How much open space can we afford to lose?
by William Daugherty
an Diego County is one of the most pro-development
counties in the nation. Our city councils, city and county ordinances, chambers
of commerce, and state representatives and senators are pro-development.
Anything that inhibits or constrains development is subject to ridicule.
In response to an initiative action being pursued
by a community group, one chamber of commerce director made the statement,
"This city will develop or this city will die," inferring that
opposition to a proposed development was a slow-growth mentality that would
cause the city to lose essential revenue, deprive construction workers of
jobs, and eventually lead to a stagnant, declining economy.
Is this a true assessment? Is population growth
synonymous with economic growth? Does a city make money on the fees it charges
for low density residential development? Are construction jobs critical
to our long-term economic well-being?
According to the latest San Diego Association
of Governments (SANDAG) economic study, although the population of the county
has increased since 1989, our economy has decreased to what it was in the
mid-1970s. This is the result of the massive loss of high-end aerospace
and defense sector technological and manufacturing jobs at the end of the
Cold War. These positions have been replaced with low salary, service sector
positions.
Depending upon the skill level, it takes about
four to six service sector jobs to equal the salary lost by one engineer
or manufacturing position.
Therefore, population increases are not an
indication of prosperity. Rather, economic prosperity is tied to developing
a dynamic, advanced technology and an industrial manufacturing business
base to support the service sector. The term dynamic is used to indicate
a changing, non-static mix of business and enterprises. As incentives for
such businesses to locate in the community, cities must actively pursue
new businesses, create aesthetic industrial parks, environmentally attractive
communities, and reduce the costs of their bureaucracy in order to reduce
business taxes and fees.
As far as cities making money from development
fees, as Bank of America, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Syracuse
University have all found, in the long run cities lose money on low-density
residential developments because infrastructure costs for maintenance, repair
and replacement exceed tax and fee revenue.
Although construction wages contribute to the
local and regional economy, they are of low to medium wage scale. In fact,
expenditures for recreation far exceed both development fees and construction
wages as contributors to the local economy.
Although all communities require balanced residential,
commercial and industrial development, greater long-term economic value
to the community is provided by open space, greenways, waterways, parks
and other recreational facilities, compared with wall-to-wall urban development.
We have lost over 90 percent of our open space
habitat and wetlands to urban development. We must begin to think of expansion
of these valuable assets, rather than how much more can we afford to lose.
Bill Daugherty is the President of Buena Vista
Audubon. This article appeared originally in their newsletter the Lagoon
Flyer
