From yesterday's News-Gazette:
A new task force will explore over the next several months whether Champaign, Urbana and Savoy should require subdivision developers to provide land or cash for future parks.
The task force will also explore other ways park districts could acquire property in growth areas.
The creation of the nine-member task force comes some two years after the Champaign Park District board first asked the city council, in December 2005, to consider requiring land or cash donations from subdivision developers. During the interim, park district and city staff members put together a 52-page report detailing "issues and needs" for providing parks, trails and open space in new subdivisions.
We've discussed this before. Philosophically, I don't care for requiring land donation, but as a practical matter, it doesn't really bother me, as it would negotiated with developers as part of pre-annexation agreements.
I don't like this idea of relying on figures from the National Parks and Recreation Association, though, to determine how much green space a community should have per capita. From the earlier post:
Champaign Park District Executive Director Bobbie Herakovich said the National Park and Recreation Association recommends that cities have at least 10 acres of park land per 1,000 residents.
They are hardly a fair source, and while I know people are loath to question the motives of the good people who run our parks, this organization's function is explicitly to advocate for more parks and greenspace. Using their figures for a discussion like this is like basing the government's dietary recommendations for meat consumption on a standard set by the National Cattlemen's Beef Association.
I have no problem with developers being required to design 'set asides' for both parks and schools. We have a history of doing just this type of 'set asides' for hundreds of years in the country. It has worked very well.
Criteria to be used for the park area 'set asides' should have a basis on local needs, developed by the Park District with City approval. Criteria to be used fo the school 'set asides' should also be based upon need, developed and approved by the elected School Boards.
They are hardly a fair source, and while I know people are loath to question the motives of the good people who run our parks, this organization's function is explicitly to advocate for more parks and greenspace. Using their figures for a discussion like this is like basing the government's dietary recommendations for meat consumption on a standard set by the National Cattlemen's Beef Association.
That is awesome, IP, and I completely agree. We get the same kind of stuff from the library people.
Donation means gift. If it is tied to a contract such as a pre-annexation agreement is is a cost, a fee.
It is confiscation. Maybe you think the big developers can afford it, but don't think for a second that they will just eat the cost. The big developers can always "afford" it, because they don't pay it. It is passed on.
If the school district wants land, or if the park district wants land, they should do what everyone else does: buy it.
This is just a task force to see how to shift the cost from the obvious to the not-so-obvious. It is not in any sense of the word a "donation". It is, in a much greater sense, "From those who can afford it to those who cannot afford it". Adam Smith? No. John Maynard Keynes? No. Karl Marx? Yes.
Could it all be part of that sinister plot to stop all development on the edges of town, while increasing the population density of the urban core? What does a developer of a 500 unit complex downtown have to provide to the park district or school district? Heck, they apparently don't even have to provide enough parking for the residents.
I don't think it's an effort to stop all development on the edges of town, I think it's a sinister plot to stop low-end development on the edges of town. If the price of land on the edges of town is too cheap, then more undesirable people will be able to afford to live there. By forcing each development to include a huge park and vacant lot for a school, you drive up the cost per lot on the edge of town.
Good. The last thing this town needs is more crappy little subdivisions on the edge of town. How has this benefited the community beyond increasing traffic and property taxes?
It hasn't benefited "the community", but it has given poor people a nice place to live. But I guess the liberals in the area would rather have vacant lots than poor people living near them.
I' m curious--what subdivisions on the edge of town would you describe as crappy? Most of the subdivisions going up on the outskirts of town are anything but crappy--maybe a nuisance in terms of the traffic, etc that they generate.
where could you put a new subdivision that wouldn't create some traffic? I would argue that spreading them around the outskirts is better than trying to jam all those new people into the middle of town. If you are going to have population growth, you are going to get more cars.
If you are going to have population growth, you are going to get more cars.
I wasn't aware that Champaign had experienced much population growth. Check the statistics. Most homes purchased in the new subdivisions in west Champaign are populated with current residents moving to bigger homes.
That really increases the developer's year 0 expenditures and depresses returns. Yet parks generate a perpetual flow of benefits. I'd be more in favor of costs occuring at same time as benefits. In other words, better for the city to decide how much land needs to be *purchased* for parks, for them to make the purchase, and for them to collect taxes to offset the benefits which flow to the residents.
I'm getting tired of hearing about cities trying to get other people to do their work for them. Roll up your sleeves, a-holes, and build and maintain parks, roads, and so forth. That's what we're paying you for!
Unless, of course, the city is offering to dissolve itself as part of the deal, as in, here are the rules and now we can cease to exist because the developers have to do everything that we customarily do.
Per wiki:
All the Anonymous posters are a bit tiring especially if they post things like "Check the statistics". If you want to remain anonymous fine but at least give a reference, site or link to back up your comment once in a while.