pf_03625 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

The Town of Middletown town supported a acres of land on Island. As of 1 of 19,460 residents and 7,104 housing units, representing a of 13 and housing of 9.6 percent (Rhode Island Economic Development Corporation, Since of new housing units has continued at a rapid pace, with 471 building permits issued 1990-1997 Island Builders Association and US Census Bureau), Aquidneck Island Geographic Infom1ation data for Middletown shows that at least 33 percent of the town is developed for residential uses, compared to less than 25 in agricultural use and 9 percent in forest/brush land (AIGIS 1997). Recent subdivisions have further increased the amount of low- to mid-density residential "sprawl." Along with this increase in residential housing has come a decrease in the amenities of fam1, forest and open space land valued by local residents and visitors, and an increase in traffic and congestion (Johnston 1997). Although significant areas of Middletown retain the diverse, semi-agricultural character of a small New England coastal community, this character is threatened by ongoing residential development of remaining undeveloped open space and agricultural land. Costs and Benefits of Residential Development vs. Open Space Preservation In response to these changes, concerned citizens, businesses, non-profit organizations and the town government of Middletown have taken significant steps to preserve undeveloped land uses (Sweeney 1998; Ruggieri 1997a, b; O'Brien 1997a, b; Ottaviano 1997), Despite the many economic, ecological and other benefits that such actions provide to local residents (Johnston 1997), taxpayers occasionally question the fiscal impacts of policies which limit development. Taxpayer concern is often reflected in two common, yet generally false claims: False Claim #1 : Residential subdivisions and sprawl development will lower property taxes increasing the tax base. False Claim #2: Open space, including public parks, open fields, and productive forests and farn11and are costly to local towns and lead to higher property taxes, Illustrating the false and misleading nature of these claims, dozens of Cost Services studies have demonstrated that residential land does not generate sufticient revenues to support its expenses, leading to a net fiscal loss for local communities. Open space, forests and fannland generate revenues in excess of their expenses, leading to a net fiscal benefit for local communities (Johnston 1997), Although residential development expands the gross tax base, tax revenue increases are almost always negated by even larger increases in the costs of public education (schools, libraries), public services (fire, police, snow plowing), and infrastructure (sewer, roads) generated by new housing. 3