Given the public good of such events, it would make sense for councils to work closely with Park Run to find good places for them.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Leisure
"Bristol ParkRun joggers face being charged to use paths"
(109 posts)-
Posted 8 years ago #
-
"Given the public good of such events, it would make sense for councils to work closely with Park Run to find good places for them"
I'm not going to go into details, and as I say I'm going to step out of here, but this does suggest they haven't tried. But oh they have, how they have tried. As the Friends group has. A lot.
Posted 8 years ago # -
I don't know how the council could have worked more closely than to actually fill out a grant application for them which only required signing. Which they refused to do. Why?
Posted 8 years ago # -
You can't get away from the fact that the council are double charging the public for a good that they've already paid for.
I am not sure how councils allocate their budgets but I would assume that they depend on a fairly predictable use of the park. EG, 250 people use the park throughout the day to walk their dogs, children, go jogging etc. When 250 extra people suddenly turn up all at once, some of whom from quite some distance, parking, using toilet paper, running on the verges etc that is going to put that budget allocation up quite a lot don't you think?
And I have another question. What would happen if someone else organised for hundreds of people to use the park at the exact same time? And after all why not? It is apparently their God-given right to monopolise the entire park for a couple of hours every week. What would Parkrun think then?
Posted 8 years ago # -
"I don't know how the council could have worked more closely than to actually fill out a grant application for them which only required signing. Which they refused to do. Why? "
I was meaning the city council rather than the parish council and I am speaking with a lack of knowledge on this. In Edinburgh, there are only park-runs on the promenade near Cramond and at Figgy park. How were these two sites chosen from all of the many other potential sites? I also note that there are none in East or Midlothian.
Posted 8 years ago # -
Amir-okay sorry, I suppose this thread has now become about at least two different Parkruns which can cause confusion! Though all the evidence so far to me suggests that the Parkrun organisers believe that they are RIGHT and therefore don't have to cooperate with anyone. Again I don't have personal experience but I am reasonably good at reading between lines.
Posted 8 years ago # -
I can play football in a city park for nothing, yet the Council charges for organised games in the same parks. They even charge youth groups (Boys Brigade, Scouts etc.) who do lots of good and don't exist to make a profit.
Posted 8 years ago # -
Yeah, I don't know how they choose park run sites either. Presumably you need enough volunteers to run it and then you have to buy in the kit (timing chips, computers etc).
I am not sure how councils allocate their budgets but I would assume that they depend on a fairly predictable use of the park. EG, 250 people use the park throughout the day to walk their dogs, children, go jogging etc. When 250 extra people suddenly turn up all at once, some of whom from quite some distance, parking, using toilet paper, running on the verges etc that is going to put that budget allocation up quite a lot don't you think?
IMO very unlikely that the council imposed charges because they want park run to continue but need help with costs. I think they know that park run can't operate with public charges, so they were actually killing the event. We do this sort of stuff at work all the time (a thing which has a different intended effect from the face value, not killing off public health initiatives!)
And I have another question. What would happen if someone else organised for hundreds of people to use the park at the exact same time? And after all why not? It is apparently their God-given right to monopolise the entire park for a couple of hours every week. What would Parkrun think then?
Presumably both events couldn't continue at the same time, so they would have to reschedule. It's a public park, so I suppose they could both go at the same time, but people wouldn't attend for a crappy experience, so it would presumably shift (whoever has the most fickle members of the public would be at a negotiating disadvantage I guess).
Posted 8 years ago # -
I can play football in a city park for nothing, yet the Council charges for organised games in the same parks. They even charge youth groups (Boys Brigade, Scouts etc.) who do lots of good and don't exist to make a profit.
This is interesting, so if I set up a new scout group (for the sake of argument) and then took the kids round the corner to our local park, I would be fined or something?
Posted 8 years ago # -
I think they know that park run can't operate with public charges, so they were actually killing the event.
They weren't killing the event. They even filled out a grant application which all Parkrun needed to do was sign. They didn't sign.
Presumably both events couldn't continue at the same time, so they would have to reschedule.
Hmm. Well I would be very interested to see what their attitude would actually be in that situation.
Posted 8 years ago # -
'Charging for football' relates to use of pitches which are marked out and (presumably) have extra attention paid to the grass.
It does however demonstrate that there is a difference between formal and informal.
The Meadows is used by a vast number of people for a wide range of activities from quietly reading books to grass damaging barbecues (CEC has tried to deal with this, but I'm not aware of any proposals to charge) to what look like organised fitness and training activities.
I presume there are charges to play cricket matches - I noticed the Meadows' pitch being mown and manicured during the pouring rain this week (and the truck left on cycle path).
Posted 8 years ago # -
They weren't killing the event. They even filled out a grant application which all Parkrun needed to do was sign. They didn't sign.
Not administrative death, but death on principle:
"parkrun cannot pay for park use and therefore will not apply for grant funding for that purpose, or allow the Council or anyone else to make an application on its behalf.
...
Subsequent discussion with South Gloucestershire Council confirmed that in reality there is no source of grant funding that will support routine park maintenance, whoever applies."
from here. In fact that whole page is worth a quick skim.
Posted 8 years ago # -
"I noticed the Meadows' pitch being mown and manicured during the pouring rain this week (and the truck left on cycle path)."
See also substantial drainage works on Leith Links the other year, some of which was on the bit used for cricketing and some on the bit St Mary's use for school sports.
Wasn't there something somewhere recently about the council having to cut back on line-painting?Posted 8 years ago # -
A question:
Does ParkRun encourage or accept donations from participants?
Posted 8 years ago # -
In fact that whole page is worth a quick skim.
It is, I think they do make some decent points and I would like to be able to support them. But. There is something I dislike about their attitude. I think it is an attitude that has become more prevalent with the internet that more and more people expect to get more and more things for free. I could go to my local park and pick up litter right now but that doesn't mean I should get to organise huge weekly events in it without contributing to it in a more materiel way. It is unfortunate that the world works in this way but it does.
And the bit about the grants is actually very confusing reading it through. To summerise:-
-Parkrun will not apply for any grants
-Parkrun will not allow anyone to apply for grants on their behalf
-Parish council can apply for grants
-No grants are availableIf no grants are available then how can the parish council apply for them? Why would the parish council apply for these non-existant grants when Parkrun refuse to have them applied for in the first place? That is fudgier than a trip by Mr and Mrs Fudge to Fudgetown IMHO.
Posted 8 years ago # -
Parkrun is a business - it makes money. The business might not involve directly charging the runners, but then they're not the customers. The customers are advertisers and sponsors and the runners are the commodity being delivered to the customers. This is the same model as Google and Facebook.
Some of the people behind it are serial entrepreneurs having been directors in as many as 40 different companies. It might be run primarily by volunteers but it is owned and managed by businessmen who are primarily in the business of making money.
None of this should be taken as criticism of Parkrun, it's just there's a perception of Parkrun as a grass-roots movement rather than a business which I feel is misleading.
Posted 8 years ago # -
EDIT: Sorry, I was going to stay out of this.
Posted 8 years ago # -
Portobello Parkrun applied for and was awarded a grant of £2000 from both Portobello & Craigmillar and Craigentinny & Duddinsgton neighbourhood partnerships. (£4000 in total)
Posted 8 years ago # -
There is something I dislike about their attitude.
Hang on, I know what it is. It is "I pay my road tax therefore I can park where I like/drive as fast as I like" etc.
it's just there's a perception of Parkrun as a grass-roots movement rather than a business which I feel is misleading.
Yes. There is a statement at the bottom of the link Dave just posted that says "parkrun and junior parkrun is community led, and community facing"
Well actually it isn't. I am not knocking the volunteers, I think volunteering is great and do it myself but it isn't community led.
Posted 8 years ago # -
"The customers are advertisers and sponsors and the runners are the commodity being delivered to the customers."
Very true, and such customers are usually wary of controversy or conflict - which is why I'm surprised that PR is so keen to manufacture its own 'moral high ground'.
Though perhaps the advertisers/sponsors understand, as most businesses try to externalise their costs.
Posted 8 years ago # -
Dave - if you took a BB company out for a kick-about in a park that would be fine. If the Company football team was playing as part of an organised league, using a pitch in the park, then you would have to pay.
Failure to pay could lead to you being excluded from the park by a Council officer. If you refused to leave then, on summary conviction, you could be fined.
Details set out in the Park Management Rules:
http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/downloads/file/62/management_rules_for_parks_and_greenspaces
Posted 8 years ago # -
"None of this should be taken as criticism of Parkrun, it's just there's a perception of Parkrun as a grass-roots movement rather than a business which I feel is misleading. "
I think that's useful. We should separate out (difficult though it is) the nature of the organisation from the activities/events.
If people need group activity in order to do exercise regularly, that ought to be encouraged. There are awkward issues that need to be accommodated but public health is hugely important. Personally I think the city council and government ought to be more proactive and facilitate this. For example shutting streets to traffic on a Sunday, like what happens abroad.
Posted 8 years ago # -
So Dave, if the scouts came to a football pitch expecting to play a league match and a few kids are playing an informal kickabout, you would have the right to kick the kids off the pitch and play on it for free?
Think that is why there are fees- so that council can say that from 3-5pm on a Saturday afternoon, the scouts have full access to the park.
From a position of little knowledge I was sympathetic to Parkrun, but from a position of a little more knowledge, I've lost an awful lot of that sympathy.
Think that it reminds me of the damage done by events like the 3 Peaks race and Caledonian Challenge.
I though sportives were a little better (theoretically leaving not much more than tyre tracks, but sadly thousands of gel wrappers and a number of inner tubes), but having entered and enjoyed the etape Caledonia, I subsequently heard a lot more about how it was run and who it was run for and wouldn't enter again.
Posted 8 years ago # -
"Personally I think the city council and government ought to be more proactive and facilitate this."
They certainly should, but are stuck (in the mud) with all sorts of inertia and self-invented excuses.
The whole saga of unreasonably charges for road closures for Playing Out is a small example.
Perhaps ParkRun could be asked to bring its expertise and volunteers to Holyrood Park every Sunday and other groups be asked to bring equipment/people for demonstrating/offering various sports and activities.
Posted 8 years ago # -
Regarding the grant application, I think Parkrun as an organisation believe that if they start applying for grants for park maintenance then it's not long before council's make their access to the park contingent on winning these grants. In an environment where funding is difficult to come by this would likely lead to the closure of a lot of parkruns.
Which is separate from the argument of whether or not parkrun is a good thing, but if you believe it's a good thing (as the organisers clearly do) then putting in place a process whereby parkrun only exists in places where it can get grants is not good.
If the council were to say to Spokes that catering for the cyclists on MMW costs money and what they're going to do is in principle charge every cyclist passing through but apply for a grant in Spokes name that covers this cost for the first five years, then you create an environment in which it's likely that cyclists have to pay to use MMW in the future. You also significantly weaken your ability to argue against such a charge in the future having already gone along with applying for a grant. I don't think this is being uncooperative, it's securing the future of an activity which you believe (rightly or wrongly) provides a significant net public good.
Posted 8 years ago # -
The use of MMW by cyclists is only analogous to the normal use of parks by people. If SPOKES wanted to hold a large event every Saturday and Sunday with hundreds of cyclists then I would think it only right to charge a small fee for that. It comes back to the overuse of resources again.
Posted 8 years ago # -
Your right, cyclists using MMW and Parkrun using a local park are not analagous situations.
I just meant to talk about why parkrun refusing to sign someone else's grant application on their behalf doesn't mean they're arrogant and uncooperative. If you think that the benefits of your activity for the public significantly outweigh the drawbacks then applying for a grant that makes it less likely that your activity can continue in the future would not be a wise thing to do.
Posted 8 years ago # -
If you think that the benefits of your activity for the public significantly outweigh the drawbacks then applying for a grant that makes it less likely that your activity can continue in the future would not be a wise thing to do.
You know, I can almost understand that but it is also my problem. What you have here is a company. Not-for-profit but still a company, with paid staff coming in and using a public resource then rushing to the moral high ground when challenged. I just can't like it.
Posted 8 years ago # -
I've no idea how much the directors of Parkrun get paid. If it's a huge amount then that changes things. But it has twelve paid staff who facilitate the running of Parkrun nationwide, which contrasts with 8000 people who volunteered last weekend to make last Saturday's parkrun happen.
I'd be totally against an organisation leeching off public resources to pay its directors massive salaries while masquerading as a non profit organisation. I don't know for sure, but I really don't think that's whats happening with Parkrun (and if it was the Guardian would have run an expose).
The moral high ground is difficult. People often complain of cyclists being 'smug'. Perhaps parkrun got part of it's PR strategy wrong, but if it's line is to consistently point out what parkrun does to encourage non-active people to get active, while stating that it doesn't believe this could happen if it had to pay to use parks, that seems reasonable to me.
At some point I should do some work today...
Posted 8 years ago # -
define "massive salary".
Posted 8 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
