Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0208.106 2004-2006 Gail Byrne, MSCL 68-3551 Awamoa P[ Waikoloa, Hawaii 96738 May 18 2005 Aloha, Honorable Members of the County Council, How can we justify funding Bill 78 when we ]carve other competing needs, such as public safety and infrastructure? The answer and the facts are that open space decreases crime and public safety costs; open space decrease infrarlrurture needs and costs; open spcu~e decreases community health costs. AND Open space produces a tax revenue surplus that subsidizes other land uses and pays for public safety and roads. These are well-documertted farts from studies and information gathered from communities from arourut rlre countr'v. And, it will be much less expensive to purchase open space norov rhos? one or five years from nouv. When I was here two weeks ago presenting testimony, it was clear that most Council Members supported the intent of Bill 78. The primary concerns I heard about Bill 78 were, "how can we financially justify this Bill given the many other pressing needs, such as public safety and meeting a back log of infrastructure requirements?". And I heard members suggesting that there might be a better way to fund open space acquisition. As I was listening to these important considerations and concerns, I thought "what if I can show them the data, the reports and studies from around the country that show if you invest in open space, your public safety costs go down. If you invest in open space, infrastructure costs and needs decrease. I thought, if I could present this data to the Council, then I bet at least a couple members who have had these thoughtful concerns about how to juggle all these needs and costs (safety, infrastructure, open space) would then have the data to feel comfortable in knowing that investing in open space is not taking away financially from these other needs and then they could support Bill 78. So included in this testimony are 12 new references and examples showing that open space is not a trade off for public safety and infrastructure. This is in addition to the 21 references on the economic benefits of open space I provided two weeks ago. The following are a few specific examples from the references: Open Space Subsidizes Other Community Services • Open space produces a tax revenue surplus that subsidizes other land uses.' The median national value for the revenue-to-expenditure ratio for residential development is1.15 and 0.37 for open space and farms. ° Open space ensures income for other community service needs. • The conclusion in a paper by Soren Anderson of the Economics Department at Macalaster College states that local governments must factor in the (positive) tax revenue benefit of o h~ open space preservation when making fiscal decisions'. ~ O•'lJ1O Comm. No. Ref. To: Preae~wd Page ! ofd Rc~f. Uate Public Safety • When adequate open space and parks are provided in urban and residential environments, crime drops9. • The Center for Disease Control and the U.S. House of Representatives have both formally recognized the link between open space/parks and crime in reports and Iegislations,lz • It is always more cost-effective to prevent crime. Open space and parks prevent and decrease crime. Community Health • The Center for Disease Control recognizes that the community planning that includes open spaces and parks directly benefits community health and decreases community health costs 6,10,11 • In reviewing studies of social impacts, Dr. John Crompton at Texas A&M University noted that open space and parks help alleviate social problems by preventing crime, supporting healthy lifestyles, reducing environmental stress, and helping to meet the psychological needs of the unemployed and underemployed8. Infrastructure • The Koolau Watershed on Oahu provides an estimated benefit of $83.7 to $394 million in water quality protection and filtration. In other words, it would cost $83.7 to $394 million to construct the infrastructure and provide the services to protect and purify water that the watershed currently does for free8. • To provide the same level of ground water quality that the Koolau watershed does for free, $4.5 to 8.5 billion dollars in infrastructure and services would need to be built and expended8. And the watershed provides $82 million dollars worth of climate control infrastructure for free8. • It is estimated that to design and build storm water control systems to handle the increase in peak flows for all the treed open space that has been lost in the Puget Sound between 1972 and 1996 will cost $5.9 billion dollars2. • The U.S. Army Corp of Engineers is spending $160 million dollars to demolish homes and return part of the Napa River flood plain to open space because open space is the most effective infrastructure for storm and flood water control. Removing this land from open space has cost approximately $500 million in damage2. • New York City found it would cost $6 billion to $8 billion to build a filtration plant for its water supply if its upstate watershed lands were developed, but it would cost only $1.5 billion to purchase these lands and preserve them as open space2. • In the Puget Sound region, trees remove 78 million pounds of pollutants per year. It would cost $19.5 million if the air were cleaned by industrial meansZ. These are only a few examples of how open space directly decreases infrastructure costs. Page ? of ~ Economic • For small businesses, which are the source of most business growth, quality of life and customer proximity are the two most important factors in their relocations, with open space/parks/recreation at the top of the list for quality of life.°'S If you want to ensure economic growth and promote business, fund open space. Please see the 21 references, provided in May 4 testimony, for studies and information from around the country that detail how open space is a very wise financial investment for communities. Open space decreases and prevents crime, reducing public safety costs; decreases the cost of infrastructure and reduces the need for some infrastructure; and decreases health care costs, while subsidizing other land uses. I am forvvarding this data to the Mayor as well to assist him in feeling comfortable in knowing that Bill 78 will diminish costs and public safety and infrastructure needs while ensuring reliable revenue to fund public safety and infrastructure, including roads. There were several comments made during the last reading that we had time to study options, perhaps a charter amendment or different funding mechanism. I want to re-iterate, we really do need to pass this Bill now. And here is just one example why. A private in-holding on the Kohala Coast, within the boundaries of Lapakahi State Park, a parcel with outstanding cultural and archeological sites went up for sale a few days before the last reading. The state park has expressed interest in acquiring the land and even holding/managing it. Last year this landowner expressed interest in working with the community to provide access. However; because of an immediate, need for funding for his business in California, the owner is selling now and may not be able to wait for those of us in Kohala to raise the needed $2.9 million to purchase this 17 acres of important ocean-front land. He and the realtor are certainly open to purchases for conservation and open space purposes. But they cannot wait long. If we had a dedicated funding source it is likely we could have acquired the property or could have at least secured an option to buy while we raise the needed funds and/or secured federal dollars that require a local match to assist with purchases. This land should be part of the state park. If we are not able to raise the funds quickly for this land it will be gone in the next one to three months and either fenced off with one or two houses or more expensive to purchase from the next landowner. I think the private philanthropic study that Dr. Holschuh has funded will be helpful tool, especially if it identifies specifically who and how much individuals are willing to pay. Experience from around the country has shown us that private funding is often an important component of open space purchases, but it is rarely the primary funding source. And as the Trust from Public Lands stated, private funding is usually the last piece that comes into play. We want to encourage and invite private funding and I know that the study funded by Council Member Holschuh will assist with that. But it is clear that public funding is needed to get the ball rolling, to lay the foundation so private funders feel confident in investing in open space. We cannot wait nor depend on private funding. We must pass BiII 78 now. Nor can we wait or depend on the County to pass special appropriations, parcel by parcel, nor can we wait or depend on the Administration to negotiate with individual landowners for all of our open space needs. Lastly, I want to acknowledge that I saw and heard heart felt support for the intent of this Bill, even from members who disagreed with aspects of the mechanics of the Bill. I have supplied data and reports that address the economic and financial concerns stated during the last reading of this Bill. I hope this makes it easier for Council Members who voted against it two weeks ago to now support this bill with a positive vote. Page 3 of5 Thank you to all of you for your time and your work on behalf of all us. Sincerely, Gail Byrne REFERENCES 1. Anderson, Soren, The effect of open spcure on single family residential property values. Macalester College, ZW I 2.Benotto, Catherine, Greenbacks in the greenery: Never forget the economic value of trees, parks arul open spaces, 2002 3. Crompton, John I,.,'I'urgut Var, and Seokho f ze. Repositioning TPWD and Local Yark and Recreation Agencies. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University, from <http: //www. rpts.tam u.edu/tpwd/repositioning 1.Ixlf>. 4. Crompton, John L., Ecoru~mic Benefits of Parks and Open Space. Making Sense of Open Space, 2(xYL S. Crompton, John L. , The lrnpact of Parks and Open Space an Property Values and the Property Tax Bare. Ashburn, VA: National Recreation and Parks Association, pp. 1(1<J-111, 2000 6. Jackson, Richard J., Chris Kochtitsky. Creating A Healthy Environment: The Impact of the Built Environment on Public Health. Sprawl Watch Clearinghouse: Washington, D.C., from <www cdc.pov/healthyplaceslarticles> 7. Miller, Stephen. 12/13/O0. Tl:e Economic Benefits of Open Space. Western Governors Association, from <h1tD://www westgov orglwg~/initlative/tpllsecl4htm:> 8. Research contracted by the I Iawaii Chapter of the Nature Conservancy, F_nonornic Irrzpact of Watershed Protection In Hawai, 2003 9. The Trust for Public Land, Healing America's Cities: Why We Must Invest in Urban Parks, 1994 10. Trust for ['tzblic land, Iicalth Benefits Bibliography: http:/Iwww.tpLorg/tier3 cdl cfm~content item id=1091&folder id=726 1 L Trust for E'ublic 1 and, TPL Main Presentation. San Francisco, CA: The Trust for Public Land, 2002 12U.S. Congress, House approval o UPARR (Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program) to increase funding for parks in high crime areas, 199=1. REFERENCES provided at May 4 testimony l.Lerner, Steve; Poole, William, The Economic Benefits of Parks and Open Space, The Trust for Public lands, 1999. Within this publication the following references, 2-7, are specific to the relationship between open space, a high yualily of life, and resultant econonvc benefits: 2.'fimoihy Egan, Drawing a Hard Line Against Urbarz Sprawl, New York Times, 1996. 3.Gaivin and Berens, Urban Parks and Open Space, Regional Plan Association and Quirmipac College Polling Institute,l~><)S. 4.Center for the Continuing Study of the California Economy, I and Use and the California Economy: Principle, for Prosperity acid Quality fI_ife, 1998. Page 4 of S ~.ERF Yarmouth and Rcal Es4ite Research Corporation, Defining New Limits: Emerging Trends in /Zeal Estate, 1998. 6.Phy1lis Myers. GreenScnse, Vol. 3, No. 1, ]997. 7.Sierra Business Council, Plarr~ning for Prosperity: Building Successful Communities in the Sierra Nevada, 1997. &County of Hawaii, Research and Development, persona] communication, January, 2005. 9.Byrne, Gail, personal communication, based on informal survey of Hawaii Island scientific activities, zari. 10.1lawaii'Gourism Authority, personal communication, July 2004. I ].ICrutilla, .lobo V.; and Anthony C. Fisher, The Ecorwmics of Natural Environments. Washington: Resources for the Future, 1975, 1985. 12. Lerner, Steve; Poole, William, The Economic Benefits of Parks and Open Space, The Trust for Public Lands, 1999. Within this publication the following references, 13-1$ are specific to the relationship open space contributing more to the tax base than it uses. 13.Burchell, Robert W., et al. 6npacr Assessment of the lnterirn State Development and Redevelopment Plan, Report prepared for the New Jersey Office of State Planing Trenton, 1992. 14.Bollier, David, How Smart Growth Can Stop Sprawl: A Fledgling Citizen's Movement Expands, 1998. 1 t 0(>D Friends of Minnesota, "Joint Senate Committce Listen to Report on Costs of Sprawl, Minnesota [and Use (electronic newsletter), 1999. l6Nantucket Land Council, [nc., Balancing Today's Development and'I'omorrow's Taxes, 1989. Included in Land Trust Alliance InfoPak Series: Economic Benefits of Open Space, compiled by Tcd Jackson and edited by Rosemary Infante, 1994. 17.Na[ional Park Service, Rivers, 'Grails and Conservation Assistance Program, Economic fncpact of Protecn:ng Rivers, Trails and Greenway Corridors, 1995. 18.Brabec, Iilizxbcth, On the Value of Open Spaces, Scenic America, "technical Information Series, Vol. 1 No.2, 1992. 19.Bri~hton, Deb, Community Choices: 'thinking Through Land Conservation, Development, and Property Taxes in Massctchuse[ts, 1998. 20.'I'homas, Holly I,., The Economic Benefits of Land Conservation, February 1991. 21.Presidcnt's Commission on Americans Outdoors, National Park Service, 1995.