This document discusses the lack of parks and green space in Los Angeles, especially in low-income and minority communities. It notes that Los Angeles has less than one acre of parkland per 1,000 residents, far below national standards of 6-10 acres per 1,000. Only 36% of LA County children live within a square mile of a park, leaving over 1.5 million children without park access. This park shortage negatively impacts public health, contributes to higher obesity and crime rates, and limits opportunities for physical activity and social interaction. The document argues that the park shortage in low-income minority neighborhoods is the result of historical discriminatory land use and funding policies that continue to disadvantage these communities.

1. Tracie Groh
May 10, 2005
Professor Gauna
Environmental Justice Seminar Paper
“The Keys to Making it Happen: Urban Park Development in Los Angeles”

2. Background and History of Los Angeles County Park Development
Hearing that Los Angeles is park poor could hardly be characterized as the acquisition of
new knowledge. News articles, agency reports and political figures have bemoaned the lack of
parks in Los Angeles for decades. With all the data, studies, criticism and reviews being put out
there, it simply cannot be debated: Los Angeles is park poor. There are numbers to back it up;
lots and lots of numbers. For example, in total, Los Angeles has less than one acre of parkland
per thousand residents.1
This inequality is emphasized in light of the National Recreation and
Park Association standards, which are set at six to ten acres of parkland per thousand residents.2
Further, Los Angeles is failing its children in its failure to provide adequate park access.
Only 36 percent of Los Angeles County children live within one square mile of a park, leaving
over one and a half million children without park access.3
The impact of these statistics is even
more shocking when construed together with local numbers of specific amenities provided for
public use. For instance, in Baldwin Hills state park there is only one picnic table for every
10,000 people and one playground for 23,000 children.4
Large cities like Los Angeles, and especially the smaller communities that make up those
cities, need urban public parks. Parks improve the quality of life, help create good jobs, increase
tourism, increase property values, reduce crime, improve pedestrian safety, improve public
health and promote economic revitalization in the community.5
Parks are essential to a
1
Center for Law in the Public Interest, Los Angeles is Park Poor: A History of Underserved Communities, (2005),
at http://www/clipi.org/CityParksPoor1.html. (Los Angeles is Park Poor); Paul Stanton Kibel, Los Angeles’
Cornfield: An Old Blueprint for New Greenspace, 23 Stan. Envtl. L.J. 275, 296 (2004) (broken down per person, this
equals a mere 130 square feet of parkland per person in Los Angeles).
2
Robert Garcia et al., The Heritage Parkscape in the Heart of Los Angeles, The City Project, Center for Law in the
Public Interest, v.12.17.04 (2004). (“Heritage Parkscape”)
3
No Place to Play: A Comparative Analysis of Park Access in Seven Major Cities, The Trust for Public Land,
November (2004) (“No Place to Play”) (In comparison with other large cities, like Boston, New York and San
Franscisco, where well above 80 percent of the cities’ children have park access, Los Angeles’ park performance is
nothing short of dismal).
4
Los Angeles is Park Poor, supra, at http://www/clipi.org/CityParksPoor1.html
5
Robert Garcia, et al., The Cornfield and the Flow of History: People, Place and Culture, The City Project, Center
for Law in the Public Interest, April, 2004 (The Cornfield); Project for Public Spaces, Ten Benefits of Creating
2

3. community’s sense of identity and purpose. They are an incredibly logical answer to yesterday’s
front porch in areas where the population density simply cannot support single-family homes on
every street. Unfortunately, parks are also one of the most undervalued parts of a community’s
development vision. Parks all to often take a backseat to horizontal residential and business
development, and it is discovered too late that failing to include space for parks is detrimental to
the community’s health, safety, cohesiveness, and sustainability. In a country where the average
amount spent on parks averages to $80 per resident, Los Angeles doesn’t even spend half that
amount, at a mere $37 dollars per resident spent on parks.6
In Los Angeles, the communities suffering most from the park shortage are those with
low-income and minority residents. Los Angeles communities comprising a majority of non-
white residents with household incomes that fall beneath $25,000, the parkland density is as low
as 0.3 acres per thousand.7
The shortage of parks in these communities is the result of history of
discriminatory land use planning, and discriminatory funding formulas.8
Former Los Angeles
Mayor Richard Riordan admitted that poorer inner city neighborhoods have been historically
short-changed by City funding formulas, which spread the money evenly through the
communities regardless of their individual needs.9
Former Los Angeles director of planning and
development for the city’s Recreation and Parks Development, Dallan Zamrzla and attorney Jan
Chatten-Brown, whose firm actively participates in various coalitions to bring parks to
underserved communities, also recognized the unfair effects of city ordinances that require the
development of parks when new housing is built.10
These ordinances lead to an increase of
parkland in new housing, leaving poor neighborhoods starving for parks because of little, if any,
Good Public Spaces, (2005) at http://pps.org/info/placemakingtools/casesforplaces/10_benefits. (Benefits)
6
Peter Harnick, The Excellent City Park System, The Trust for Public Land, 2003 Appendix V, p. 39 (2001).
7
Stanton Kibel, supra, 23 Stan. Envtl. L.J. at 296.
8
Robert Garcia, et al, Heritage Parkscape, supra, , v.12.17.04 .
9
Stanton Kibel, supra, 23 Stan. Envtl. L.J. at 296.
10
Id. at 296-297.
3

4. new housing development in these areas.11
These disparities, observed by leaders of Los
Angeles, have not gone unnoticed by its residents. Sixty four percent Californians say lower
income and minority neighborhoods have fewer parks and 72 percent of Latinos say that poorer
communities do not receive their fair share of parks.12
Another damaging and completely unnecessary result of inadequate park access is the
effect it has on the health of the children in urban Los Angeles. These kids are fighting a losing
battle to maintain good physical and mental health. Parks provide the opportunities, motivations
and spaces for children to play and become physically fit. Looking at these health issues alone,
park shortages in low-income and minority communities contribute to a myriad of complications.
For instance, Mexican-American and African-American children are twice as likely as non-
Hispanic white children to be overweight.13
Yet, white communities in Los Angeles have 1.7
acres of park per thousand residents, while the inner city suffers with only 0.3 acres.14
An even
larger disparity is found in the number of play acres in the Los Angeles Unified School District
(“LAUSD”). In elementary schools, non-Hispanic white students enjoy 71% more acres for play
than Latino students.15
Given that over 91% of LAUSD students are of minority descent, the
urgency present on providing urban park areas for low-income and minority communities is
immeasurable.16
11
Id. at 297.
12
The Center for Law in the Public Interest at http://www.clipi.org/CPPIsurveypopup.html, citing Mark Baldasare,
Statewide Survey on Californian’s and the Environment, Public Policy Institute of California June (2002), page vi.
13
Robert Garcia, et al., Healthy Children, Healthy Communities: Schools, Parks, Recreation, and Sustainable
Regional Planning, Center for Law in the Public Interest Policy Brief (“Healthy Children”) (a mere 15 percent of
students in the Los Angeles Unified School District is physically fit).
14
Ibid.
15
Ibid.
16
Robert Garcia, et al., Diversifying Access To and Support for the Forests, Center for Law in the Public Interest
Policy Brief, v. 11.22.04 (“Diversifying Access”) (Only 17% of fifth graders, 16% of seventh graders and less than
11% of ninth graders in LAUSD, met the minimum fitness standards in the 2002-03 school year); Healthy Children,
supra, Center for Law in the Public Interest Policy Brief (California’s childhood obesity costs more than tripled
from $35 million to $127 million between 1979 and 1999).
4

5. Parks and greenspace also carry positive impacts on mental health.17
With divorce rates
skyrocketing, domestic violence on the rise and school bullying becoming an accepted part of
public education, families, and especially children, need places to nurture the family and friend
relationships, run off some pent up aggression and learn acceptance of those that are different by
observation and interaction.
Furthermore, the urban park shortage has been linked to the problem of youth crime in
Los Angeles. The Los Angeles County District Attorney correlated the lack of park access and
discrimination from adult-supervised park programs were among the reasons many young people
turn to gangs, recommending that some form of recreational activity be a part of every gang
prevention strategy.18
If low-income and minority communities lack the park space in the first
instance, there is little hope any such activity or programs can be created and brought into these
areas to deal with these problems.
Complicating this already frustrated situation, transportation disparities in low-income
and minority communities make it that much more challenging for residents and their children to
gain access to parkland outside of their neighborhoods. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
recently held that parks are places of public accommodation that must remain accessible to all,
regardless of race, culture or income.19
Although Los Angeles does boast an amazing amount of
natural forestland in four of the national forests that surround the city, between 77% and 83% of
the visitors to those forests are non-Hispanic Whites.20
Considering that Whites are in the
17
Healthy Children, supra, Center for Law in the Public Interest Policy Brief (Studies indicate that symptoms of
Attention Deficit Disorder are relieved after contact with nature and that physical activity can alleviate depression
and anxiety as well as provide stress relief).
18
Ibid.
19
U.S. v. Allen, (2003) F.3d 870, 886-877.
20
Diversifying Access, supra, v. 11.22.04 .
5

6. minority in the region, the disproportionate access is disturbing. Further, only one percent of the
visitors to Angeles National Forest, one of the four, are African-American.21
The numbers of today’s reality could have turned out far differently. There were big and,
more importantly, attainable dreams for Los Angeles County parks once. In 1930 the sons of the
man who designed Central Park in New York City, Federick Law Olmstead, shared their plan to
recreate park magic in Los Angeles with city officials.22
The Olmstead Report created a map of
a green Los Angeles, having hundreds of miles of parkland and warned that ignoring his plan
would result in an unlivable city, overcome with sprawl. According to the report “continued
prosperity [in Los Angeles] will depend on providing needed parks, because, with the growth of
a great metropolis here, the absence of parks will make living conditions less and less attractive,
less and less wholesome…In so far, therefore, as the people fail to show the understanding,
courage and organizing ability necessary at this crisis, the growth of the Region will tend to
strangle itself.”23
Part of this plan involved turning the land along side the Los Angeles River into a buffer
of dual-purpose parkland along the river’s banks.24
The estimated $231 million price tag on the
Olmstead Report contributed to its ultimate demise, and the implementation of the United States
Army Corps of Engineers’ overwhelmingly unattractive and unfriendly paved “water freeway”
Los Angeles residents are so familiar with today.25
Ultimately, the cost of this “water freeway”
far exceeded the estimated cost of the Olmstead Report, but because the federal government paid
21
Ibid.
22
Liz Valsamis, 1930 Map of Green L.A. Inspires Urban Vision, Los Angeles Daily Journal, January 28, 2005, at 1.
23
Los Angeles is Park Poor, supra, at http://www/clipi.org/CityParksPoor1.html
24
Stanton Kibel, supra, 23 Stan. Envtl. L.J. at 294 (while the river’s flow was minimal, which was during most of
the year, the parks would serve the public and should the river overflow during the winter, the parks would serve the
dual purpose of acting as basins to retain the floodwaters).
25
Id. at 295.
6

7. for most of the project, whereas the city would have had to pay for the entire Olmstead plan by
itself, it was an irony that went unappreciated.26
The subsequent growth of Los Angeles demonstrated just how much the Olmstead Report
got it right. And as a result of Los Angeles’ failure to see the plan to fruition, paving over the
map’s proposed designated parkland, the city carries the poorest park reputation in the country.27
Until recently, this condition was simply an accepted part of living in Los Angeles. Today,
many of Los Angeles’ low-income, minority and park poor communities are demanding their fair
share of parkland and the asphalt to grass ratio in Los Angeles is beginning to shift. Los Angeles
is now giving the Olmstead Report a second look, keeping one eye on the Report and the other
on the Los Angeles River. At the heart of this issue is that typically low-income and minority
communities are not adequately informed or prepared to take on the public policy fight that often
precedes modern park development in these areas.28
Consequently, the residents of these
communities lose their opportunity to openly participate in those decisions that determine who
gets a park, or where a park will be developed, if at all. Learning to successfully maneuver
through the government procedure and political process that are such a large part of creating
urban parks feels as if it requires a career in politics, a law degree, a decent knowledge of city
planning know-how, and the best connections. However, recent experiences are showing that the
real key to making the dream of a park into a reality for low-income and minority communities is
getting them to find their own voices, and then teaching them to speak up, loudly and often.
Who Gets Involved in the Development of Urban Parks?
There are three main groups working to bring low-income and minority neighborhoods
receive their fair share of park space and development: public agencies, non-profit organizations
26
Ibid.
27
Valsamis, supra, Los Angeles Daily Journal, January 28, 2005.
28
Robert Garcia Connects the Dots for Environmental Justice, The Natural Resource: Environmental and Natural
Resources Law & Policy Program Newsletter, Stanford Law School, Fall (2003) (“Garcia Connects Dots”).
7

8. and, vital to the success of any park proposal, the communities themselves. Each group brings
their own unique experience, skills and connections to the planning and negotiating table, and
coming together in order to reach a common goal results in incredible successes.
State agencies are often found on the front line and pulling most of the big, bureaucratic
strings in making urban park development happen. It is therefore extremely important that these
directors and leaders of these agencies hold positions in favor of park development, particularly
in low-income and minority communities. For example, Joe Edmonston heads the Santa Monica
Mountain Conservancy (“SMMC”), an agency created by the California Legislature to, among
other things, identify, protect and participate in the development of area parkland in the Santa
Monica Mountains zone.29
Edmonston even participated in drafting the organic statute that
governs the agency’s powers.30
This level of involvement resulted in a park acquisition process
that manages to bypass many of the complications typically associated with creating parkland.31
California Public Resources Code section 33000 et seq. creates the SMMC and provides
for the agency’s purposes and methods of accomplishing its goals. Notably, the SMMC has the
power to acquire and improve land or interest in land for the purpose of park development, using
both federal funds and bond funds via direct purchase, and of particular interest, eminent
domain.32
In the alternative, the SMMC may award grants or make interest-free loans to cities,
counties, resource conservation districts and recreation and park districts for park development
purposes.33
Because these powers are written into the agency’s organic statute, the SMMC
29
California Public Resources Code, § 33000 et. seq.
30
Interview with Terry Fujimoto, Deputy Attorney General, California State Attorney General’s Office, in Los
Angeles, Cal. (April 28, 2005) (“Fujimoto”).
31
Ibid.
32
California Public Resources Code, § 33203.
33
Id. § 33204.
8

9. enjoys freer reign in reaching its goals without going through endless levels of political
approvals.34
In addition, non-profit organizations are an excellent source of the right kinds of
influence and power desired to get parks developed where they are most needed. These groups
are particularly skilled at building coalitions and serving as a vital link between the public
leaders and community residents. An example of such a group is the Center for Law in the
Public Interest (“CLIPI”). Robert Garcia, director of The City Project, heads this small, yet
extremely effective, office of just three attorneys. The City Project works with various coalitions
and alliances to campaign for improved parks, recreation and playgrounds for poorer areas of
Los Angeles.35
CLIPI’s first engages in negotiation with public officials and community
education to get parks developed where they are most needed. The agency utilizes the litigation
process as a last resort in its mission to ensure underserved communities receive their fair share
of greenspace.36
The litigation is built from a civil rights perspective and a disparate impact
regarding public benefits available to low-income, minority communities.37
CLIPI’s approach to park development is multi-dimensional and includes six separate
strategies.38
The organization is guided by a vision of a web of parks, playgrounds, schools,
beaches and transit that serves diverse users. CLIPI also believes in coalition building and public
education. They then focus on policy and legal advocacy outside the courts using political,
planning and administrative processes. They use multidisciplinary research and analysis to
provide data that supports reform. CLIPI engages its opponents in an effort to find common
ground, using litigation only as a last resort. Finally, CLIPI manages to alter the relations of
34
Fujimoto, supra, April 28, 2005.
35
Garcia Connects the Dots, supra, The Natural Resource, Stanford Law School, Fall (2003).
36
Ibid.
37
Interview with Erica Flores, Attorney, Center for Law in the Public Interest, in Los Angeles, Cal. (March 2, 2005)
(“Flores”).
38
Robert Garcia, et al, Heritage Parkscape, supra, v.12.17.04.
9

10. power. By taking people who have never before participated in government and showing them
not only how to get heard, but how to get what they want, CLIPI is leaving these communities
with a sense of accomplishment and confidence that has never before been experienced. There
are several campaigns included in this paper to provide examples of the empowerment strategies
employed by CLIPI.
Also, the Trust for Public Land (“TPL”) can be a vital link in the park activists’ chain of
influence. TPL is a national, non-profit land conservation group with its main offices in San
Francisco.39
This organization uses its expertise in real estate finance to protect land as open
space for recreation and wildlife.40
TPL works with local groups, city and county officials and
other agencies in the identification and funding of park improvement projects along the Los
Angeles River.41
On of TPL’s Conservation Initiatives is to work in cities across the United
States to ensure that everyone enjoys “close-to-home access to a park.”42
TPL works
independently and in conjunction with other agencies in accomplishing its goals, providing an
example of how different organizations, all with varying missions and focus, can work together
to facilitate a park campaign. In its employment of empowerment strategies in the communities
while also facilitating financing of land acquisition when needed, TPL helps to structure,
negotiate and complete the transactions needed to acquire land for park development, a key part
to the success of the Cornfield Park, discussed later.43
Friends of the Los Angeles River (“FoLAR”) is another non-profit organization whose
involvement has led to urban park success stories.44
The group is motivated by a vision of a Los
39
Stanton Kibel, supra, 23 Stan. Envtl. L.J. at 286.
40
Ibid.
41
Ibid.
42
About TPL: The Trust for Public Land, (2005), at http://www.tpl.org/tier2_sa.cfm?folder_id=170.
43
Ibid.
44
Interview with Jan Chatten-Brown, Attorney, Chatten-Brown & Associates, in Los Angeles, Cal. (March 1, 2005)
(“Chatten-Brown”).
10

11. Angeles River Greenway, made up for parks, bike paths, gathering places and wildlife habitats
that runs 52 miles, from the mountains to the sea.45
FoLAR was founded in 1986 in an effort to
change the public’s image of the Los Angeles River from the world’s largest storm drain,
surrounded by fences and signs to the natural and historical habitat the river once was.46
Note that urban parks are not necessarily the focus point or primary mission for FoLAR,
TPL or any of the various participants in urban park development. But, in the case of FoLAR,
and another non-profit called The River Project, when urban parks become entwined with the
Los Angeles River, which is a focus point for the non-profit, common interests are found. This
link is made over and over among state agencies, non-profit organizations and local
communities, each finding a different motivation for pursuing a common goal. Important
alliances are then formed, meeting everyone’s concerns and strengthening the resolve and power
behind each participant’s cause so much more than if each one battled alone. The desire and
drive of community residents to insist their need for parks get recognized remains vital to this
process. The high profile players in urban park development praise the community involvement
that helps lead to the creation of these urban parks.47
The message these leaders send is that the
community’s involvement is not only key to making these parks a reality, but an absolute,
indispensable necessity.
45
About FoLAR, Friends of the Los Angeles River, (2005), at http://www.folar.org/about.html.
46
Ibid.
47
California Performance Review’s Recommendation Puts Baldwin Hills Conservancy in Jeopardy, The Planning
Report, (2005), at http://www.planningreport.com/tpr.html (“Conservancy in Jeopardy”); Press Release, First
Council District: Ed P. Reyes, Councilmember, Reyes, Hahn, State Parks Officials Break Ground at Taylor Yard
(Jan. 13, 2004) (on file with the author).
11

12. Anatomies of Creating an Urban Park
Legal Strategies; Taking the Fight to the Courts
More and more, the process of creating an urban park is requiring the involvement of
attorneys, although the exact roles and purpose of the lawyers are different in each case,
depending on the opposition’s willingness to negotiate and work with the park activists. The
Cornfield is perhaps the most important blueprint of the urban park battles, as it proved to Los
Angeles city leaders, developers and residents that bringing the dream of a park to a community
was not only attainable, but one which carried a wide array of support from a myriad of sources.
The Cornfield legacy began with the last abundant open space of Los Angeles: 32 acres of rail
yard, east of Chinatown, an area without any parks and where the only elementary school did not
even have grass.48
The residents of the area are predominantly minorities with low levels of
formal education and disproportionately poor.49
The communities surrounding the park are
historic and ethically diverse: Lincoln Heights, Elysian Park, Solano Canyon, Chinatown,
Chavez Ravine and William Mead Homes.50
Within a half-mile of the Cornfield is the El Pueblo
de Los Angeles Historical Monument and Union Station.51
The land was owned by Union
Pacific and laid abandoned for over a decade.52
When then-mayor of Los Angeles, Richard Riordan introduced an incentive program
aimed at the redevelopment of blighted industrial cites in the spring of 1999, Majestic Realty
positioned itself to purchase the Cornfield to develop River Station, a manufacturing and
warehouse complex, on the site.53
The project found support in that it was presumed that
48
The Cornfield – The Last Vast Green Space in the Heart of L.A., Center for Law in the Public Interest, (2005), at
http://clipi.org.ourwork/urbanparks.html (“Vast Green Space”).
49
Stanton Kibel, supra, 23 Stan. Envtl. L. J. at 305.
50
Cornfield, California State Parks, (2005), at http://www.parks.ca.gov/page_id=22984 (“Cornfield”).
51
Ibid.
52
Ibid.
53
Stanton Kibel, supra, 23 Stan. Envtl. L.J. at 308.
12

13. Majestic Realty would bear the brunt of any potential environmental remediation costs, the
proposed facility was to create as many as 1,000 jobs and carried the financial and political
support of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).54
The city
accepted Majestic Realty’s development proposal, requiring only a mitigated negative
declaration, allowing the developer and exemption from the mandated environmental impact
report (“EIR”) under state law.55
What Majestic Realty and the Los Angeles Mayor’s Office didn’t consider was that any
opposition to the River Project was going to be as targeted and fierce as it was, much less that
exempting the developer from preparing an EIR would provide the opposition with legal grounds
to challenge the project. Over 35 organizations came together to form the Chinatown Yards
Alliance (the Alliance) and began to strategically and legally attack the proposed development
from every angle.56
The Alliance was a melting pot of agencies and organizations, including the
Center for Law in the Public Interest, the Chinatown-Alpine Hill Neighborhood Association,
Citizens Committee to Save Elysian Park, Concerned Citizens of South Central L.A., People for
Parks, Friends of the Los Angeles River and Lincoln Heights Neighborhood Preservation
Association, just to name a few.57
One of the first acts the Alliance took was to issue a four-paragraph declaration setting
forth its position regarding the River Project with the ultimate objective being the development
of a park on the site.58
Next, the Alliance found itself legal representation.59
An administrative
complaint stating that federal funding for the River Station project was in violation of federal
54
Id. at 311.
55
Ibid.
56
Vast Green Space, supra, at http://clipi.org/ourwork/urbanparks.html.
57
Chinatown Cornfield’s Challengers Won’t Quit Dreaming of Open Space, The Planning Report, (2005), at
http:///www.ablinc.net/tpr/archive/july2000.html.
58
Stanton Kibel, supra, 23 Stan. Envtl. L.J. at 314.
59
Ibid.
13

14. civil rights and environmental justice laws was filed with the Secretaries of Housing and Urban
Development (“HUD”) and the Commerce Department, as well as the head of the Civil Rights
Division of the United States Department of Justice, with FoLAR as the lead petitioner.60
This
complaint, in conjunction with the Alliance’s campaign in promotion of its vision for the
Cornfield and some extremely fortunate power connections via Joel Reynolds of Natural
Resources Defense Council, led to the Alliance’s first victory in the battle for a park at the
Cornfield. Former HUD Secretary, Andrew Cuomo, after learning of the complaint and its
accompanying conflict, made an administrative decision to withhold federal funds for the River
Station project until an environmental impact report (“EIR”) on the project was prepared.61
And,
finally, Majestic Realty truly understood what it was up against. No matter what steps it took to
develop the River Station project, regardless of political approvals and support, at every level it
was destined to continue hitting the Alliance’s opposition and resistance strategies, which would
unavoidably decrease the value of the project.62
This realization, and the subsequent petition for writ of mandate filed by members of the
Alliance against Los Angeles with Majestic Realty names as a real party-in-interest, brought
Majestic Realty to the settlement table.63
The situation had become one in which there was a
high probability of a long legal battle, with the accompanying time delays and skyrocketing
costs. 64
But, the settlement proposal, as suggested by Majestic’s attorney, William Delvac,
required the Alliance to take some big risks in what would result in a “winner take all” ending.65
The proposal obligated the Alliance to agree to stay the litigation during a one-year option
60
Id. at 314-315.
61
Id. at 316.
62
Id. at 318.
63
Stanton Kibel, supra, 23 Stan. Envtl. L.J. at 318-319.
64
Jan Chatten-Brown & William F. Delvac, A River Tale – The Cornfield to Taylor Yard: From Industrial
Development Plans to State Parks’ Acquisition, 12 California Land Use Reporter 1 (2002), at
http://www.cbaearthlaw.com/riverarticlepopup.html (“A River Tale”).
65
Ibid.
14

15. period, during which, if the funds were made available, the Alliance could purchase the
Cornfield.66
If not, then all litigation would be dropped and Majestic Realty could proceed with
the River Station project unchallenged by the Alliance.67
If the Alliance found the money and
purchased the Cornfield, Majestic Realty was prohibited from interfering in the park
development.68
The Alliance had to admit, at least to itself, that its litigation demanding an EIR would
not get the group what it truly wanted, the land itself for park development.69
So, in agreeing to
the settlement proposal, the next battle appeared to be finding the money to buy the Cornfield,
which, according to Jan Chatten-Brown, an attorney representing FoLAR, was absolutely the
most nerve-wracking risk of the project.70
California was hit with the “energy crisis” during this
time, and if someone didn’t come up with the money, all of the Alliances’ efforts would have
been for nothing.71
The Alliance held their breath and looked towards Sacramento hopefully.
And while it looked as if the money could eventually be found, it didn’t look as if it could
happen in within the time limitation of the settlement agreement, because the state simply could
not acquire contaminated property, or a site that had not yet been remediated.72
A collective sigh of relief came with when the Trust for Public Land (“TPL”) stepped in
with the answer, providing confirmation that taking the risk was the right decision. TPL had the
will and the way to act as the Cornfield’s first purchaser to buy the time needed to acquire the
state funds through Proposition 12.73
Proposition 12, passed by California voters in March 2000,
66
Stanton Kibel, supra, 23 Stan. Envtl. L.J. at 319.
67
Ibid.
68
Ibid.
69
A River Tale, supra, at http://www.cbaearthlaw.com/riverarticlepopup.html.
70
Interview with Jan Chatten-Brown, Attorney, Chatten-Brown & Associates, in Los Angeles, Cal. (March 1, 2005)
(“Chatten-Brown”).
71
A River Tale, supra, at http://www.cbaearthlaw.com/riverarticlepopup.html.
72
Ibid.
73
Stanton Kibel, supra, 23 Stan. Envtl. L.J. at 321.
15

16. provided about $100 million towards the creation of a Los Angeles River Parkway. Given that
the Cornfield was 150 feet or so away from the river, there was some initial uncertainty as to
whether the site would quality.74
Fortunately, state officials, in what was certainly a very wise
political move at this point, indicated the Cornfield’s proximity was close enough to qualify for
the use of those funds.75
So, with TPL’s ability to bridge the time-gap and its reputation as an
expert in real estate matters provided a much-needed level of trust in the process for Majestic
Realty, the Alliance’s gamble paid off.76
The Cornfield Park is now certain to happen and its
Preliminary General Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Report was circulated for public
review and comment beginning March 15, 2005.77
At what essentially began the same point in time as the Cornfield park experience, but
north of the Cornfield site, the Anahuak Youth Soccer Association (“AYSA”) joined with CLIPI,
FoLAR and many of the same players in the Cornfield in an effort to bring soccer fields in the
state park at Taylor Yard, another abandoned rail yard along the Los Angeles River.78
Again,
elected officials, environmental justice and environmental advocates, public agencies and the
communities themselves formed another coalition, the Coalition for a State Park at Taylor Yard,
and successfully secured $5.5 million in state funding for a 40-acre park at Taylor Yard, stopping
another attempt at an industrial project.79
Similar to the community of the Cornfield, the children
of Anahauk live in underserved communities and lacked access to the communities that do have
parks.80
However, there were differences between the experience at the Cornfield and the
experience at Taylor Yard; differences that were mostly felt by the developers who wanted to
74
Id. at 320; Cornfield, supra, at http://www.parks.ca.gov/page_id=22984.
75
Stanton Kibel, supra, 23 Stan. Envtl. L.J. at 320.
76
Stanton Kibel, supra, 23 Stan. Envtl. L.J. at 321.
77
Cornfield, supra, at http://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=22984.
78
Stanton Kibel, supra, 23 Stan. Envtl. L.J. at 342.
79
Vast Green Space, supra, at http://clipi.org/ourwork/urbanparks.html.
80
Ibid.
16

17. build on the sites and led to the parties involved actually using the courts as their battleground.
Lennar Partners, a Florida-based developer, wanted to use the site to build a 650,000 square foot
warehouse project.81
Again, instead of requiring the developer to conduct a formal EIR, Los
Angeles city officials adopted a mitigated negative declaration under the California
Environmental Quality Act.82
This was again the lynchpin in the park activist’s opposition and
ultimate success.
Because Taylor Yard did not have the HUD leverage that the Cornfield did the Coalition
had a larger hurdle to clear in securing the site for parkland. Regardless, after Lennar Partners’
blatant refusal to negotiate, the Coalition turned to the courts and legally challenged the lack of a
formal EIR and Lennar Partners’ resulting stubbornness in refusing to negotiate, unlike Majestic
Realty in the Cornfield, led all the parties straight to active litigation. 83
This time the Coalition
found itself engaged in a full hearing on the merits, and its resulting victors.84
The court set aside
the Mitigated Negative Declaration and ordered the preparation of a full EIR, which carried the
devastating effect of potentially delaying Lennar Partners’ project for several years.85
After losing in litigation, Lennar Partners was much more willing to negotiate and went
to State Parks about arranging a possible purchase of the land for park use.86
But because the
developer waited until after losing in litigation, there was no way to avoid the resulting fall in the
land’s value.87
As a result, Lennar Partners ultimately found itself having to sell the property to
the State at a lower price and less favorable conditions than those in the Cornfield acquisition.88
81
Stanton Kibel, supra, 23 Stan. Envtl. L.J. at 342.
82
Stanton Kibel, supra, 23 Stan. Envtl. L.J. at 342.
83
Flores, supra, Center for Law in the Public Interest, in Los Angeles, Cal. (March 2, 2005).
84
Stanton Kibel, supra, 23 Stan. Envtl. L.J. at 342.
85
Ibid.
86
Stanton Kibel, supra, 23 Stan. Envtl. L.J. at 342.
87
Ibid.
88
Ibid.
17

18. The Cornfield and Taylor Yard experiences are valuable maps to bringing urban parks to
low-income and minority neighborhoods. The communities, activists and developers alike can
apply the lessons found in each experience, to ensure all parties walk away winners. The
attorneys representing these groups must also approach each case with and open mind and open
eyes, and be willing to negotiate as necessary. And perhaps, even the city of Los Angeles has
finally learned that accepting a mitigated negative declaration in lieu of an EIR is the quickest
way to get the litigation ball rolling.
Empowerment Strategies; Avoiding the Courtroom
Not all park development will require an attorney to file a lawsuit, but there are a number
of other ways attorneys are vital to the success of park development. Attorneys are valuable in
bringing attention to the projects and teaching the communities how to properly campaign for
each project. Most importantly, attorneys are needed for their skills of negotiation, working the
system in ways to avoid litigation, while still getting an urban park developed.
For example, Ascot Hills in East Los Angeles is finally seeing the development of an
urban park, thanks to the non-legal efforts of both attorneys and activists. After the community’s
requests persisted for over 70 years, Ascot Hills will be the new home for a 100-acre urban
park.89
The area is one of the poorest areas in Los Angeles, where the largest open space is a
cemetery. Attorney Robert Garcia of CLIPI has criticized the city for sending children the
message that if they want open space, they have to die first.90
City councilman Antonio
Villaraigosa recognized the land as the largest undeveloped open space left in East Los Angeles
that was not already dedicated as parkland.91
Environmentalists and students at an adjacent high
school objected to an attempt to turn part of the land into a sports complex four years ago,
89
Flores, supra, Center for Law in the Public Interest, in Los Angeles, Cal. (March 2, 2005).
90
Miguel Bustillo, Former Foes Unite Behind a Proposal to Turn Old Reservoir Site Into Park, LA Times, Jan. 15,
2005, at http://clipi.org/ourwork/latimes-ascothills.html.
91
Ibid.
18

19. concerned over the effect soccer fields and baseball diamonds would have on the hillsides.92
These groups are now in support of turning the area into a public nature reserve, with nature
trails and restoration of the land’s former plant life.93
A partnership between the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy and Los Angeles, each
with their own in-house attorneys advising on the project, led to the acquisition of the state funds
needed to develop the park.94
Turning Ascot Hills into a nature preserve required the acquisition
of $3 million in state bond funding from Proposition 40, a state bond recently passed by
California voters for the very purpose of creating more parks and recreational space in the state.95
This resulted into approval from the governor in release of the funds for the project; at a time
projects like Taylor Yard were also seeking money.96
As evidence of how much power and
steam park development is picking up at all levels, including the highest-ranking state leader,
funding for both projects was approved.
In another diverse and park-poor region, Baldwin Hills is a predominately African-
American community, with little greenspace.97
The park in Baldwin Hills is an old brownfield
site in the heart of Los Angeles, and has been the target of industrial development twice, despite
the fact that the area had been given priority status for the establishment of a 1400-acre park
since the mid 1970s.98
In 2001 there was a fight against a proposed development of a power
plant and in 2003 another battle ensued over using the site as a garbage dump.99
The community
92
Ibid.
93
Ibid.
94
Ibid.
95
Ibid.
96
Vast Green Space, supra, at http://clipi.org/ourwork/urbanparks.html.
97
Ibid.
98
Therese Kelly, Baldwin Hills Park, Crenshaw, Los Angeles Forum for Architecture and Urban Design, Issue 5,
April 10, 2005, at http://www.laforum.org/issues; Conservancy in Jeopardy, supra, The Planning Report, at
http://www.planningreport.com/tpr.html.
99
Vast Green Space, supra, at http://clipi.org/ourwork/urbanparks.html.
19

20. of Baldwin Hills carried a different vision for the site, wanting the area to be a two-square mile
park, the nation’s biggest natural urban park in over 100 years.100
This site also had to fight off two industrial development proposals, and after seeing
success on both, one would think the plan to build a park was on its way to being implemented.
However, the ultimate threat to this park was not from a developer looking for another place to
build warehouses, but from a governor, looking for another place to trim his state’s budget.
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected in the recall of Governor Gray Davis, in large part
due to Schwarzenegger’s promises to save California from its fiscal crisis. One of the governor’s
first steps was to determine where State expenditures could be cut. As a result, the state agency
charged with acquiring and developing open space in the Baldwin Hills area, the Baldwin Hills
Conservancy, was put on the chopping block by a state performance review report when it
recommended the agency be devolved into a local joint power agency.101
And in another
example of the right groups getting a park developed, CLIPI, homeowners, soccer leagues, scout
troops, senior citizen groups, church communities and various other constituent groups came
together to help design the master plan for the park.102
Complications, Defeats and Future Concerns
Not every potential park development story can invoke feelings of victorious pride and
accomplishment. Some, in fact, leave the park development activists frustrated, questioning their
abilities to make real progress in the politically dominated arena. Sometimes, even when the
funds are available, human error can truly impede the development of much needed urban parks.
In February 2005, the LA Times reported that the Los Angeles Department of Recreation
and Parks had lost track of a $4 million donation that had been made in 2003.103
Amazingly, in a
100
Ibid.
101
Conservancy in Jeopardy, supra, The Planning Report, at http://www.planningreport.com/tpr.html.
102
Vast Green Space, supra, at http://clipi.org/ourwork/urbanparks.html.
103
Steve Hymon, Park Gift Lost, Found, The LA Times, Feb. 14, 2005. (“Park Gift”)
20

21. disturbing example of how damaging inefficient bureaucracy can be, the new general manager of
Los Angeles’ parks department was not aware of the donation himself until November 2004,
nine months after he had joined the department and a mere six months before the potential
complete loss of the money due to an unfulfilled condition.104
The donation’s purpose was to
buy land for playgrounds in low-income areas.105
A prerequisite was that the money must get
spent for that purpose by May 2005 or the funds would be forfeited. The funds of the donation
had the potential to create four to eight parks.106
Someone’s failure to properly oversee the funds
resulted in an unnecessary high-pressured scramble to spend the money before it is lost forever;
obviously, not the best environment for making such decisions.
The heart of Los Angeles’ government center is also not immune to the city’s urban park
shortage. The controversy surrounding an area one block south of City Hall in downtown Los
Angeles presented a surprise challenge, and likely a bitter defeat, for park activists. The site is
the home of the old Caltrans building.107
Developing the area into a civic square or park has been
discussed between city official and the community for at least ten years.108
In 1997 the city
council allegedly adopted a master plan that envisioned the area as a civic plaza.109
Whether or
not this master plan actually exits appears to be debatable, but no evidence has been produced to
prove it does. Caltrans relocated, vacating the building and making way for an ensuing tug-of-
war between the Los Angeles Police Department (“LAPD”) and area residents that has
ultimately led to an unusual standoff between the city’s Cultural Affairs Commission and the
104
Ibid.
105
Ibid.
106
Ibid.
107
Steve Hymon, City Panel Won’t Back LAPD Site, The LA Times, Feb. 4, 2005 (“LAPD Site”).
108
LA Civic Park: Background, A Civic Park, (2005), at http://lacivicpark.org/background.html.
109
Ibid.
21

22. City Council.110
The LAPD wants to build new home offices there, but some residents and the
city’s Cultural Affairs Commission think a park is better use of the property.111
The residents are still hoping for an urban park that will serve as a “gateway for City
Hall” and serve downtown’s increasing residential population.112
Following the lead of the
Chinatown Yards Alliance and Coalition for a State Park at Taylor Yard, they have even formed
a union of their own, L.A. Civic Park. Their website indicates existence of the master plan and
critically points out that the city council vote to build the 500,000 square foot headquarters was
taken with “virtually no public notice” or comment.113
Unfortunately, regardless of the
controversy surrounding the site, the city council will likely not budge on its approval for the
LAPD to develop a new high-tech replacement for its old headquarters, along with a parking
structure and motor pool.114
Unless and until the master plan can be produced showing the site
was originally envisioned to be a park, the city council has made it clear the residents’ and the
Commissioners’ opinions simply don’t carry much weight with them.115
Perhaps one big difference between the successes of some parks and the defeats of others
is found in the location. The Cornfield and Taylor Yard are both part of parkland along the Los
Angeles River, where there are a lot of abandoned rail yards and support from a wide variety of
entities, political, local and otherwise. In contrast, L.A. Civic Park is not acquiring as much
support for its park, which would be located directly across the street from City Hall, not
abutting the Los Angeles River. Many of the non-profit organizations involved in the Cornfield
and Taylor Yard were involved via their interest in revitalizing and restoring the river, i.e.,
110
LAPD Site, supra, The LA Times, Feb. 4, 2005.
111
Ibid.
112
Ibid.
113
LA Civic Park, supra, at http://lacivicpark.org/background.html.
114
Ibid.; LAPD Site, supra, The LA Times, Feb. 4, 2005.
115
LAPD Site, supra, The LA Times, Feb. 4, 2005.
22

23. FoLAR, The River Project. It would at least be arguable that having the Los Angeles River as a
large component of an urban park proposal certainly doesn’t hurt.
Parks that charge access fees are a source of frustration and contention for those who do
not have parks in their own communities and can barely afford the transportation necessary to
get to outside parks, much less pay to get in. One such example is Lacy Park in San Marino,
California. The park has everything to offer: open green space, picnic areas, dog areas, tennis
courts and even a rose garden.116
The problem is that the park is designed to provide these
amenities to its surrounding community, and not others. While the access to the park is free to
everyone on weekdays, its website indicates there is a “nominal fee” for non-resident use on
Saturdays and Sundays.117
The website fails to be specific about how nominal the fee is, and
adding confusion to the situation, in a call to the city inquiring as to the fee amount, the city
representative assured this author that the nominal fee was for large parties who wished to
reserve picnic table space. According to the city, the park is free to non-residents’ general use all
seven days of the week. Yet, another call to the tennis center at Lacy Park resulted in different
information, with the nominal fee being quoted at $2 to $3 for non-resident weekend access to
the park. The mere presence of a fee, along with the confusion and difficulty surrounding it,
sends at least one clear message to the low-income and minority residents of Los Angeles, who
are without their own parks to enjoy: they are unwanted in the parks of other communities during
times when going to the park is likely most convenient.
San Marino residents and city officials may see the fee charge as simply administrative
and managerial necessities to controlling what happens in their community. But, what it really
amounts to is a spin on the NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) issue. Typically employed to
116
Lacy Park, City of San Marino, (2005), at http://www.ci.san-marino.ca.us./city/pts_of_int/park.html.
117
Ibid.
23

24. reference how a community does not want certain industry or business in their town, park access
fees are generally about these communities not wanting certain people and income groups in
their parks. If park access fees are simply unavoidable in certain areas for valid purposes there
are ways to avoid their discriminatory effect. Communities should plan for about 20 percent of
community resident who are unable to afford the access fees and provide alternatives like
scholarships, or fee-free hours or days.118
Parks are public places and should not be withheld
from certain sectors of the public under any guise.
Critical to future park development is the need for new funding mechanisms.119
In the
asphalt jungle that has become Los Angeles, there is too much land already developed and the
price of remaining land continues to climb at alarming rates.120
So far, communities, public
agencies and state officials have been willing and able to find the money, but where will the line
be drawn? But because direct involvement and action is required to generate results; a change in
attitude that recognizes the communities’ legitimate desire and need for parks, not more
warehouses and industrial development must be sustained.121
Also, there is a strong Latino
presence in the state legislature that may contribute to more leaders paying attention to the
problem of park disparity in minority neighborhoods and lead to more solutions.122
As an alternative, Jan Chatten-Brown offers the idea of community-created pocket parks
to fill the park shortage holes.123
Where space is available, communities can engage in
fundraising and apply for grants to find the money needed to build and maintain smaller park
areas.124
The important consideration here is the assurance that the communities continue their
118
Peter Harnick, The Excellent City Park System, The Trust for Public Land, 2003 Appendix V, p. 39 (2001).
119
Ibid.
120
Ibid.
121
Interview with Jan Chatten-Brown, Attorney, Chatten-Brown & Associates, in Los Angeles, Cal. (March 1, 2005)
(“Chatten-Brown”).
122
Ibid.
123
Ibid.
124
Chatten-Brown, supra, in Los Angeles, Cal. (March 1, 2005).
24

25. involvement throughout the life of the park, or it will simply become a rundown, ignored plot of
land, contributing to the communities problems rather than easing them. One such example is
Via del Norte Park in San Diego.125
This pocket park was underutilized and in need of major
enhancements.126
The district councilman worked with the community and the City’s Park and
Recreation staff to raise $140,000 in donations to re-develop the park, bringing in two swing
sets, a picnic table and renovated landscaping.127
The park’s metamorphosis provides a map for
communities across the state to take action in their own neighborhoods, putting much needed
improvements where they can make a big difference in the lives of local residents.
Whether the park developed is a small pocket park, or large urban park, park safety will
always be an important consideration after a park is developed. A balance must be found
between making the parks safe and not turning them into oppressive places where people and
their children don’t feel watched, harassed or under strict supervision.128
One solution is to get
the communities some level of local ownership of their parks.129
For instance, Jan Chatten-
Brown suggests involving the communities in decisions such as whether to put recycling bins in
the parks.130
Other ideas are to ask for residential input on what kinds of playgrounds to install,
or whether to build a basketball court or tennis court, to even inquiring into the communities’
preferences regarding the plant life in landscaping. Additionally, after a park has been approved
for development contentions may arise regarding whether the final product will be active or
passive in nature. Striking a balance to serve all the community needs is vital to the role the park
125
Via Del Norte Pocket Park, The City of San Diego Council District One, (2005), at
http://genesis.sannet.gov/infospc/templates/cd1/pocket_park/jsp.
126
Ibid.
127
Ibid.
128
Chatten-Brown, supra, in Los Angeles, Cal. (March 1, 2005).
129
Ibid.
130
Ibid.
25

26. and the residents who use it and this can only be done by directly asking the neighborhood
residents what they want and need from their park.
It is, therefore, necessary to have some sort of process in place residents can utilize in
reaching a decision everyone can live with and support.131
This will likely depend on the
character of the community itself. Perhaps public hearings are the easiest way to get everyone’s
input. Volunteers could go door-to-door making the proper inquiries of the community residents
and taking suggestions. Or, local “ballots” could be mailed asking the residents for their ideas.
Using a ballot-type mechanism would provide the government entities an opportunity to narrow
the options to what is feasible and then present only those choices to the residents on the ballot.
This may help save a lot of wasted time and resources. The ballots could also allow the resident
to volunteer time, talent or other resources to the maintenance of the park. All of these
mechanisms and processes contribute to creating a personal investment for everyone involved,
helping to foster a feeling of commitment to the park that continues on for years to come.
Without a doubt, patience is the most important tool in a communities’ arsenal of
weapons in any battle to get a park developed. Communities must be patient with their
attorneys, and their local and state governments. It can take years to secure the land for park
development, especially if the state is acquiring land. Assessments and studies must be
performed that simply don’t happen in short periods of time. The actual development of the park
features and landscaping, likewise, will rarely happen overnight, and it is important that those
involved in making the park a reality maintain the motivation and enthusiasm throughout the
entire process. It goes without saying that when the battles for urban parks are fought well, and
won, the final product is a priceless victory for all those who helped make it happen.
131
Chatten-Brown, supra, in Los Angeles, Cal. (March 1, 2005).
26

27. Biography
1. About FoLAR, Friends of the Los Angeles River (2005), at
http://www.folar.org/about.html
2. California Performance Review’s Recommendation Puts Baldwin Hills Conservancy in
Jeopardy, The Planning Report, (2005), at http://www.planningreport.com/tpr.html
3. California Public Resources Code, § 33000 et. Seq.
4. Center for Law in the Public Interest, Los Angeles is Park Poor: A History of
Underserved Communities, (2005), at http://www/clipi.org/CityParksPoor1.html (“Los
Angeles is Park Poor”)
5. Chinatown Cornfield’s Challengers Won’t Quit Dreaming of Open Space, The Planning
Report, (2005), at http:///www.ablinc.net/tpr/archive/july2000.html
6. Cornfield, California State Parks, (2005), at http://www.parks.ca.gov/page_id=22984
7. Interview with Erica Flores, Attorney, Center for Law in the Public Interest, in Los
Angeles, Cal. (March 2, 2005)
8. Interview with Jan Chatten-Brown, Attorney, Chatten-Brown & Associates, in Los
Angeles, Cal. (March 1, 2005)
9. Interview with Terry Fujimoto, Deputy Attorney General, California State Attorney
General’s Office, in Los Angeles, Cal. (April 28, 2005)
10. Jan Chatten-Brown & William F. Delvac, A River Tale – The Cornfield to Taylor Yard:
From Industrial Development Plans to State Parks’ Acquisition, 12 California Land Use
Reporter 1 (2002), at http://www.cbaearthlaw.com/riverarticlepopup.html.
11. LA Civic Park: Background, A Civic Park, (2005), at
http://lacivicpark.org/background.html
12. Liz Valsamis, 1930 Map of Green L.A. Inspires Urban Vision, Los Angeles Daily
Journal, January 28, 2005, at 1
13. Miguel Bustillo, Former Foes Unite Behind a Proposal to Turn Old Reservoir Site Into
Park, LA Times, Jan. 15, 2005, at http://clipi.org/ourwork/latimes-ascothills.html
14. No Place to Play: A Comparative Analysis of Park Access in Seven Major Cities, The
Trust for Public Land, November (2004) (“No Place to Play”)
15. Paul Stanton Kibel, Los Angeles’ Cornfield: An Old Blueprint for New Greenspace, 23
Stan. Envtl. L.J. 275, 296 (2004). (“The Cornfield”)
27

28. 16. Peter Harnick, The Excellent City Park System, The Trust for Public Land, 2003
Appendix V, p. 39 (2001)
17. Press Release, First Council District, Ed P. Reyes, Councilmember, Reyes, Hahn, State
Parks Officials Break Ground at Taylor Yard (Jan. 13, 2004) (on file with the author)
18. Project for Public Spaces, Ten Benefits of Creating Good Public Spaces, (2005), at
http://pps.org/info/placemakingtools/casesforplaces/10_benefits (“Benefits”)
19. Robert Garcia Connects the Dots for Environmental Justice, The Natural Resource:
Environmental and Natural Resources Law & Policy Program Newsletter, Stanford Law
School, Fall (2003) (“Garcia Connects Dots”)
20. Robert Garcia et al., The Heritage Parkscape in the Heart of Los Angeles, The City
Project, Center for Law in the Public Interest, v.12.17.04 (2004) (“Heritage
Parkscape”)
21. Robert Garcia, et al., Diversifying Access To and Support for the Forests, Center for Law
in the Public Interest Policy Brief, v. 11.22.04 (“Diversifying Access”)
22. Robert Garcia, et al., Healthy Children, Healthy Communities: Schools, Parks,
Recreation, and Sustainable Regional Planning, Center for Law in the Public Interest
Policy Brief (“Healthy Children”)
23. Robert Garcia, et al., The Cornfield and the Flow of History: People, Place and Culture,
The City Project, Center for Law in the Public Interest, April, 2004 (“The Cornfield”)
24. Steve Hymon, City Panel Won’t Back LAPD Site, The LA Times, Feb. 4, 2005. (“LAPD
Site”)
25. Steve Hymon, Park Gift Lost, Found, The LA Times, Feb. 14, 2005. (“Park Gift”)
26. The Center for Law in the Public Interest at http://www.clipi.org/CPPIsurveypopup.html,
citing Mark Baldasare, Statewide Survey on Californian’s and the Environment, Public
Policy Institute of California June (2002), page vi
27. The Cornfield – The Last Vast Green Space in the Heart of L.A., Center for Law in the
Public Interest, (2005), at http://clipi.org.ourwork/urbanparks.html
28. Therese Kelly, Baldwin Hills Park, Crenshaw, Los Angeles Forum for Architecture and
Urban Design, Issue 5, April 10, 2005, at http://www.laforum.org/issues
29. Via Del Norte Pocket Park, The City of San Diego Council District One, (2005), at
http://genesis.sannet.gov/infospc/templates/cd1/pocket_park/jsp.
28