HOW DO YOU DEFINE "WALKING DISTANCE"?
That's the first question that occurred to me when I read this amazingly credulous LAT article on a "study" of city parks:
Two-thirds of children in Los Angeles do not live within walking distance of a public park, according to a report to be released today by a national land conservation group.
The comparative analysis of seven major American cities by the Trust for Public Land found that 66% of Los Angeles children, or more than 716,000 youngsters under 18, did not live within a quarter-mile of a park. Los Angeles County as a whole fared even worse, with only 31% of children living close to a park, the study found.
In Boston, by contrast, 78% of children live within a quarter-mile of a park. In New York, 59% do, while in San Diego, only 32% can walk to one ï¿ the lowest rate among the cities studied. San Diego County as a whole fared significantly better, with 58% of children living near a park.
Now, I've lived in Boston and I've lived in L.A., and "walking distance" doesn't mean the same thing in the two cities--at least not in the wintertime. In L.A., I routinely walk a mile or more, year-round. Not so in Boston, where my walk to work was so cold and windy on some days that I often paid a cab to take me, despite being broke. (The public transit alternative involved three different train lines to go a relatively short distance.) So I don't believe that "walking distance" and "a quarter mile" are the same thing, especially since L.A. and San Diego, both weather paradises with beaches that don't count as "parks," got the worst scores in this "study."
But even if you accept that definition, the study is garbage, and the article on it is a disgrace to supposedly skeptical journalism. The study compares the vast region of L.A. County with the tiny city limits of Boston. It picks seven cities arbitrarily. What, any sensible reader would ask, are the criteria for looking at these seven and not another group? This list isn't what comes to mind if you say, "Name seven American cities." And why seven? Would a larger list get different results?
Finally, the conclusion is laughable: Kids have it better in those Garden State garden spots, Camden and Newark, than in Los Angeles and San Diego???!!!! This "study" doesn't pass the laugh test. But the article doesn't mention Camden and Newark, except in the chart. And it never explains just how tiny Boston is.
I'm not against neighborhood parks. Indeed, I'm sympathetic to the view that L.A. has unduly emphasized giant preservationist sanctuaries like the Santa Monica mountains, much beloved of affluent Westsiders, at the expense of cheaper, smaller neighborhood parks that would give kids places to play. (I'm not, however, against backyards.) But the report, and the "reporting," make me less sympathetic to the cause they supposedly serve. If they've got such a great argument, why do they need such obvious propaganda? And why doesn't the LAT expect its reporters to ask the most basic questions? Reporter Miguel Bustillo and his editors should be ashamed of themselves.
The press release is here, along with information on how to download the report. (You have to give them your email address, but most of the form is optional.)