Over 31 acres in size, West Side Park is the third-largest park in the Essex County Park system (behind Weequahic and Branch Brook Parks, which are also in Newark). At over 100 years old, the county park system is the oldest in the country. West Side Park celebrated its 100^th birthday in 1995, and over the past century has provided a much-needed respite to residents living in a crowded industrial city. In its early years, the park was maintained as a more naturalized setting. Lakes and ponds, flower beds and arbors, and an extensive system of pathways provided opportunities for neighbors to stroll, swim, or just enjoy the view from of highest elevations in the city. At a later date, three blocks between 13^th and 14^th Streets on the east side of park were annexed by the park, increasing the size of the park and allowing 13^th Street to front the park.

As the city underwent its radical transformation from a thriving city to one suffering from the well-documented effects of postwar de-industrialization and resident flight, the park itself changed. Amenities reflecting more active uses such as baseball, tennis and football were added to the park through the years, while the lakes were filled and the exquisite landscaping has largely disappeared. County and city budgets dedicated for parks and park-related service have been slashed drastically as these governments try to cope with the pressures of a dwindling tax base. At the same time, the significant demographic changes of the last forty years has surrounded the park with a very young population and a large number of households headed by single mothers. The result is an under-funded, under-protected park that does not currently meet the basic needs and expectations of the majority of people who live around it.

The group surveyed 75 residents in the vicinity of West Side Park (see also Table 1 in the Crime Findings section). The following residential areas were surveyed: Corinthian’s development near the southeastern corner of the park; the neighborhood served by Tri-City Peoples Corporation to the southwest of the park; and West Side Village, a subsidized housing development along the northeast portion of the park. Miscellaneous respondents included walkers using the park’s jogging track and people picking up children from the South 17^th Street School.

Table 1. Number of Residents Surveyed

Over half of the respondents (55 percent) said they never used the park, with another 17 percent reporting that they only use the park several times a month. Another 17 percent indicated that they use the park more than once a week. However, this number of most frequent users is slightly biased: half of the respondents were from the Miscellaneous Residents category, most of whom were surveyed during their daily walk around the track.

Corinthian residents were particularly adverse to using the park, with 18 of 22 respondents (82 percent) indicating they never used the park.

Table 8. Frequency of Park Use by Residents

Crime was the primary deterrent to park usage, as identified by 61 percent of the surveys. Corinthian residents were much more compelled than other groups not to use the park because of crime (82 percent).

It is interesting to note that there may not be a universal relationship between the distance from the park, concerns about crime and the overall use of the park.

• Tri-City area residents generally lived further away from the park than Corinthian residents, yet they use the park much more frequently than Corinthian residents.
• Tri-City neighborhood is more crime-ridden that other survey locations (as evidenced by the crime survey data and field inspections), yet respondents from that area rated fear of crime much lower than Corinthian residents as reasons for not using the park (though it was still the highest rated response).
• West Side Village residents, whose development fronts the park, rated crime even higher than Tri-City residents as a reason for not using the park. However, 67 percent used the park at least once a month.

Overall, 61 percent of respondents rated crime as a reason for not using the park. Surveys indicated that 39 percent of respondents identified a lack of activities and programs as reason for not using the park, while 27 percent felt that a dearth of equipment and amenities was a reason for not using the park. At 41 percent, Corinthian residents were the most concerned about the lack of equipment/amenities, while Tri-City respondents were the least concerned of the residential groups about this factor (16 percent). West Side Village was the most concerned of the residential groups about the lack of activities/programs (58 percent), while Tri-City and Corinthian respondents were just below the total average of 39 percent. Distance from home/work was only identified on one survey (from the Tri-City pool) as a reason for not using the park.

Table 9. Reasons for Not Using the Park

If people identified crime as a reason for not using the park, they were asked to identify any particular type of crime that deterred them. Consistent with some of the findings of the crime survey, drug dealing was a predominant response. Car jacking and car theft were also major concerns. However, since most people walk to the park, the concern is not about their own vehicles but about car thieves who will typically drive through any parts of the park or speed down the streets bordering the park without any concern for the children or other park users. Other crime concerns included shooting, robbery, rape, murder and mugging. Many respondents also offered "all kinds" or "take your pick."

People were asked how they access the park. It should be noted that the number of responses to this question far exceed the number of people who said they use the park. More specifically, people who said they never use the park also provided information on how they got there. Thus, this question might better be interpreted as "how do you, or how would you, get to the park?"

Table 10 shows how people access the park. As expected of a neighborhood park, walking was the overwhelming mode of travel, representing 84 percent of all responses. Located right next to the park, everyone in West Side Village walked to the park. Over 80 percent of Corinthian and Tri-City residents walked, with residents of these areas comprising the majority of park users who drove or biked to the park. Not surprisingly, nobody from this geographically-limited survey area used the bus to get to the park.

Table 10. How Residents Access the Park

People were asked to identify streets or areas they avoided when going to the park. Since West Side Village residents, particularly those on South 13^th Street, lived right at the park, these residents were asked to identify streets or areas they avoided if they were walking from or around the park. Map #2 shows the locations of streets identified by survey respondents. 16^th Avenue along the north end of the park was the most frequently identified problem street, particularly from the perspective of West Side Village residents. Tri-City and Corinthian responses identified 18^th Avenue at the south end of the park, while additional Tri-City responses identified other streets such as South 16^th Street that were closer to the Tri-City neighborhood. Finally, many people commented that any route is just as bad as the next.

The survey invited people to identify a "wish list" of physical improvements to the park that should be made if money were obtained for restoration. The volume of responses to this question should be compared to the earlier question about why people do not use the park. Although "Lack of Equipment/Amenities" ranked considerably behind crime and lack of programs/activities as to why people didn’t use the park, almost everyone had one or two very strong opinions as to a physical improvement they thought was needed at the park. Many people had a lengthy laundry list of suggestions.

Responses centered around three main themes: playground-type equipment for children; cleaner grounds; and a safer environment. These were tallied independently, but are not depicted in tabular

The overwhelming recommended physical improvement to West Side Park was playground equipment for children, a need that was identified by 48 percent of respondents. This includes generic responses such as "playground equipment" or specific items such as "swings" or "a slide." An additional 5 percent of respondents were very concerned about the status of the sand pit, which they said should either be fixed or dismantled. These residents were concerned about the sanitary condition of this dilapidated resource, with some even reporting finding dead animals buried in the sand.

As indicated by earlier questions, crime was a major concern of respondents. Given the format of the questions, which asked about physical improvements or programs/activities that would be desirable, there was some concern that these questions may not have encouraged respondents to identify policing or other security measures as a choice. However, 43 percent of responses indicated safety-related actions as a major concern. Increased police presence, improved lighting and the use of park aides were among the responses connected to security and safety.

A cleaner, better-maintained park was identified on 39 percent of the surveys as a desired improvement to the condition of the park. Responses categorized under this theme included "cleanup," "landscaping," "fencing/gating," and "more garbage cans."

As with the desire for playground equipment, "something for the kids to do" was the main concern in programs and activities suggested by respondents. Often, the responses were no more specific than this. Over 20 different types of activities for kids of different ages were identified by 42 respondents. They ranged from broad categories such as sports and games (listed 8 times) to specific sports and activities such as camp (listed 4 times), arts and crafts (5 times) and picnicking (5 times). Larger events for all age groups, such as performances and festivals, were identified by 33 percent of respondents as activities that they would like to see in the park.

It should be noted that the responses indicated a lack of familiarity with the park, though these numbers are not quantified in tabular format. For example, over a dozen people identified basketball courts, tennis courts and a recreation center (along with several items therein)—all of which are already in the park—as physical improvements needed at the park. Suggestions for adding programs and activities also showed a lack of familiarity with the park. More specifically, they reflected a lack of familiarity with the park’s year-round community center run by United Community Corporation (this facility will be discussed in a subsequent section).

People were asked if they would be willing to participate in park restoration activities and/or in volunteering for programming/activities. An impressive 87 percent of respondents said they would be willing to participate in fixing up the park, while 89 percent expressed an interest in helping out with programs and activities. At 96 percent for both categories, Tri-City respondents expressed the highest level of interest, while Corinthian responses were the lowest of the residential areas surveyed. However, at 77 percent interested in restoration and 82 percent interested in programs/activities, this still reflects a strong level of interest from Corinthian residents.

Table 11. Willingness to Contribute Time/Energy to Park Restoration

Table 12. Willingness to Contribute Time/Energy to Recreation Programs

In addition to the input received from conversations extending from surveying 75 people, the researchers also sought information from two specific sources regarding park issues. We sought information about the community center, run by United Community Corporation, and from the Weequahic Park Association (WPA), the park advocacy organization which has achieved a noticeable level of success in advocating for improvements at the second largest park in the city. The potential information from these sources was seen as important tools for the continuing development of the West Side Park Conservancy, an organization that would be similar to the WPA, dedicated to planning and facilitating the restoration of West Side Park.

UCC is contracted by the Essex County Parks Department to provide recreational programming through the community center at West Side Park. This arrangement first began back in 1985, shortly after the community center was constructed. The first contractor was Tri-City Peoples Corporation, which received a $100,000 grant from the county to take over responsibility for recreational planning at the park. The concept was to contract the work out to community groups already serving the community, instead of having recreation being handled by a bureaucracy. In the late 1980s or early 1990s, United Community Corp. outbid Tri-City for this contract, and has been operating the center ever since.

According to the recreation director, the community center is open six days a week from morning until night, and runs year-round. He observes that provision of recreational programming is not constrained by a lack of interest, but rather by a lack of people to run/supervise programs. There are six full-time and four part-time UCC workers at the center. However, only two full time and two part-time employees are dedicated to recreational activities (the others are responsible for human services activities such as food referrals, life skills assistance, etc.). The recreation director noted that volunteers to assist with recreation activities would be welcome, and specific training, skills or prior experience would not be required.

He also identified the desire to have an improved understanding between the role of county and city police in patrolling the park and its environs, as he feels the current arrangement is poorly defined.

background

Founded in 1992, the WPA is a non-profit organization dedicated to improving the conditions in the historic park. Weequahic Park is the second largest park in the Essex County park system (the nation’s oldest county park system). Weequahic offers ample resources, as well as numerous problems (mostly associated with maintenance), associated with its size. For example, the park has a large lake, a public golf course, an extensive network of roads, playing fields, and several historic structures such as pavilions and comfort stations that date back 100 years. Keeping these maintained and policed is a more comprehensive task than at the smaller West Side Park, where much of the park is visible from the park perimeter.

Poor conditions in the park in 1992 prompted the circulation of a petition identifying 14 critical areas that needed immediate attention. The petition garnered over 300 signatures, and was submitted to the county freeholders. Shortly thereafter, the county moved to tear down a historic grandstand (formerly used for horse racing), an event which galvanized the community in acting for Weequahic. In the years since, particular projects and events have prompted some volunteers to depart and others to join, as the WPA has moved ahead with its agenda of overall improvement of the park.

Through the course of a few years and a lot of advocacy, the WPA has induced several notable improvements to the park. The tennis courts have been resurfaced and lighting has been added. A second floor has been built on the building where the WPA regularly meets (a building they once had to go into themselves to fix up because the county wanted no part of it). Two state-of-the-art playgrounds, featuring an attractive rubberized surface for child safety, round out additional improvements.

Though it has been a grass-roots effort from the start, the WPA has sought help from experts when necessary. Perhaps the most significant support they received was from the Central Park Conservancy, who advised them on a range of subjects. The group also has had to pay for various consulting and legal services (some of which they are still paying for).

Findings

Existing park advocacy groups in Newark, such as the WPA, Friends of Branch Brook Park and others, are a valuable source of information for Corinthian. The Essex County Parks Department, a required partner, may also be able to provide useful information. For example, in the 1970s they were charged with putting similar organizations together, and it would be interesting to find out what became of these groups and why (perhaps because they originated from the county and not from neighborhood residents). WPA, in particular, might be considered a model organization. Mr. Wilbur McNeil, the WPA president, was happy to meet with someone from our group, and would also be willing to talk with anyone else about Weequahic and the accomplishments of the WPA.

Of particular relevance to efforts to create and advance the West Side Park Conservancy is a historic agreement recently reached between WPA and Essex County which permits WPA to raise its own funds to improve the park (while still getting the usual allocation from the county budget). This innovative, "win-win" concept has already been emulated by advocacy groups for Verona Park in Verona and Glenfield Park in Montclair. This partnership agreement is in its early stages, with the first project being a color brochure appealing for membership in WPA that was underwritten by Prudential. The WPA is currently assembling a group of high-profile supporters such as Essex County Executive Jim Treffinger and Newark Mayor Sharpe James, to sit on a WPA board and increase advocacy and funding for the park. It is important to note that while they will invite participation from outsiders to promote fundraising and other support, the WPA clearly intends to maintain its leadership and decision-making role.

With the city and state trying to find ways to take residents off the welfare rolls, one idea that WPA is currently exploring is the idea of utilizing welfare recipients for cleaning the park or performing other duties in Weequahic. WPA is currently monitoring a similar experiment being undertaken in Prospect Park in Brooklyn, which appears to be working well. County Executive Treffinger appears to be supportive of the idea, which needs to be worked out in further detail.

Mr. McNeil notes that although the WPA’s efforts to clean up the park and to find creative funding solutions to finance improvements should logically be met with support, the political support is often won after great length and struggle. The arrangements force the politicians (county executive, freeholders, city officials, or county parks department) to be accountable for agreements, and especially for how tax dollars have been spent in the past and present. They are also wary about the successful example of WPA and other groups that have pressured the county into improvements or simply "doing their job." If word gets out, other parks will expect the same treatment (or better, if their parks are even worse off). Their concern is well founded: residents at West Side Village had already heard about the success of the WPA and the good-looking new playgrounds that have been installed at Weequahic.

Mr. McNeil conveyed that there is no formula, no magic bullet, no one right way to improve the park. He also observed that the West Side Park Conservancy must be prepared to fight for everything. It is also important, he stressed, that the community not settle for anything less than what the community wants. For example, Weequahic Park users wanted to add benches. After reviewing literature and promotional material on bench equipment, they selected a particular type they felt was right for them. When they went to the county, they were told that the benches were too expensive. Though this situation is still ongoing, Mr. McNeil says that they won’t settle for cookie-cutter benches the county may want to install, or other kind of benches that the residents feel they are having to settle for (since the result will be that they will not be used or appreciated as much). A possible solution may be that they will accept a smaller number of the benches they selected, with the knowledge that they can fight for more later, or through their own efforts buy the rest.

The group conducted a review of historical articles in the clippings file at the Newark Public Library. West Side Park history, county and community involvement in the parks, previous programs, and other related information was among the data that was sought through the review. Newspaper articles over a time period between 1929 and 1985 were examined. The main theme that developed from this chronological perspective was that there has been a cycle of investment and neglect in the park over the last 40 years or so. Amenities are added or fixed in one article, then conditions are reported to be poor in a report from a few years later. The summary of the articles are presented in Appendix 3.