8. SR 12-11-1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

`Ru,eA-t- CHAPTER 17 /r The Economics of Preserving Open Space ELIZABETH BRABEC OVERVIEW U44 THE REAL COSTS OF ibic Within the American economy, open land is com- monly seen as an unused and wasted resource, one that will reach its full potential only if it is de- veloped and put to a "productive" use. This atti- tude is often accompanied by strong opposition to open space preservation and clustering efforts. But, as communities become increasingly devel- oped, as traffic grows heavier, and as open lands steadily dwindle away, the intrinsic values of such natural areas become more apparent to larger numbers of people. This chapter cites a growing body of evidence that open space preservation and concurrent resource conservation are both economically and socially beneficial for many communities. For example, studies have shown that clustered developments with significant open space preservation areas tend to increase local property values. Among the most common issues involving the value of open space are: • requirements for clustering development and retaining a significant percentage of open space; • requirements for public parkland setasides within PUDs and subdivision developments; • municipal budgets for the acquisition of parkland and natural areas; and • the acquisition, development, and protection of greenways through a community. SPRAWLING DEVELOPMENT Across the country, when people are asked where they would prefer to live, work, shop, and recre- ate, they invariably select communities or neigh- borhoods that have an abundance of trees, open spaces, and uncluttered pedestrian ways. These preferences translate into clear economic terms: if a community is to succeed in attracting new resi- dents and businesses, it must be concerned about its appearance, physical character, livability, and "feel." Residents should be concerned not only about the number, type, and density of new subdivi- sions, but also about the effects those developments will produce on their townscape, the surrounding rural landscape, and their local "sense of place." Although new subdivisions can be designed to pre- serve a variety of open spaces, these advantages are generally not realized, and communities typi- cally receive very conventional "cookie- cutter" lay- outs of just more houselots and more streets. After several decades of metho 'caliewing and approving scores o such subdivisions, communi- ties area le to see the negative effects and higher costs of s raw development and the con- comitant loss o o en space. These costs may be grouped into two types, those felt by the commu- nity a-s a whole, and those accruing to the local gov- ernment (often termed "fiscal impacts "). 280