Should Parks Be Sponsored by Companies?

As the 104th Congress drew to a close, a proposal to use corporate sponsorships to help meet the fiscal shortfalls in national parks was rejected. The measure faced opposition from President Clinton as well as environmentalists who worried it would give corporations unwanted leverage in federal policy.

However, supporters claimed it would have been a means to keep up funding for the parks at a time when government support is being cut.

Could the corporate sponsorship of national parks work?

Joe Edmiston, executive director, Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy:

“We have corporate sponsors of our areas, and we’ve actually received some fairly large land donations from large corporations. . . . It’s up to public officials . . . to make sure that sponsorship does not come with neon signs. . . . [But] if you look at corporate philosophy across the board, they are involved in education and they are involved in various civic benefit projects. I see no reason why one of these objectives should not be with the national parks.”

Hans Hemann, Southern California regional representative for the Sierra Club:

“We don’t support the corporate sponsorship of National Parks because it starts us down a very slippery slope. We’re certainly concerned about what the long-term effects will be. Will the national parks become a pawn of corporate America? . . . We’ve seen state parks go down this avenue and they had garbage cans with advertisements all over their beaches. We don’t want to see ‘Pepsi--or Coca-Cola--. . . National Parks.’ In addition, this also gives the public the image that some corporations are doing great things for the environment. Some corporations would use this as a front, while they are ruining the environment on issues like clean water and clean air.”

Andy Lipkis, founder and head of TreePeople:

“We bring in corporate sponsors. . . . It is not a substitute for baseline funding from Congress or from the city or from the state. It is money that enables an enhancement. . . . If parks were relying on it for the majority of their funding, there is potential for abuse, and the more someone sees it as their only link to their survival [the more there is that potential]. . . . That’s another reason why I strongly advocate a balance, and the fundamental baseline has to be the role of government. For me, trees and parks are critical pieces of city, municipal and government infrastructure.”

Joan Romeo, vice president of client services for the Pearlman Group, which has arranged corporate sponsorship for local forests:

“I don’t see it as any different than corporations offering help with urban forests. . . . I also see part of the reason you get into their environmental programs is to leave a legacy to our kids. . . . We do not interfere with any of their policies. I would hope it would be the same down the road, as far as any other corporations [getting involved with national parks.]. . . . I don’t see how we would interfere with policy at all.”

On the Issue appears every Tuesday. Please send suggestions for possible topics to On the Issue, Los Angeles Times, 20000 Prairie St., Chatsworth, 91311. Or fax them to (818) 772-3338. Or e-mail them to valley@latimes.com Please include your name and daytime phone number.