Advocacy Project: Issue Overview

The issue I chose for this project is to improve health, fitness, and quality of life through daily physical activity. The related bill is SF2028, Parks and trails funding eligibility requirements and parks fund appropriations priorities establishment. It mainly talks about trying to increase public access to parks and outdoor recreation, and also funding for more places to be physically active outside.

Who is affected by this issue?

I believe the younger population and also the lower class will be most affected by this issue in a positive way. Since public exercise facilities such as Lifetime, or the YMCA can be costly and unaffordable for many, having more places to be physically active outside will promote this issue. Also it is important for children to grow up being physically active, so providing more parks for them will impact their lives. So children and the lower class will gain the most out of this issue. People who may be negatively impacted are the taxpayers. Taxes may need to increase to help fund these outdoor areas.

What are the consequences?

As a result of this issue, children and the lower class population will have more opportunities to be physically active which will impact their health in a positive way. Children will grow up with a habit of playing outside rather than sitting inside and watching TV all day. The lower class population will also be able to enjoy physical activity, and it will help prevent obesity which will also prevent chronic illness as well. Families would have an overall higher quality of life because of healthier siblings and parents. If all families engaged in some kind of physical activity every day, the society as a whole would become much healthier, and chronic disease would be at minimum.

What is the economic impact?

Like I mentioned earlier, the tax payers may be affected by this issue if no grants or other funds are offered by the government. It will cost a good amount of money for land space, and proper resources. Also health insurance agencies may be impacted as well because if more people are physically active, people will be getting sick much less often. On the other hand, people using these parks and public services will economically benefit the most because they will not have to pay expensive fees to use these facilities. Also, they will be bettering their physical health which will help prevent future illness. This, in turn, will result in less visits to the hospital and drastically lower medical costs.

What is the social impact?

This issue will have a huge social impact on individuals and communities. More outdoor parks will allow individuals, and families to come together and enjoy being outside and be physically active at the same time. Children will get to play with one another, and parents/guardians will be able to meet and socialize as well. Public places such as these will bring communities together, and also allow communities to host certain events free of charge.

What are the barriers?

There are a few barriers that come with this issue. First off, if taxes are raised, this will impact the lower class. Even if it is benefiting them, I think people with less money are more concerned about house payments, food, and other essentials, and not recreational parks. Another barrier is park location. Many people are limited in transportation, so even if there are parks available, some may not be able to get to them. The final barrier is cost. The bill talked about how some parks may have a fee to get in. The point of the fee is not for profit, but to maintain the park and self-sustain it.

What are the resources?

Money is the biggest resource that comes to mind with this issue. Someone will have to pay for these public services so money will be a big issue. Also the government and/or tax payers will be needed to help with funding as well. If communities want these parks but do not wish to pay for them, they will need to advocate for them to the decision-makers of their state. Along with these resources, other resources will be needed to actually build the parks and design them as well.

Who are the allies and opponents?

This one is kind of tricky because the people who are potentially for this issue may also be against it whether or not the money is coming out of their pockets. Therefore the allies for this issue could be parents, schools, health organizations, and people of lower socioeconomic status. However, they could also oppose this issue if they find out that taxes will be raised in order to build more parks around their communities. People who would oppose this issue could be public health facilities (Lifetime, YMCA, etc...) because having more access to free/low-cost parks would impact their profits negatively. Also the government and other decision-makers may oppose because it may ask for a large sum of grants and/or money, which they feel is not an important enough issue.

My recommendation

I would like my policy-maker to vote "YES" on this issue because physical activity is very important to me and I would like people to have more opportunities to be physically active regardless of location, money, and other barriers!

If you notice, I didn't have information on the history of my topic. I couldn't really find any information on the history of parks and physical fitness so if anyone knows where I could find some information, or has any other ideas, that would be AWESOME! Thanks guys =D