The Painted Desert in Arizona won’t be renamed the Sherwin Williams Painted Desert anytime soon. But many other things will be up for grabs when the National Park Service begins to look for naming rights for many parts of its facilities.
The Washington Post this week published a story about this development. Hard up for money because of flat funding from Congress and an $11 billion backlog in maintenance, agency director Jonathan Jarvis wants to expand allowances for corporate sponsorships and other fundraising. Jarvis issued a 33-page proposal that’s expected to take effect by year’s end.
The Post explained some of the details on what’s allowed and what’s not with Jarvis’ plan:
The Park Service still won’t recognize donors with advertising or marketing slogans. But for the first time, their logos will get prominent display. Companies will be able to earmark gifts for recurring park expenses, which was prohibited before. And a company in litigation with the Interior Department, the Park Service’s parent agency, could now donate as long as the dispute does not involve a national park.
Bricks or paving stones on the steps to a visitor center, video screens inside, educational, interpretive, research, recreation and youth programs, positions or endowments — these also will get naming rights, according to the proposed policy. There could be walls in visitor centers dedicated to donors, or digital ones, as fundraising is beefed up through crowdsourcing and other online strategies to reach the public.
And a donor will now be allowed to design and build a park building and even operate it long term.
So there’s no imminent danger of Coconino National Forest near Flagstaff, Arizona, being renamed Home Depot Coconino National Forest. Nor will the newly christened Mojave Trails National Monument in California become Jeep Wrangler Mojave Trails National Monument. But many other things in national parks seem to be fair game.
Park advocates fear a proliferation of ads or logos that would make parks resemble more like NASCAR racing teams. And the concern about corporations that give tens of millions of dollars influencing National Park Service policy seems to be somewhat justified, given the long history of such shenanigans in Washington.
But in the age of social media, I suspect the National Park Service and prospective corporate sponsors will tread delicately. Inadvertently defacing a revered section of a national park is a public-relations disaster no one would want.
So perhaps Jarvis should be praised for trying to improve what the National Park Service has to offer. Corporate sponsorships are found all over the St. Louis Zoo, for example, but you’ll find few people who think the zoo is any less terrific or well-run because of them.
(Image of the Petrified Forest National Park by Jerry and Pat Donoho via Flickr)