that wants to take a natural community 
of two-story houses, such as exist in many 
of our coastline areas, and which have 
water systems and sewer systems designed 
for low density, and let him come in with 
a blockbuster and put in a 25-story con- 
dominium that produces more cares, more 
sewage, and more water by a five-fold mul- 
tiple than the entire community’s prior 
development over a 40-year period, you 
create real problems. You do, indeed, 
however, help absorb the number of people 
who want to go to the coast.” 
The private sector plays an important role in 
meeting the recreational demands of the Nation. 
This demand fuels market forces that make coastal 
recreation an attractive, income-producing venture. 
By its nature, however, the private sector is disposed 
toward those with money to spend on leisure pur- 
suits. The fundamental question is whether there is 
an acceptable balance between coastal lands retained 
for use by the general public, which may have limited 
surplus income to spend on recreation, and those 
areas in private ownership that are de facto dedicated 
to the use of the more affluent public. The proximity 
of recreational opportunities to the lower income 
public must be considered in determining whether 
such a balance exists. 
A county-by-county inventory of total recreational 
resources (private and public) is required to provide 
an insight into this problem. Such information is 
not now available, but could be readily compiled 
by State recreation, planning, and coastal zone man- 
agement agencies. 
The increased demand for coastal space for pri- 
vate housing, which is further inflating prices in the 
coastal area, is driving out low- and middle-income 
families in some areas. California notes that few 
low- and moderate-income accommodations are being 
built in the coastal region. The reasons? Rising land 
prices, high construction costs, increasing property 
taxes, the relatively limited amount of land avail- 
able, and the demand for higher cost facilities. 
“Many elderly and low-income people, for example, 
can no longer afford coastal living and are forced to 
live elsewhere,’ the California coastal plan con- 
cluded.*!* In addition, the California study found 
that rental units on the coast are being converted to 
condominiums, often forcing out elderly or moderate- 
and low-income residents unable to come up with 
the required down payments. 
The California Coastal Plan recommends -a num- 
ber of policies to combat these trends, including use of 
the increased tax revenues from high-cost develop- 
ments to provide facilities, such as campsites, for 
low- and moderate-income families. 
Another aspect of the equity question is how well 
the needs of the urban poor are being met in terms 
of recreational opportunities. Congress, in increasing 
the size of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, 
directed that the Heritage Conservation and Recrea- 
tion Service emphasize urban needs in the future. 
In response to this mandate, the Service surveyed 
urban recreational needs. A draft summary released 
recently concludes that virtually all of the metropoli- 
tan areas studied had serious problems in providing 
recreation; that neighborhood facilities were the 
most desired type of recreational outlet, rather than 
larger regional, State, or Federal installations; and 
that short travel times and access by foot, bicycle, or 
public transportation were necessary for day-to-day 
use to accommodate those without automobiles. 
What the Service findings suggest is that “recrea- 
tion” has to be redefined from traditional middle- 
class precepts in order to function successfully in a 
city setting. The New Jersey State Outdoor Recrea- 
tion Plan makes the same point:*”” 
“The whim of the street is the personality 
of a city. . .Riverside Park in Manhattan is 
proof. [It]. . .is given character by the suc- 
cessive neighborhoods it flanks. The vista 
is...intriguing, yet it is easily topped in 
variety by the range of activities occurring 
—folk dancing, fishing, baseball, jogging, 
dog walking, sleeping, soccer, golf putting, 
sandboxes, sitting, sunbathing, car wash- 
ing, car wrecking, picnicking, bike riding.” 
The success of Riverside Park is ascribed to: (1) 
its multiple use as a recreational facility—there is 
something for everyone, (2) convenience and accessi- 
bility, and (3) community pride wherein neighbor- 
hoods identify with individual segments of the park 
—a sense of belonging.'*° 
A significant step in meeting the needs for urban 
recreation was taken by the National Park Service in 
establishing the Gateway Park complex in New York 
and the Golden Gate area in San Francisco. Although 
the Gateway Park has been criticized for being in- 
accessible to those without private transportation,’** 
it has been praised by others for incorporating ad- 
vanced transportation planning into recreational 
facilities.*°? 
While recreational facilities that depend on the 
automobile present problems of access for the less 
mobile, most persons clearly prefer to travel by 
private automobile even when public transportation 
is available.1*° The Recreation Access Study commis- 
118 California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission. Cali- 
fornia Coastal Plan. Sacramento, Calif., 1975, p. 152. 
119 New Jersey, op. cit. note 106, p. 146. 
120 Tbid. 
121 U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, op. cit. note 102, 
p. 179. 
122 U.S. Department of Transportation, op. cit. note 110, p. 5. 
123 Ibid. 
IV-57 
