Financing for the Future: The Economic Benefits of Parks and Open Space.

• Author: Kelly, Margaret C. H.
• Position: Statistical Data Included

State and local governments are investing in parks and open space not only for the traditional reasons of protecting their environment and providing recreational opportunities, but also because it makes good economic sense--saving taxpayer dollars, attracting investment, rejuvenating cities, and boosting tourism, to name a few benefits.

This article is based on a 1999 Trust for Public Land report entitled. The Economic Benefits of Parks and Open Space. The full report is available at www.tpl.org.

In the past several years local, county, and state election results have clearly demonstrated that protecting open space is an issue of growing importance to American voters. In fact, voters will not only support land conservation initiatives, they also will authorize public funds to pay for such efforts.

The election returns speak for themselves. In 1999, 102 referenda to commit public funds to protect open space were placed before voters in 22 states. Ninety percent (92 referenda) passed, generating more than $1.8 billion in open space acquisition funds. [1] Voters accomplished this by authorizing new property taxes, sales taxes, real estate excise taxes, and general obligation bonds to protect special or unique landscapes.

These statistics, however, tell only part of the story. State and local governments across the United States also launched open-space initiatives that did not require referenda. For example, Illinois Governor George Ryan signed a bill that gave communities $160 million to buy open space and Montgomery County, Maryland, announced a $100 million program to fund open space. [2]

Development of open space is hardly a new phenomenon; however, it has experienced a renaissance of extraordinary scale in the post-World-War-II era. During this period, there has been a trend away from older communities and a demand by the middle class for newer, single-use housing on individual lots. While open space everywhere is being converted to other' uses, fast-growing corridors clustered near metropolitan areas perhaps have seen the most pressure for housing and other development. For example, total population of the biggest cities in the United States' 39 largest metropolitan areas has grown by one million over the past 20 years. During this same period, however, total suburban population of these 39 metropolitan areas has grown by 30 million. [3]

These new tracts of suburbia and industry arrive mostly at the expense of an ever-shrinking reserve of public and private open space. Currently, the United States has 400 million acres of land in agricultural production--20 percent of the total land base. Likewise, 600 million acres--30 percent of the United States--is comprised of forests and wetlands. [4] These figures represent significant acreage, but they are dwindling at a rapid and steady pace. According to the American Farmland Trust, between 1982 and 1992, 400,000 acres of prime agricultural land were lost to urban and suburban development. On average, this works out to 45.7 acres per day. [5]

The pressure on open space is unprecedented and apparent to a general public that for more than a century has been reluctant to abandon the pioneer-era mentality that American resources are boundless and inexhaustible. The recent groundswell of public opinion that has moved local, regional, and state governments to action on behalf of remaining open space is fueled by the public's desire to have a say in the rate and location of future development.

Arguments for Open Space

Each community, county, or state has its own reason or reasons for deciding to fund open space acquisition or enhance existing open, but unproductive, space (e.g., brownfields). Several of these reasons are discussed in more detail below.

The Costs of New Development Often Exceed Local Tax Revenues. Community leaders generally expect that taxes generated by local growth will pay for the increased costs of development, but in many instances this is not the case. A 1998 study by the Trust for Public Land (TPL) examined the relationship between land conservation and property taxes in Massachusetts. The study found that in the short term, property taxes generally rose after a land conservation project. In the longer term, however, those Massachusetts towns with the most protected land enjoyed, on average, the lowest property tax rates. [6] It is entirely possible for the longer-term costs of development--roads, schools, sewer and water infrastructure, fire and police service--to exceed the revenues from increased property taxes.

The conclusions drawn in the TPL Massachusetts study have been replicated in other parts of the country, as well. In Louden County, Virginia, (the fastest growing county in the Washington, D.C., area) the costs to service 1,000 new...