By Kate Callen and Paul Krueger / OpEd San Diego Union-Tribune / March 15, 2026
In 1926, the city of San Diego embraced a farsighted plan by landscape architect John Nolen to preserve Balboa Park as what he called “one of the most strikingly beautiful parks in the world.”
Exactly 100 years later, the mayor and six City Council Members looked at Balboa Park and saw a source of ready cash to help fill a budget deficit.
The decision to monetize San Diego’s “crown jewel” by charging visitors to park there was arguably the City’s biggest political blunder in recent history. The mayor and the council didn’t anticipate how fiercely San Diegans would fight to protect their jewel.
That miscalculation could secure Balboa Park’s future if it galvanizes citizens to demand a new public-private governance structure. And a commissioned 2020 report that was never publicly circulated offers encouragement for doing just that.
The dire effects of paid parking – fewer visitors, declining revenues, staff layoffs – have worsened a problem with deep roots.
For decades, City Hall has put the Park on a starvation diet. San Diegans kept hearing about master plan updates that would make the Park more vibrant. But then we kept seeing the Park decline as those plans were relegated to file cabinets. The result has been filthy restrooms, rundown buildings, and wilting greenery.
Those same concerns prompted New Yorkers to launch the Central Park Conservancy in 1980. That flagship is the model of successful park stewardship built on citizen engagement and philanthropic support. It has been successfully adopted by Atlanta, New Orleans, St. Louis, and other cities.
In a January 17 letter to the Union-Tribune, James Ziegler wrote, “It’s time for the city to support an effective public-private partnership governing Balboa Park [which] already has the basics in place with an endowment and the Forever Balboa Park nonprofit conservancy.”
In fact, that idea was formally proposed following a 2019 national initiative by the Central Park Conservancy’s Partnerships Lab. San Diego was among eight U.S. cities chosen to receive $25,000 grants accompanied with what the Union-Tribune described as “six to 12 months of guidance … on how to plan, develop and maintain hallmark public spaces.”
A year later, the Partnerships Lab published a 17-page report for San Diego, “Recommendations for Balboa Park Conservancy,” with steps for moving Balboa Park from inflexible city oversight to dynamic management by a public-private enterprise.
“Many public and nonprofit park partnerships have emerged in cities during previous economic crises and have dramatically transformed and renewed parks—and Balboa Park has a similar opportunity,” the report states. “A focused, unified and multi-faceted public/private partnership … is often a key component for long-term sustainability.”
The report’s first recommendation was carried out when two park advocacy groups merged in 2021 to form Forever Balboa Park. That consortium has begun transforming the Park with projects like the revitalized Botanical Building made possible by philanthropic gifts.
Private support is crucial. Donors will not contribute if they think their money might be siphoned off by City Hall. Only an independent conservancy can earn their trust by establishing a firewall. This may be the strongest argument for new Park governance in San Diego.
The report noted that a high-level agreement for capital improvements initially promised in 2009 “was never completed … and is a crucial missing step.” And it suggested that the County and City parks systems consider a merger “to form a parks district for joint funding, management, and usage.”
The real tragedy is that the people of San Diego have taken too passive a role in safeguarding Balboa Park. We’ve waited for someone else – elected officials, civic leaders, advocates – to step up and challenge the dysfunctional status quo. That will never happen.
Some think a ballot measure to eliminate the parking fees is the solution. It isn’t. The restoration of free parking won’t cure what is a systemic ailment. City Hall will still control Balboa Park’s budget — and its future. It can continue to underfund the Park, and it can devise new schemes to wring money out of it.
On Saturday, March 28, the San Diego Community Coalition and Neighbors for a Better San Diego will co-host “The Future of Balboa Park: A Community Conversation.” This is an important step toward empowering San Diegans, the Park’s real stakeholders, to explore how they might protect Balboa Park by restructuring its governance.
The forum will be held at the Mission Valley Library from 9:30 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. A summary report with follow-up “next steps” will be published.
[Address of the library is 2123 Fenton Pkwy, San Diego, CA 92108]
Seems to me like a good idea. The city government just isn’t a reliable partner or administrative supervisor. Maybe include all city parks? But tax-based funding would need to be separated from city control to make it work.
If it does work out maybe it could replace City Hall entirely.
Now there’s a thought… Replace City Hall completely!
Kate and Paul,
Thank you for what sounds like a solution. You are right in saying that City Hall would still be holding keys to maintain the park if we only pass a “free parking forever” initiative.
This seems like a good idea and worth exploring with intention. We’ve long been concerned with the decline of Balboa Park–it became obvious right after Jacob’s Folly fell apart. Many of us fought that misguided change in the park that failed to address the ongoing maintenance needs.
BUT ONE MUST ASK–WHO ON THIS GRFEN PLANET THOUGH OF HAVING THE MEETING ON MARCH 28–MOST OF US WILL BE OUT DEMONSTRATING ON “NO KINGS DAY” AND AT THIS POINT IN HISTORY THAT IS EVEN MORE IMPORTANT THAN FIGHTING FOR THE PARK.
Jay, this will be the first of a series of community forums about the Park’s future. We’re asking people who can’t attend to send written comments to me (kate@katecallen.com) about how they envision the future of Balboa Park. Written comments and in-person forum comments will be incorporated into a Rag news story and then a fuller summary report. So please write, and urge people you know who care about the Park to write.
Kate, thanks for writing about things we need to be aware of and might not otherwise find out about. There are so many national snafus these days the local ones don’t always get the attention they deserve.
Thanks Kate–sometimes I just let off steam a little too early. If I can articulate my thoughts on the future of Balboa Park I will email you. However, I do agree with most of the comments and your writings. Enough to say I am in favor of ongoing maintenance for the park, I am strongly in favor of keeping the general architectural integrity of the park for any changes and for doing what we can to keep it accessible to all.
Excellent piece Kate and Paul. This sounds like a great idea to me.
Agree with Jay Coffman.
It’s just wrong to schedule a conflicting meeting with the No Kings demonstration.
Kate – in future pieces on Balboa Park and this proposal, could you outline a bit more what the differences are between our current models and the proposed public-private model? I agree that it’s likely the right solution, but I’m immediately curious about:
– the fiscal model: the central park conservancy is an independent 501(c)3, much like Forever Balboa Park – in your conception, is FBP the correct leader for this partnership? Would it subsume the Balboa Park Cultural Partnership and the Balboa Park Online Collaborative?
– statutory changes: would the city council need to pass policy to cede their current level of control over the park? what would that look like?
– opportunities presented: what is currently missing from FBP’s abilities to fundraise outside of the city? their current model certainly allows for engagement at the county and state levels
At the base level, what is the primary change you’d see in moving from the status quo to the proposed governance model?
Municipal politics, for all its faults, still allows the average person to cast a vote to support or oppose leaders – nonprofits, for all their strengths, still allow insular pay-to-play boards to dictate the direction of an organization. You all know how this city works – what are the odds that a private FPB, taking on full management of the park, wouldn’t have the exact same group of political heavy-hitters serving on the board as everywhere else in this giant city with a small-town political class? At least when they run for office you have a say in removing them – nonprofit boards are a lot harder for members of the public to engage with, let alone influence.
KB, we need to figure out those things collectively, as other cities (New Orleans, St. Louis) have done in successfully adopting the Central Park model. As the op-ed notes, San Diego received a $25K grant in 2019 to study how we might do that. A report was issued in 2020. And it was never circulated. So you’re right — this won’t be easy.
But public furor over parking fees has now awakened a sleeping giant. This is the time to begin work (again) on hammering out the details for a public-private partnership to manage Balboa Park. We can try our best to do that. Or we can keep living with the deplorable status quo.