Open space is essential for any community but is the public buying land for open space a rational way to regulate development and keep growth orderly? Are there other options that work to both provide open space and distribute density? Growth equates to development, more houses, apartments, roads and traffic. Those are only some of the impacts of growth. How does more open space publicly or privately owned change that? People don’t relocate simply for more open space.
Public ownership of open space will help to limit growth and preserve agricultural land some elected officials and others claim. How exactly does that work? We, the public, buy certain lands, designate it for open space and recreation only. No one can build there so growth cannot happen. In other parts of a county or city growth continues unabated while the purchase price for land increases. The developers/builders will pass any increase onto future purchasers in higher housing costs. Perhaps that higher cost will slow growth. It certainly will further limit affordable housing and increase rental costs. Sounds like a “catch 22” more than a solution.
If a decision is made that open space will be purchased typically it is in areas zoned for or in agricultural use. This open land may currently be in private ownership. Some of it is in agricultural use but not all. Open land is not the same as usable open space.
Those of us living in the inner city or developed suburban areas should be satisfied knowing that a certain area will remain open space. How does that benefit these residents. If an area is maintained in open space where will builders/developers go or is growth stopped? It certainly would be precluded on the newly acquired open space. How will people benefit from this open space? Will it be improved with recreational amenities including restrooms? After the land purchase the maintenance and operation of any facilities will cost money. Will this open space be usable by all or great for a drive by only? Regardless how this limits growth or even provides added recreational areas escapes me.
Growth certainly has its detrimental effects on our present quality of life and quiet enjoyment. Development of large tracts of land generally in sprawling detached single family homes should be discouraged. Generally the NIMBY crowd generates significant opposition to such development as it probably should but perhaps not all. As I understand the neighbors fear the impact of increased traffic and other activity in their area. No doubt there are negative impacts but are there benefits? Large scale developments in exchange for the right to build housing and commercial uses are able to dedicate school and park sites, dedicate rights of way and build roads for example.. These dedications are in exchange for the right to build. Does this inconvenience people in the area and reduce the quiet enjoyment in their neighborhood, absolutely? Is it worse than other residential areas, or any different from how many of us comfortably live, probably not?
Our cities and counties must work together to maintain our quality of life. A regional growth/land development oversight agency can work to coordinate development countywide even where several separate legal jurisdictions exist. Our elected leaders need to “connect” and work for the betterment of our community even if only through a memorandum of understanding.
We want and need open space in our communities. What is the most efficient and effective way to reach our goal. The public acquisition of land may result in no development on the specific land but does it actually effect growth. We must understand that housing has two primary components related to growth. The economic component is as supply declines, prices on existing housing increases making affordable housing nearly nonexistent. If the solution is to build more housing then the physical component of housing kicks in. Where to build, what kind of housing and the minimization of adverse impacts. This becomes a major problem when you consider people’s opinions, decision maker motivations and the continued community quality of life.
Through our land use regulations allowing for mixed use development we can control the general location, direction and sequencing of growth. Traffic being a major impact of growth, roads can be dedicated, extended and improved as a part of most large scale developments. School and park sites can likewise be monitored to minimize overcrowding and inadequate open space. These improvements are generally required on larger scale developments presently. A regional cooperation would be necessary with cities and counties collaborating. No doubt public money and assistance will be needed including federal, state and local.
A particular concerns might be who receives the tax dollars and related revenues. Another is the NIMBY resistance created by the new residents during the continuation of an approved development. When the first home is sold or other wise occupied, the first potential objector is born. Development by right mitigates this to a great extent but planners must always remember we abide by majority rule not professional or expert opinions.
Technology can bring timing and logic to addressing growth. Cooperation of the various groups or stakeholders as we like to say is essential. The conflict is always people and obtaining agreement but even in our current somewhat convoluted universe information leads to understanding and acceptance. Very basic to our form of government is in the end we accept the approval of the informed majority. That is who we are as a nation even in land use decisions.
Phil's Personal Perspectives 