My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
8. SR 12-11-1995
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
City Council
>
Council Agenda Packets
>
1993 - 1999
>
1995
>
12-11-1995 SP
>
8. SR 12-11-1995
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/13/2014 9:21:51 AM
Creation date
6/3/2010 9:46:54 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
SR
date
12/11/1995
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
53
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
282 Rural by Design: Maintaining Small Town Character <br />Bay.... Tourism —which includes recreational fish- <br />ing, boating, waterfowl hunting, as well as sight- <br />seeing —will also be adversely affected. <br />If we permit what can be generally described as the <br />"quality factor" to decline, we can expect the real <br />economic value of the Chesapeake Bay to decline as <br />well. Conversely, if we improve the quality of the <br />Chesapeake Bay, we can expect that its economic <br />value will rise. <br />Air pollution reduces property values. Two <br />studies from Chicago indicate that high levels of <br />particulate contamination depress real - estate val- <br />ues (Diamond, 1980; Smith, 1978). By looking at <br />the premiums paid for homes in various locations, <br />it was found that a reduction in air pollution par- <br />ticulates of 10 ug /m3 was worth $3,000, and a pre- <br />mium of $5,000 was paid for properties in the <br />areas of lowest air pollution. <br />Air Pollution FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS, <br />The provision of greenways and greenbelts in com- OR HOW MUCH DOES SPRAWL <br />munities function in two ways to reduce air pol- COST THE TAXPAYER? <br />lution. Trees and other vegetation in greenspaces <br />possess a large capacity for removing CO2, partic- <br />ulates and other pollutants from the air. In addi- <br />tion, when nearby development is clustered (as a <br />means of creating the greenspace), and when it is <br />designed in a mixed -use manner, the resulting <br />compact development form provides the base for <br />a concentration of services, thereby reducing the <br />• number of vehicle trips per day. <br />Sprawling development negatively impacts air <br />quality because it forces residents to drive to jobs, <br />schools, and services. Because many existing zon- <br />ing codes separate residential, commercial, and <br />industrial uses, it is no longer possible to walk to <br />a corner store in most new neighborhoods. Thus, <br />we have become totally dependent upon the pri- <br />vate automobile as our primary mode of transpor- <br />tation, even for our simplest everyday needs. <br />Studies have shown that each suburban house- <br />hold generates, on average, between 10 and 12 <br />vehicle trips per day (Loudoun County Planning, <br />1990). Such numerous trips add substantially to <br />air pollution, particularly in areas already experi- <br />encing air quality problems. Under the federal <br />Clean Air Act, states are required to meet federally <br />mandated air quality standards. While significant <br />reductions in air pollution have been achieved, it <br />is clear that many areas of the United States (Cali- <br />fornia, for example) will be unable to meet air <br />quality standards without curtailing the presently <br />unrestricted use of cars in some metropolitan <br />areas (Air Review, 1986). <br />r � <br />L..J <br />Apart from the effects of parkland and green - <br />spaces on the value of surrounding property, a <br />community can determine the effect of open space <br />on the municipal coffers. This is done through a <br />process called "fiscal impact analysis," which is <br />a method of determining the costs of providing <br />public services to a municipality. The public costs <br />associated with development fall under five cat- <br />egories (The Nature Conservancy, The Hidden <br />Costs of Development): <br />• educating children; <br />• constructing and maintainin ublic facili- <br />ties, such as water and sewage acilities, solid <br />waste disposal, and parks; <br />• providing public services, such as fire and <br />.police protection, and health and welfare services; <br />• constru cting and maintaining roads and <br />Earking facilities; and <br />• administering ocal government. . <br />A number of studies have been undertaken to <br />determine the effects of various types of develop- <br />ment upon a municipality's cost outlays. These <br />studies have shown that the net public costs re- <br />sulting om low - density or "sprawl" develop - <br />n, ent are considerably greater than those resulting <br />from higher density or "cluster" development for <br />the same number of dwelling units. Put simply, it <br />costs more to run school buses and emergency ve- <br />ic es, to repair roads, and to collect garbage when <br />homes are spread out over more miles of roads <br />than when Vouses are located more closely to- <br />ret er, as in a typical nineteenth - century town. <br />23 <br />1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.