Great Parks levy too much, too soon after pandemic

The Enquirer really wanted to support Issue 29, the Great Parks of Hamilton County tax levy, because we really love the spacious and beautiful parks here. In fact, we feel like big meanies by saying no. But that's exactly what we are saying, and here is why.

Spending money on parks that improve our quality of life and preserve greenspace, generally, is money well spent. But asking cash-strained voters to double what they currently pay for county parks through property taxes right as our nation is coming out of a pandemic is too much.

Editorial:Issue 3 packs too many charter amendments into one ballot question

Homeowners currently pay $30 per $100,000 of assessed value for parks. The new levy would be a 10-year levy and add an additional $33 per $100,000. This is just too big of a jump, especially when many homeowners have already seen their property taxes shoot up because of valuations.

Great Parks could have explored other ways to lessen the amount for county taxpayers, who are already some of the most tax-burdened folks in the state. (Hamilton County ranks inside the top 10 of Ohio's 88 counties). Almost every business and every household has had to diversify its funding in these challenging economic times. The Park Board needs to be more creative in pursuing non-tax funding options, including increasing ways to extract user fees, and actively soliciting more private donations via direct asks and fundraising events that attract those who prioritize parks in their daily lives as well as those who may not know the totality of the Great Parks contribution to our region. Passing a levy of this size would give Great Parks little incentive to more aggressively pursue these other funding pathways.

Editorial:Hamilton County should pass Children's Services levy

Our publicly funded recreation areas were an invaluable safe harbor of health – both mentally and physically – during a time of disease and distress. But in this fragile post-pandemic economy, we need to be focused on maintaining the parks as they are, and for that reason we are saying NO to Issue 29.