To reduce crime and ease load on police, Fresno should invest in parks

I watched closely as a request for a signature in support of a parks measure, designed to allocate more funding for parks, produced an eruption of anger. Too many expletives were used for me to quote the man who objected to signing, but in short, his resignation centered around violence in Fresno and “gangs” who would plague the parks. The educator in me wanted to engage in the dialogue, but the belligerent tone and excessive volume had already created a scene. This was not the time or place for a rational and comprehensive discussion to take place. However, this is a conversation that must happen if we intend to disrupt the cycle of violence and create a safer community for its residents.

It is not surprising that the objector conflated violence, gangs and parks in his argument against allocating more money to parks. The dominant narrative in Fresno frames violence in a way that reduces it to an activity common in certain areas, and exercised by a specific few that are considered to be inherently violent. This line of reasoning yields solutions that are focused on suppressing specific regions in order to contain and detain specific individuals as a means to disrupt and/or prevent violent incidents from occurring.

However, violence is much broader and nuanced than the popular view allows us to see. Understanding violence as a pathological characteristic produces responses and strategies that lack the capacity to genuinely reduce violent activities in sustainable ways, and is more likely to simply displace it. A more holistic understanding of violence is one that refuses to see violence as a characteristic of ‘naturally bad’ people, but rather understands violence as a symptom of deeper, unresolved, personal and community illnesses.

It goes without saying that law enforcement is an essential element to any violence-reduction strategy, but the role of public health services and amenities is often overlooked. Cities such as Minneapolis, Kansas City, Boston and Richmond were all able to drastically reduce violent crimes to unprecedented levels through employing strategies that utilize both public health and public safety entities. This is why parks are relevant in conversation around public safety and violence reduction, especially in Fresno.

Sadly, Fresno does not have the best track record when it comes to public health practices and policies. For decades our city has been plagued with slum-lord housing, high rates of concentrated poverty, substandard academic achievements, and insufficient park space. Our negligence in prioritizing the health of Fresno residents has produced an array of vulnerable pockets scattered throughout our city. It is within these pockets of vulnerability that children and families lack adequate resources to meet basic and essential needs, and violence becomes common.

The Bee recommends a yes vote on Measure P

What does this have to do with investing more into parks? An investment in parks is a pivot toward a more holistic and healthier Fresno. Not only do parks provide families and community residents a free space to interact and partake in healthy activities, parks are an invaluable asset to strategists who are engaged in public safety work. In Los Angeles, city leaders came together and launched a program called Summer Night Lights. The program extended local park hours into the late evening and hosted community events. Community-based organizations partnered with the police department and employed those who were deemed to be most likely to be involved in violent crimes. The goal of the program was to reduce violent crimes during the summer, when crime rates normally rise. The program has been a huge success and has contributed to a 43% decline in criminal gang activity during summer.

This is what Fresno needs, and great city organizers, such as pastor Joel “Joby” Jones and Aaron Foster, who have done immeasurable work in reducing violence, can leverage these amenities, not only to prevent violence, but also to improve the quality of life in our city’s most vulnerable population. Fresno should not be divided between prioritizing public health and public safety, because they are two sides of the same coin. An investment in parks is an investment in public health, and an investment in public health is an investment in public safety.