What is wrong with this picture?

Imagine two city-owned parcels of land side-by-side. One is impermeable asphalt, useful only for parking a car. The other is a verdant lawn, suitable for a host of healthy, recreational activities.

Which one should the city charge residents to use? Which one does the city charge residents to use?

The parcels in question are the Crystal Lake parking lot and the recently acquired picnic area next to it. It's free to park your car, but you have to pay to use the lawn.

Baffling policy.