On May 22, the city of San Marcos erected temporary fencing around Rio Vista Park to better enforce the single-use container ban during the busy summer season. The park, long known for its natural beauty and accessibility, holds historical significance for the San Marcos community.
According to city officials, the fencing is part of a “Managed Access Test Plan (MATP),” with park ambassadors stationed at gates to inform visitors of park rules. While this may be a necessary step in managing environmental and rule infractions, the city’s full enforcement efforts remain questionable.
The fencing is a response to increasing concerns about overcrowding, littering, and safety incidents during the summer months. In 2024, city staff documented 8,714 violations at city parks, including issues related to the single-use container ban, alcohol consumption and illegal parking. The city has struggled to enforce these ordinances, especially with limited staffing and resources.
In addition to the single-use container ban and fencing, the city has imposed a curfew from 11 p.m. to 6:30 a.m. on holidays, and from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. on regular weekends. Paid parking is being implemented at City Park for non-residents or unregistered vehicles. The city has also proposed charging fees to non-residents. These additions are particularly concerning, as they threaten to restrict access to a historic San Marcos site known for its openness and accessibility.
For decades, Rio Vista Park has served as a public commons enjoyed by residents and non-residents alike, with 70 percent of weekend visitors not from San Marcos, according to the San Marcos City Council. Parking and access fees are exclusionary and risk setting a precedent that access is a privilege, not a right. It also ignores non-restrictive solutions for park-rule violations.
To better address environmental and safety concerns, the city must actively invest in its ordinances. Initiatives, such as the can ban, have produced little improvement due to the lack of resources and public awareness directed to them. The city should direct more public funding and focus on education and enforcement rather than pricing out non-residents from enjoying San Marcos’ natural beauty.
The river serves as a major driver of city tourism, and the implementation of alternative measures, such as expanding the Park Ranger program, investing in river stewardship education, or partnering with student volunteers and local organizations for cleanup campaigns, would preserve access while directly addressing the core issues.
Initiatives like the MATP are not inherently harmful, but making them effective requires attention and resources that the city has not fully invested in. Conservation is important to the continued enjoyment of public waterways like the San Marcos River, but risks being needlessly punitive when enforcement-first initiatives are used rather than community engagement.
The San Marcos River is a treasure worth protecting, but it must be protected with the people in mind, not in spite of them. Fencing might provide temporary relief, but it undermines the spirit of a place that’s always been defined by its openness.
– Andrew Bencivengo is a management junior
The University Star welcomes Letters to the Editor from its readers. All submissions are reviewed and considered by the Editor in Chief and Opinions Editor for publication. Not all letters are guaranteed for publication.
