Assignment Task:
I had the opportunity to work with Philadelphia's Fairmount Park Conservancy on a major park renovation this year. I wasn't previously aware of their role as a nonprofit or how they fit into the public sphere. This organization is somewhat unique in its origin, as it began as a public-run commission in 1867 to purchase land. The commission grew to manage over 8,000 acres of public parkland, until it shifted to a nonprofit so that it could include more private investments in the city's parks. The organization's mission is as follows: "Fairmount Park Conservancy brings parks to life. We work with the City of Philadelphia and its communities to steward our parks and nurture our shared environment, cultural resources and public health." The Fairmount Park Conservancy's origin as a public organization and over-150-year legacy provides strong legitimacy. This increased legitimacy is largely because the City of Philadelphia is responsible for representing constituent interests. The organization is careful to explain their detailed history in all reports, press coverage, and even showcase it on the homepage of their website. The above mission statement directly explains that the nonprofit is designed to operate jointly with the City of Philadelphia. Building this association in the public eye is important. To do this, Philadelphia's Parks and Recreation Department is listed on their website as a core partner, and several joint projects are described. Many of these projects are public-facing and recognizable to Philadelphians - such as the recent improvements at FDR Park - which also helps to grow legitimacy within the community. In few sentences what is your opinion on this argument?