Parks department challenged in balancing growth, maintenance, and sustainability in Ashland’s treasured green spaces.

Park access, land acquisitions, and the maintenance gap — what’s going on.

• Neighborhood-park policy (quarter-mile goal): The city’s comprehensive planning policies call for parks to be located within a 1/4 mile of every resident — a goal the community adopted years ago to ensure easy access to green space.
  
  

• Roughly two dozen parks (and a big crown jewel): Ashland manages about 24 parks, including the nearly 100-acre Lithia Park — a central, heavily-used public space.
  
  

• Trail network is large and growing: The city and watershed together now claim over 50 miles of trails (City pages commonly list 51–53+ miles in the Ashland area and watershed). These trails are vital for recreation, tourism, and access to open space.
  
  

• The core concern — acquisitions continue while maintenance lags: Residents say the Parks Department has continued to buy land and add amenities even as routine upkeep, restroom repairs, and program staffing have slipped. That has created an obvious tension: who pays for new land if the city can’t maintain what it already owns? Local reporting and community discussions point to a growing backlog of maintenance and growing frustration from taxpayers.
  
  

• A flashpoint between policy and practice: The result is a sharp public divide. A few residents support preserving and expanding parkland; others say expansion without clear, long-term funding for maintenance is unsustainable. This gap — acquisitions vs. care — is now one of the major flashpoints in park policy debates.
  
  

What you can do:

• Publish a maintenance-funding audit: how much annual money is dedicated to upkeep vs. new acquisitions? What’s the backlog?
  
  

• Require a “care before acquisition” standard: new land should only be added when a sustainable maintenance plan and funding source are in place.
  
  

• Ask for a public map & cost tracker: show all parks, the maintenance status of each, and estimated annual upkeep costs so residents can see trade-offs.
  
  

• Insist that any capital grant proposals include a maintenance plan: grant dollars often pay to build — make sure the city has a plan to pay for operating and repairing what it builds, without imposing more fees on taxpayers.
  
  

FAQ: Balancing Park Growth and Maintenance

Why is there tension between acquiring new parkland and maintaining what we already have?
Ashland’s Parks and Recreation Department has proudly expanded the city’s park system over decades — today there are 24 parks, including the 100-acre Lithia Park, and 51 miles of trails. But expansion comes at a cost. Each new acre requires ongoing care: irrigation, mowing, tree work, restrooms, trails, and safety checks. As maintenance costs rise, residents are questioning whether it’s responsible to keep acquiring new properties while existing parks show signs of neglect.

What’s the financial tradeoff?
Every dollar spent acquiring land is a dollar not available for repairs, upgrades, or deferred maintenance. City leaders argue that strategic acquisitions preserve green space before it’s developed, but critics say this approach strains already-limited maintenance budgets and contradicts sustainability goals. The recent $5/month parks fee was meant to stabilize funding — yet cutbacks in restrooms, senior programs, and maintenance still occurred, leaving residents wondering how their tax dollars are being managed.

Why does this matter for sustainability?
Sustainability isn’t just about having more open space — it’s about caring for what we already own. Unmaintained parks can lead to higher water use, safety issues, and costly future repairs. A sustainable parks plan must match growth with realistic funding and staff capacity.

Questions Residents Can Ask at City Council or Parks Commission Meetings

• How does the city decide between acquiring new parkland and maintaining existing ones?
  
  

• What percentage of the parks budget goes to maintenance versus land acquisition?
  
  

• How is the $5/month parks fee being used, and is it reducing the maintenance backlog?

• What operations will the parks department prioritize if Food and Beverage tax revenue continues to fall.
  
  

• What’s the long-term staffing plan to ensure park safety and upkeep?
  
  

• Will the Parks Commission commit to a moratorium on new land acquisitions until maintenance goals are met?
  
  

• How will the city measure “sustainability” in park operations — and share those results publicly?
  
  

This issue isn’t about choosing sides; it’s about priorities. A sustainable Ashland means maintaining what makes the city livable — before we keep expanding it.