 27). Santa Ana playing catch-up to add more parks. The Orange County Register. Retrieved from http://www.ocregister.com/2012/08/27/santa-ana-playing-catch-up-to-add-more- parks/
Gould, S. (1995). The Burning of Santa Ana’s Chinatown and the murder of Anaheim’s Mock Law Fat. Hollywood, California. Sun Dance Press.
Hallan-Gibson, P. (1986). The Golden Promise: An Illustrated History of Orange County. Northridge, California: Windsor Publications.
Haas, L. (1991). Grass-Roots Protest and the Politics of Planning: Santa Ana, 1976-88. In Kling R., Olin, S., & Poster, M. (1991). Postsuburban California: Transformation of Orange County since World War II. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Hise, G. & Deverell, W. (2000). Eden by Design. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
125
How Quimby Act became O.C.’s Park Law. (1997, August 27). The Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/1990-08-27/news/mn-242_1_quimby- act
Illingworth, M. (1975, June 20). Personality of the Month. The Chatterbox. Santa Ana, CA.
Irazabal, C., & Farhat, Ramzi. (2012). Historical Overview of Latinos and Planning in the Southwest. In Rios, M., & Vazquez, L. (2012). Dialogos; Placemaking in Latino Communities (p. 21-31). New York City, New York: Routledge.
Jenkins, G.R., Yuen, H.K., Rose, E.J., Maher, A.I., Gregory, K.C., & Cotton, M.E. (2015). Disparities in quality of park play spaces between two cities with diverse income and race/ethnicity composition: a pilot study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 12, 8009-8022.
Joassart-Marcelli, P., Wolch, J. & Salim, Z. (2011). Building the healthy city: the role of nonprofits in creating active urban parks. Urban Geography, 32 (5), 682-711.
Johnson, R.A. & Riggins, C.M. (2009). A Different Shade of Orange: Voice of Orange County, California, Black Pioneers. Fullerton, CA: California State University Fullerton.
Jordan, H. (1994). Public parks, 1885-1914. Garden History, 22(1), 85-113.
Kandil, Y.C. (2016, April 17). Mendez vs. segregation: 70 years later, famed case 'isn't just about Mexicans. It's about everybody coming together.’ The Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://www.latimes.com/socal/weekend/news/tn-wknd-et- 0417-sylvia-mendez-70-anniversary-20160417-story.html
Kwong, J. (2017, February 24). ICE gives 90-day notice to end contract at Santa Ana Jail. The Orange County Register. Retrieved from http://www.ocregister.com/2017/02/24/ice-gives-90-day-notice-to-end-contract- at-santa-ana-jail/
Lelyveld, N. (2001, November 20). Santa Ana: Numero Uno en Español. The Los Angeles Times. p. B1, B9.
Lockheed Martin. (n.d).The Founding of Lockheed Martin. Retrieved from http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/100years/stories/founders.html
Londono, J., & Gonzalez, E. R. (2015). The Changing Politics of Latino Consumption. In M. Bay & A. Fabian, Race and Retail (176-199). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Presss.
Lummis, C.F. (1909). Los Angeles and Her Makers. Los Angeles, CA: Publisher.
126
Mantle, L. (2011 March 29). AirTalk: Santa Ana’s gentrification wars [Audio podcast]. Retreived from http://www.scpr.org/programs/airtalk/2011/03/29/18435/santa ana/
Marsh, D. (1994). Santa Ana . . . An Illustrated History. Encinitas, California: Heritage Publishing Company.
Martinez, G. (1992, August 31). Rights Lessons Read in Century-Old Hanging: Ethnicity: Better understanding between various groups continues to be needed in the county where a Mexican laborer accused of murdering a ranch foreman died in California's last lynching. The Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/print/1992-08-31/local/me-6069_1_orange-county
Medina, A. (2017, April 19). Medina: the violence of not prioritizing youth. Voice of OC. Retrieved from http://voiceofoc.org/2017/04/medina-the-violence-of-not- prioritizing-youth/
Medina, J. (2011 October 30). New faces and a contentious revival. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/31/us/in-santa-ana-new-faces- and-a-contentious-revival.html?_r=0
Mena, J. (2003 December 18). Census report confirms most in Santa Ana foreign-born. The Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/2003/dec/18/local/me-census18
Moorman, V. (1963, April 30). Where do we grow from here? Santa Ana welcomes industry. The Orange County Register.
Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government. (2004). An Update on Urban Hardship. Albany, NY: Montiel, L.M, Nathan, R.P., Wright, D.J.
Nicholson-Smith, D. (1991). The Production of Space. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. (Original work published 1974)
Ogden, C.L., Carroll, M.D., Curtin, L.R., McDowell, M.A., Tabak, C.T, & Flegal, K.M. (2006). Prevalence of Overweight and Obesity in the United States, 1999-2004. Journal of the American Medical Association, 295 (13), 1549-1555
Olmsted Brother’s & Bartholomew and Associates. (1930). Parks, Playgrounds and Beaches for the Los Angeles Region. Los Angeles, CA.
Orange County Archives. (2016). Orange County History: The creation of Orange County. Retrieved from http://ocarchives.com/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=2918
Orange County Health Care Report. (2012). Healthy Places, Healthy People. (OC Health Publication). Orange County, CA: Publisher.
127
Paragon Agency. (1887). History of Santa Ana Valley and City. Orange, California.
Parker, C. E., & Parker, M. (1963). Orange County: Indians to Industry. Santa Ana, CA: First American Title Insurance and Trust Company.
Pfeifer, M.J. (n.d.). California Lynchings, 1875-1947. Retrieved from http://www.irwinator.com/126/wdoc119.htm
Pimentel, J. (2014 September 21). Trendy crowding out tradition in Santa Ana. The Orange County Register. Retrieved from http://www.ocregister.com/articles/chase-635783-latino-escalante.html
Pulido, L. (2000a). Environmental justice. In The Dictionary of Human Geography. (2nd edition, 218-220). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.
Pulido, L. (2000b). Rethinking environmental racism: white privilege and urban development in Southern California. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 90(1), 12-40.
Purcell, M. (2002). Excavating Lefebvre: The right to the city and urban politics of the inhabitant. GeoJournal, 58, 99-108.
Purcell, M. (2013). The right to the city: the struggle for democracy in the urban public realm. Policy & Politics, 43(3), 311-327.
Reed, R. A. (2008). Santa Ana 1940-2007: Images of America. San Francisco, California: Arcadia Publishing
Rosenzweig, R., & Blackmar, E. (1992). The Park and the People: A History of Central Park. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
San Roman, G. & Arellano, G. (2009 September 10). Forty years later, the clash between the Black Panthers and Santa Ana P.D. Still Influences OC life. OC Weekly. Retrieved from http://www.ocweekly.com/news/forty-years-later-the-clash- between-the-black-panthers-and-santa-ana-pd-still-influences-oc-life-6426065
Scott, D. (2000). Tic, toc, the game is locked and nobody else can play! Journal of Leisure Research, 32(1), 133-137.
Sister, C., Wolch, J., & Wilson, J. (2010). Got green? Addressing environmental justice in park provision. GeoJournal, 75, 229-248.
Solecki, W.D., Welch, J.M. (1995). Urban parks: green spaces or green walls? Landscape and Urban Planning, 32(2), 93-106.
Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan. (2015). Meeting the Park Needs of all Californians. (California Department of Parks and Recreation). Sacramento, CA: Publisher.
128
Stodolska, M., Shinew, K.J., & Acevedo, J.C. (2013). “I was born in the hood”: Fear and crime, outdoor recreation and physical activity among Mexican-American urban adolescents. Leisure Sciences, 35, 1-15.
Symons, J.G. (1971). Some comments on equity and efficiency in public facility location models. Antipode, 3(1), 54-67.
Taylor, A.F., Wiley, A., Kuo, F.E., & Sullivan, W.C. (1998). Growing up in the inner city: Green spaces as places to grow. Environment and Behaviour, 30(1), 3-27.
Taylor, H. (1995). Urban Public Parks, 1840-1900: Design and Meaning. Garden History, 23(2), 201-221.
Teitz, Michal, B. (1968). Toward a theory of public facility location. Papers in Regional Science Association. 21, 31-35.
The Olmstead Vision. (n.d.) Retrieved from http://www.cityprojectca.org/the-olmsted- vision
The Trust for Public Land. (2016). 2016 City Park Facts. San Francisco, CA. Harnik, P., Martin, A., & Treat, M.
Timperio, A., Salmon, J., Telford, A., & Crawford, D. (2005). Perceptions of local neighborhood environments and their relationship to childhood overweight and obesity. International Journal of Obesity, 29, 170-175.
Ulrich, R.S., Simons, R.F. Losito, B.D., Fiorito, E., Miles, M. A., & Zelson. M. (1991). Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 11, 201-230.
Unknown. (1959, September 20). Shortage of parks cited by officials. The Los Angeles Times. Santa Ana History Room, Orange County Park Archive.
Vaughan, K.B., Kaczynski, Wilhelm Stanis, S.A., Besenyi, G.M., Bergstrom, R., & Heinrich, K.M. (2013). Exploring the distribution of park availability, features and quality across Kansas City, Missouri by income and race/ethnicity: an environmental justice investigation. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 45 (1) 28-38
Welch, S. (1990). The impact of at-large elections on the representation of Blacks and Hispanics. The Journal of Politics, 52(4), 1050-1076.
What is EPCRA? (2016, October 7). In United States Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/epcra/what-epcra
Wolch, J., Byrne, J., & Newell, J.P. (2014). Urban green space, public health and environmental justice: the challenge of making cities ‘just green enough.’ Landscape and Urban Planning, 125, 134-144.
129
Wolch, J., Jerrett, M. Reynolds, K., McConnell, R., Chnag, Ro., Dahmann, N., . . . Berhane, K. (2011). Childhood obesity and proximity to urban parks and recreational resources: A longitudinal cohort study. Health & Place, 17, 207-214.
Wolch, J., Wilson, J.P., & Fehrenbach, J. (2005) Parks and park funding in Los Angeles: An Equity-Mapping Analysis, Urban Geography, 26(1), 4-35.
Wong, H. (1977, June 5). A tale of 2 cities: parks reflect the old and the new. Los Angeles Times (Orange County Edition).
Wood, T. (2011 June 13). OC park history is a tale of two counties. Voice of OC. Retrieved from http://voiceofoc.org/2011/06/oc-park-history-is-a-tale-of-two- counties/
Young, T. (2001) Moral order, language and the failure of the 1930 recreation plan for Los Angeles County. Planning Perspectives, 16, 333–356.
Young, T. (1995) Modern urban parks. Geographical Review, 85(4), 535-551.