My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2005-04-06 P & R Packet
Centerville
>
Committees
>
Parks & Rec.
>
Agenda Packets
>
1997-2022
>
2005
>
2005-04-06 P & R Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/3/2007 1:14:02 PM
Creation date
4/3/2007 1:13:16 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
86
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
<br />These rents account for 7.2:t of total property value at 100 feet from the Park, 1.9% at 1,000 feet, and <br />0.97. at 2.500 feet. At 100 feet from the Park property values averaged $17,222 and at 2.500 feet <br />they averaged $15,333. about a $2.000 difference. So. while the average increase to property values <br />was not outstanding, in aggregate it raised the surrounding land values over four and one half mi11100 <br />d'oltars. This results in higher taX revenues for the city and these should more than help cover the <br />costs of the Park. <br /> <br />While not within the scope of the study, the writers recognize that the public benefits resulting from <br />Pennypack Park are SUbstantially greater than those captured by nearby properties as location rent <br />and property value increases. Many of the people who use the Park come from beyond 2,500 feet from <br />the Park. Many use the park for hiking, picnicking, fishing, etc.. while others simply enjoy' its <br />natural scenery. They and that the Park generates significant e~(Hogical values. especially water <br />resources preservation. which is enjoyed Widely throughout the region. <br /> <br />Another source of evidence to support the case that parkS increase adjacent property values is "The <br />Economic Benefits Generated for the East Bay Community by its Regional Park System: A Report to <br />the East Bay Regional Park District." This study was conducted' by Steven E. Spickard from the <br />Department of City and Regional Planning at the University of California, Berkeley, in 1978. <br /> <br />This report looked at two areas of economic benefit derived from 'parks: primary "direct user <br />benefits and funds generated from user fees and other spending; and secondary "local impaCt" <br />benefits that included impacts on property values. <br /> <br />The report states that in a rational real estate market. the value of amenities gainet! by close <br />proximity (e.g.~ views. fresher air. and access to recreation and open space) will be reflected in the <br />price of location. These benefits are "capitalized" into higher property val ues. The general <br />conclusion is that the increment in residential property value attdbuted to park-reiated amenities <br />will decrease as the distance from the part increases. <br /> <br />While this study basically agrees with the location rent curve of the Pennypack Park study. it goes <br />further by accounting for the detrimental effects of parks on property value due to noise. congestion. <br />and increased risk of vandalism; (see figures 1 and 2) <br /> <br />To calculate park: effects on new residential developme!lts the authors provide an equation as "follows: <br />Vi - f(Pi. Hi. Ni. Ei. ei), where Vi - the value oC-The ith property. Pi - several variables which <br />describe the relationship of the property to the nearest park, Hi- variables describing the size and <br />quality of the property (both land and improvements). Ni- variables characterizing the neighborhood <br />environment, Ei- variables Characterizing the local economic environment, and ei- an error term. <br /> <br />Another source of evidence is a study done by Kitchen and Hendon in 1967 where the authors <br />analyzed a small urban park situated in a homogeneOus. singl~family. residential area of Lubbock. <br />Texas. Obse1'Ving resale values recorded by the county assessor they conclud~ that land values did <br />decline with distance from the park within a two and one half block ring around the park. <br /> <br />Another report by Darling in .1973 of Lake Merritt in Oakland. California found increases in <br />property values within a 3.000 foot radius of the shoreline. A study by Lyon in 1972 found that <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.