GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL OF PARKS 467 



tions of the city. The first bill that was passed by the state legislature 

 providing for the first independent park district (now included in the South 

 Park District) was defeated when submitted to a vote of the people of the 

 "towns" of South Chicago, Hyde Park and Lake (1868). The bill that 

 resulted in the establishment of the West Park District was originally drafted 

 to provide a system of parks and boulevards throughout the entire city. 

 Because representatives from the south and north sides of the city had 

 arranged at the same session of the legislature for the passage of bills to 

 establish systems in those sections of the city, the proponents of the city 

 wide bill limited the bill to include only the west side. Thus in 1869 the 

 process of the division of the area of Chicago began. In 1895 a general 

 enabling act was passed under which many additional independent park 

 districts were established. The net result of all this legislation is that within 

 the limits of the city of Chicago there are three large independent and 

 sixteen small independent park districts (1926), and yet some sections of 

 the city are without park and recreation service except that which may be 

 provided by the city wide Bureau of Parks, Playgrounds and Bathing 

 Beaches of the municipal Department of Public Works and the Recreation 

 Bureau of the public schools. 



Much noteworthy achievement along park and recreation lines in 

 Chicago is recognized under the present system of administration. Never- 

 theless such a plan of operation is liable to involve unequal distribution of 

 financial resources and of recreation areas in relation to the distribution of 

 population, inequalities in efficiency of administrative service and diffi- 

 culties in projecting and putting into execution comprehensive city wide 

 park and recreation plans. 



Another example of a city whose park administration is of historical 

 and political origin is New York City, whose division of park districts corre- 

 sponds to the old borough divisions. Each of the five systems of the city 

 is under a single appointed commissioner whose tenure of office is subject 

 to political changes in the head of the municipal government. These five 

 commissioners constitute a general park board or commission, but the 

 board has no administrative functions. 



The argument has sometimes been advanced that in very large cities 

 the administrative problems of a highly developed centralized park system 

 may become too complex and burdensome to be handled from a central 

 office under a centralized authority. In view of the fact that other large 

 public services, notably the public schools, are handled effectively on a 

 city wide basis under a central authority, it would appear that this argu- 

 ment has little to commend it. By proper division of the whole area of 

 any city into functional districts there appears no good reason why a cen- 



