Should Cities Operate Water Parks and Rec Centers?
Hazelwood, a suburb of St. Louis, has just opened a new water park. The Suburban Journals has the story. The park continues a long trend of municipalities operating substantial recreation centers, with swimming, exercise equipment, basketball courts, meeting rooms, indoor rinks, etc. To name just a few in the St. Louis area, there is The Heights in Richmond Heights, The Center of Clayton, The Pointe at Ballwin Commons, and so on. My family belongs to, and we frequently use, University City’s Centennial Commons. But let’s step back a moment and ask whether this is something governments should be doing.
To some extent, clearly yes. Outside of a few radical libertarians (a category that does not include me) just about everyone believes government should provide parks. Public swimming pools are an obvious part of a park system. But what about exercise equipment? Private gyms are certainly able to meet the needs of people wanting to work out, and putting together a fitness facility at one’s home is not that tough or expensive, assuming you go with a Rocky IV–style training regimen and skip the Ivan Drago excesses.
I generally believe that government should not provide services that the private sector is able to provide. Parks and swimming pools are things everyone should be able to enjoy, and not everyone can get to what the private sector provides in those areas and join a country club. But its not like these new rec facilities are free. You pay for them with your taxes, and then you pay for the membership. At least at Bally’s, you only pay for the membership. So while I will be enthusiastically using the University City fitness facility tonight, I admit I am somewhat torn about it. The private sector can, and did, give me a fine option with Wellbridge, before Centennial Commons opened. What’s worse is that the taxpayer-subsidized facilities are competing with private gyms and clubs, and that is hard to argue for. Competition is great, but not when one entity is supported by tax dollars.
These facilities are an obvious example of Tiebout’s theories of municipal competition at work, which is a good thing, albeit an expensive one. People can choose to live in a city with higher taxes that provides extra services like a recreation complex, or they can choose to live elsewhere, like unincorporated St. Louis County, which is closing some of its rec centers and pools as attendance declines — largely because cities are opening up their own new facilities as part of increased annexations.
So, like many a good blog post, this one ends with no conclusions. I do think many of the new rec centers are excessive, but I love Centennial Commons. So, hey, that’s why we have a comments section now!





In general, I am fine with small municipalities doing things like this in order to compete with each other because competition breeds efficiency. However, I would prefer that these services be provided in such a way that the private sector can compete with the publicly provided services, i.e., no monopoly privileges, tax credits, subsidies, or anything else. This guarantees that the service, in this case the water park, succumbs to the gritty sandpaper of competition.
From the perspective of a profit maximizing city owner, this may be the best way of providing these services anyway. The city owner’s main source of revenue is probably tax dollars. If the city’s provision of, say, water parks isn’t as efficient as a private provider, the provision will have to be subsidized by tax revenues in order to attract customers away from private providers. By eliminating the subsidy and ending the provision of an under-demanded service, the city has a higher profit margin.
In real life, cities aren’t managed to turn a profit, so it’s no wonder we don’t see this sort of thing happening.
Comment by Matt Simpson — July 7, 2008 @ 2:42 p.m.
Couldn’t the government provided health center be looked upon as an alternative to the government provided heart surgery due to obesity etc.? Mike Huckabee said something like, we won’t pay for the $60 walking shoes, but we will pay for the $30,000 foot amputation. (The figures may be off.) Of course, that would mean means testing and transfers of wealth from have-somes to the have-littles. It is a balancing act.
WellBridge is about $100 per month I believe. You get a lot more than equipment, like consulting, with WellBridge, from what I have heard. Clayton rec center is about $600 per year for a family, but I don’t know what kind of ‘extras’ are there if any.
Comment by skeptic — July 8, 2008 @ 10:44 a.m.