2005-04-06 P & R Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

the acummulation of past studies and their conclusions will be a required part of a developer's proposal to cities when the city decides whether to aquire park land from developments. In addition to the developer, Park &. Recreation and Planning &. Zoning Commissions, City Planners. City Managers, Public Works Departments, etc. may have to provide this information to further their causes in front of Councils that demand tighter budgets and receiptldisper~al projections for city facilities and services. We know that many parcels of land contain areas that are highly sensitive or for other reasons would be best utilized as park and open space. Yet often park land is seen only as a drain on public resources and the purely ecOlogical or social reasons for dedicating it as park land are out-weighed by a C(lundt's perceived view of the bottom line. They may see the land as a few more houses to gain taXes fromandtbe cash-in-lJeu as mOney in the pocket. Few are wlllJng to Jook for me long term financial gain park land can bestow on a municipali ty over time. Therefore, a close look at' this issue is 01 vital importancero those who advocate for part land aquisition and development. THE EVIDEN CE In Michael N. Dana's 1987 Master of SCience in Horticulture thesis titled "Horace William Shaler Cleveland: Pioneer Landscape Architect of Minnesota." Cleveland explains the increase in value that the land near New York City's Central Park generated. The following is from a report. "Suggestions for a System of Parks and Partcways fot the City of MlnneapoUs.presented to me Board of Part Commisssioners for the City of Minneapolis at a meeting ot the Baard on June 2. 1883. .The subject of pUblic improvements in theform of parks and parkways is sure in its first inception to meet withoppositiori. owing to anaturatmisconception in the minds of inexperienced persons who imagine that such improVements must necessarily involve the immediate outlay of very large sums of money. . . the repeated experiences of other cities. in this country as well as europe .. . have invariably demonstrated that. . . a Judicious expenditure for such objects is always a wise and safe investment. In the ten years succeeding the commencement of work on Central Park: in New York. the increased- valuation of taxab'le projiert}t.fn the wards immediately surrounding it was no less than $54.000,000, affording a surplus. . . sufficient. if used as a sinking fund. to pay the entire cost of the park; in less time than was required for its construction. . . The expenditures which ,but yesterday were so bitterJy denOUnced have proved the best investment that could possibly have been made. The popular idea. however. that the purchase of lands for parks and parkways involves the ne~essity of immediate large outlay for their improvement is not only erroneous, in fact. but in many cases would be inconsistant with a wise economy. . Clearly, an increase in property value of $~4,OOO,OOO in 1883 was a substantial benefit to the property owners as well as the City accounts. Even with today's inflated dollar. most cities would more than welcome the opportunity to increase tax revenues by 54 million dollars.