HomeMy WebLinkAboutOther - Attached provided during Public Input by Mr. Don Morrison Date: June 14, 2010
The attached was provided to the City during
"Public Input" by Mr. Don Morrison at the June
14, 2010 City Commission Regular Meeting.
THE PROXIMATE PRINCIPLE:
The Impact of Parks, Open Space and Water Features on
Residential Property Values and the Property Tax Base
by
John L. Crompton
Distinguished Professor
Texas A &M University
Second edition
I ubtislted by the National Recreation and Park Association
22377 Belmont Ridge Road
Ashburn, Virginia 20148
Phone: 703- 858 -2190
02
�004 National Recreation and Park Association
ISBN 0- 9758926 -2 -2
24 (lip. lwpmt of Parks and ()pen Spare on Proper» A'aura
will be lower than in areas with littl • private proximate populations. In such cases, it is un-
s... ce because privately owned yard ace may likely they will add much if any, proximate
act -s a partial substitute for public •ark space. value.
"Res'dents with extensive yards ill have less There are contexts in which parks exert a
need • a park within walkin• distance, be- negative impact on property values. A useful
cause th • activities that a ne' hborhood park analogy is with a well- groomed front lawn
provides on be more easily ,ccommodated on which is likely to increase the value of a home,
their privat property" (. 96). This maxim but if it is overgrown with weeds and littered
was confirm-. by a co .rehensible and tech- with trash then the property value is likely to
nically sound udy un',ertaken in the Dallas- be diminished. Adverse impacts may result
Fort Worth area i in i ata from 3,200 resides- from nuisances such as:
tial sales to meas. = the impact of neighbor-
hood parks on pro. -rty values. The sample • congestion
was split into ha e, based on lot sizes. The • street parking
proximity pren m a 100 feet for the half • litter and vandalism that may occur due
containing the mallest t areas as a percent- to an influx of people coming into a
age of total try nsaction va e was 18.8 %, while neighborhood to use a park
for the half omprised of 'e largest lot areas • noise and ballfield lights intruding into
it was 9.. Io. Further an Inc ease in park size adjacent residences
of one re was associated ith home prices • poorly maintained, or blighted derelict
that w e 6,7% higher for s 111 parcels, but facilities
only .65% higher for larger p. reels. From a • groups congregating in a park engaging
dev loper's perspective, this ggests that in morally offensive activities.
si • ce small lots create a higher • emium for
'.roximity to a park, all else equal t -y should Some of these negatives were articulated in a
be clustered around the park and 1., er lots landmark court case, City of College Station
located elsewhere in a development. vs Turtle Rock Corp. 666 S.W.2d 318 (7X
1984). The case concerned the legality of a
jurisdiction using its police powers to impose
Potentially Negative Influences of Parks exactions for parks on developers. In this inter -
on Property Values mediate level appellate court decision, the
court concluded:
Some parks and open spaces are more de-
sirable than others as places to live nearby. A required dedication of land for
For example, there is convincing evidence that streets and waterworks clearly "bears
large flat open spaces which are used primarily a substantial relation to the safety and
for athletic activities and large social gather- health of the community" while a re-
ings, are much less preferred then natural areas quired dedication for park land does
containing woods, hills, ponds or marsh. Be- not. In reference to this holding, we
cause demographics, lifestyles and interests note that parks are not necessarily
change, some parks and open spaces which beneficial to a community or neigh -
were valuable assets are now of the wrong borhood. Unfortunately, in some
kind in the wrong place at the wrong time. neighborhoods, parks serve as gather -
Their value was in another era and no longer ing places for derelicts and criminals,
fits into the lifestyles and preferences of their and are unsafe for use by law abiding
•
f t,131,:ti1 „C . CHAPTER t 25
t cit izens. We disagree with Appelant's away in the parks' service areas increase in
s ugg e stion that neighborhood parks value has been consistently verified in subse-
necessarily benefit the general public. quent studies. These are reviewed in Chapters
t
2 and 3.
While most reasonable people would not
Two court eases in the 1990s illustrated
accept this iew as an accurate representation the continuing contemporary concern about the
of most parks in most communities, (and sub potential negat i mpacts of som park In
,rdrre.ratl } it was rejected b the Texas Supreme
Mill, Virginia, neighbors sued the Fairfax
Court 68 ,5 w'. 2nd 802), unfortunately it does s 1 County Park Authority, challenging the au-
thority' Mans to install lights at a youth base -
accurately describe the status of some parks y
especially in some major cities. In a classic bull complex. In Victor, Texas, an individual
exposition on the status of American cities donated land adjacent to his house to the city
one author described "Dispirited city vacuums with the understanding that the land would be
railed parks, eaten around with decay, little used for a parking lot. When the city built a
used, unloved." She went on to give a specific youth baseball field on it, he went to court
example: and forced the city to move the baseball field
further away from his house.
Finally, it should he noted t.hat apprecia-
The city's Skid Row park where the tion of property values is not always perceived
homeless, the unemployed and the by homeowners to be positive. Its corollary is
people of indigent leisure gather amid that their property taxes are higher. Residents
the adjacent flophouses, cheap hotels, who have lived in a location for a long time
missions, second -hand clothing and have no interest in selling their property.
stores, reading and writing lobbies, may see no personal benefits accruing to them
pa wnshops, employment agencies, from development or major renovation of a
tattoo parlors, burlesque houses and nearby park. Nevertheless, they are required
eateries. This park and its users are to pay higher taxes because the appraised value
both seedy, ..it has hardly worked as of their property has increased.
an anchor to real estate values or to Some evidence on the negative impact of
social stability (p. 1 20). parks was offered by Homctrack, an English
property database company, that investigated
Writing in 1920, one commentator .stated: the impact of various features on the price of
"Experience in the east has shown that it is houses. The nature of their data base and the
ordinarily impossible to assess special benefits statistical processes used were proprietary, but
within 200 feet of a playground" because of they reported that living next to a derelict piece
"the throng of children which it attracts and the of land reduced the value of property in their
,rttendant noise and stir.' However, he went on sample by C20,280 (15%) on average.
to note that while the property directly adjacent Two conclusions emerge from the discus -
i.s not enhanced in value to the .same e.xtent as sion in this section. First, irrespective of the
results from a landscape park, "it does diffuse type of park or the amenities offered, negative
a special benefit throughout the district which impacts will emerge if a park is not well de-
it serves " (p. 250)' This early observation that signed, landscaped and maintained. In 1998,
properties adjacent to neighborhood parks with the deputy director of the Parks Council, ai
playgrounds and lights may decrease in value, non - profit advocacy organization in New York:
while: properties located a block or two further City reinforced the point when she observed:
INN
26 The Impact of Park. and Open Space on Propert■ A aut_S
'• ..tt Increase in property value
P �b
K ` '
S Norma/it Lire
c
e .f
�• Decrease in property value
'` Distance From Park
Exhibit 1 -5 Alternate Scenarios Reflecting the Range of Impacts that Parks and Open Spaces
may exercise. on Property values
We have many poor neighborhoods positive impact on properly value may
in the South Bronx near parks. But extend out to 2000 feet.
the parks are not helping them. If you b) A smaller high quality, natural re-
put money into a park, chances are source based, community level park,
that you will improve one portion of with some charm and dignity, that is
the neighborhood. But if the park does well - maintained and regarded with af-
not have proper security and mainte- fection by the community. The mea-
nance, it becomes a liability for surable positive impact on property
nearby homes (p. 9). values may extend out 500 feet.
c) A large, intensively used park with
The second conclusion is summarized in athletic facilities, floodlights, noise,
Exhibit 1 -5 which recognizes that both positive congestion at the entrances, and exten-
and negative impacts on property values are sive traffic. These factors lead to ne.ga-
possible. The exhibit shows tour alternate see tive values on properties in close prox-
narios reflecting the range of impacts that parks imity to the park, but benefits accrue to
and open spaces may exercise on proximate those living away from the immediate
property values: nuisance but within easy access, typi-
cally two or three blocks away.
a) A large, high quality, natural resource d) A dilapidated, dirty, blighted park
based, signature park that is well- with decrepit facilities and broken
maintained to which residents are pas- equipment in which undesirable
sionately attached. The measurable groups congregate. The community
Context t the I. CHAPTER 1 27
Market Value
of Property
($) 1
Distance From Facility Site
Exhibit 1-6 The "Net Effect" of Positive Impact on a Park, assuming some Limited Congestion
from Access and Egress
rejects it and regards it with disgust. SING THE PROXIMATE PRINCIPL
The negative impact does not extend • ' Y FOR PARKS AND OPEN SP ES
as far as the positive impact of sce-
nario (a) because people avoid it. Th- proximate principle can . - activated
to create - hicles that directly c 'cure the in-
cremental :.ins to property .lues and use
them to pay or park acquisi '.n and develop -
In scenarios (a) and (b) property value ment costs b retaining t increments in a
benefit increments associated with proximity separate accou for tha purpose instead of
and accessibility decay as distance from the returning them to the :eneral fund. Four of
park increases. Scenarios (c) and (d) suggest these vehicles are e c= s purchase or condem-
that any negative values are likely to be limited nation, special asse . ent districts, tax incre-
to properties in close proximity to the park and ment financing strip ts, and creating new
these will decay more rapidly than positive
parks in advanc: of de - lopment.
impacts as distance from the park increases —
that is, the positive curve is likely to be flatter Excess Pure ase or Cond • nation
than the negative curve.
Exhibit 1 -6 illustrates the net effect of the The • xcess purchase /cond• mnation prin-
situation in scenario (c) where there is a posi- ciple i , olves purchasing more land than is
five impact on the value of properties abutting needeg for the park project; de loping the
park thus appreciating the value f the re-
the park, but it is lower than that on properties m. ing land; disposing of the remai 'ng land
a block or two away which are not subjected o a commercial basis; and applying e in-
to the nuisance costs associated with access ome derived to pay for the original i est-
and egress to the park. ment. In short, the governmental jurisdic on
. 100 7 he 1inpaci of 1'arks and Open Space on Nrupert■ Vatic
1
nity •ark and similar properties located in the Per capita expenditure is a input measure not
other t o tiers. The study's design may ac- an output measure, wh eas the proximate
count for • - unexpected result because it was principle relates to qua ty and quality of out-
. 1 different fro e design used in most of the put in the form of pars and open space. It is
1 other studies revs. ed. Given that fairly large the tangible output sets which influence the
community parks (a east 25 acres in size) sale price of prox' ate properties, not dollar
were used in the study, - - lack of a relation- inputs.
ship may have reflected th •roximity of all Both per c ita expenditures and acres per
three tiers to the park. It seem •ossible that 1,000 populat' n are gross aggregate measures
the adjacent properties of Tier 1 -'.y have which do n relate proximity of residence to
experienced a nuisance factor which de. - sed a park. A y evaluation of the effect of the
any incremental value increased to the leve ; proximal principle must by definition include
that accruing to properties located 2 -5 blocks a measure of distance decay between park and
away in Tiers 2 and 3. This would be consistent esiderice, and this is absent when these gross
with the principle explaining the "net effect" m.. litres are used.
in Exhibit 1 -6. There was no measure of how . conclusion, one of the five studies re-
well the prices of properties in these three tiers viewed - 1 this section reported mixed results.
compared to those a greater distance away. but in two . the three parks which were inves-
Thus, it seems reasonable to postulate that if tigated in it 'e proximate principle was sup -
a control area had been established 6 -10 blocks ported. In thre •f the remaining studies, fail -
away from the parks, instead of 2 -5 blocks . ure to verify the . roximate principle may be
away, then a distance decay impact on resider' attributed to unorth. •ox and flawed measure -
tial properties may have emerged. ment measures that we - used. These involved
. Methodological limitations may also }gave failure to control for of - influencing vari-
accounted for the findings of a 1982 / study ables, an inappropriate co rol area against
which failed to validate the proximate/princi- which proximate value lucre 'ents could be
ple. Using 566 randomly selected resi. -ntial measured, and measures which .fled to ern -
properties located in several co 1. ities in brace the central element of distan. - decay.
Du Page County, Illinois, the st . ' s objec-
tives were to test for a significatyt elationship ` ,
• between the value of residentia property and CONCLUSIONS
(i) per capita expenditures for -.arks and recre-
ation in those communities; -: d (ii) the acreage Three key questions were posed in the
of land per 1,000 popula ' •n. The regression introduction to the chapter. The first question
analysis indicated no ev ence of a relationship asked whether parks and open space contrih-
in either case. It was ubsequently suggested uted to increasing proximate property values.
that inappropriate : atistical procedures may Results from 30 studies conducted in urban/
have contributed o the findings of no relation- suburban areas reported in this chapter (and
ship, but the 4'uthor rejected this criticism. an additional 12 "naive" studies reported in
Both othe variables used in this study chapter 2) that investigated this issue were re-
are inad'uate surrogates for capturing the viewed, and with only five exceptions all the
value of parks in residential property values. empirical evidence was supportive.
The lure of any other researchers working The support extended beyond urban/sub-
in is area to adopt these operationalizations urban areas since an additional eight studies
is suggestive of their fundamental weakness. that investigated properties which were proxi-
the 1_ater Ernplrikal S(tuthe CHAPTER 3 101
mate to large state parks, forests and open privacy of properties backing on to a linear
pace in rural areas offered similar empirical park was compromised by park users.
evidence to support the proximate principle. The second question posed in the introduc-
Evidence from some of these studies also re- tion related to the magnitude of the proximate
fuzed the conventional wisdom that creating effect. A definitive generalizable answer is not
large state or federal park or forest areas invari- feasible given the substantial variation in both
ably results in a net reduction in the value of the size, usage and design of park lands in
an area's tax base. the studies, and the disparity in the residential
Six of the supportive studies further inves- areas around them, which were investigated,
tigated whether there were differences in the but an attempt to offer guidelines on this issue
magnitude of impact among parks with differ- is included in the Executive Summary at the
ent design features and different types of uses. beginning of this monograph.
foie findings demonstrated that parks serving The diversity of the study contexts makes
primarily active recreation areas were likely to it feasible to offer a generalizable answer to
, ,how much smaller proximate value increases the third issue posed in the introduction which
than those accommodating only passive use. was to identify the distance over which the
The superiority of passive parks in en- proximate impact of park land and open space
Dancing the tax base presents local govern- extends. There was consensus among the stud -
tnents with a conundrum because frequently i th it has substantial impact up to 500
they are under considerable pressure to give 600 feet. In the case of community sized parks
priority to creating facilities for active recre it tended to extend out to 1,500 -2,000 feet, but
ational use. This is often the more attractive after 500 -600 feet the premium was small. Few
>.;
option to conventional park and recreation studies tried to identif impacts beyond that -°f
:tgericy thinking in that it responds to an overt distance because of the compounding com-
plexity created by other potentially influencing •
and highly visible user need, accommodates '
variables, which increases as distance from a
r relatively large number of participants and park increases. However, especially in the case
generates revenues. Organized recreational of larger parks, it is likely there are additional
sports groups are especially effective in politi- economic benefits not captured by capitaliza- j
• rally lobbying for facilities. In contrast, users tion into increased property values beyond this
of passive parks, occasional users, and non - !
peripheral boundary, since the catchment area
. users of parks who are the primarily beneficiar-
from which users come frequently extends be-
ies of passive facilities rarely offer a counteror- yond it.
s ganized lobbying force. There is growing recognition among , .
However, even with the noise, nuisance developers of the legitimacy of the proximate
1i and congestion emanating from active users, principle and of its utility for developers. Thus, ' •
1 in most cases proximate properties located two in a careful, comprehensive and technically #
or three blocks from such parks tended to show strong study that was commissioned by a de- i
{ increases in value when compared to properties veloper the author concluded:
outside a park' s service zone. Impacts on prox-
imate values were not likely to be positive Parks have traditionally been consid-
in those cases where (i) a park was not well ered a cost center in neighborhood
maintained; (it) a park was not easily visible planning, an amenity that trust be pro- 1
from nearby streets and, thus, provided oppor- vided by local government or required 1
'unities for anti - social behavior; and (iii) the of private developers by statute in or-