When I was a planner for Denver Parks and Recreation, I watched helplessly as many opportunities for more parkland were lost in the push for additional housing. And thatap my fear for Park Hill Golf Course and Loretto Heights College campus and every open piece of land left in Denver.
A city legitimately may need more housing, and Denver desperately needs affordable housing. But I don’t want to hear that old bogus argument that residential development puts revenues in the city’s coffers while parks and open space drain them. Fifty years of land use and Cost of Community Services research has disproved that myth. It just doesn’t pay to pit houses against parks.
Only retail and commercial development makes real money for a city, with an average of 70 cents returned in revenues for every dollar spent by the city back in services. Even farms and private open lands can return up to 63 cents for each dollar.
In residential development, the developer makes upfront money, but itap a sump pump for the city after that. Forever. The costs for public services to any new residential development will always exceed any new revenues, with a ratio of 1.16, meaning for every dollar in taxes received, the city spends $1.16 in services back.
And public parks and open space? They do generate tax revenues, just differently. Itap called the “proximity principle.” The closer you’re located to a good park, the more your property is worth. The impact on properties within 500 feet of parks and open space consistently show that their location produces a 5 percent bump to their property value and, as an extension, to property taxes. The city benefits again when the property is sold. In 2010, Trust for Public Land showed that $4.1 million of 2010 Denver property taxes were attributable to that 5 percent bump produced by homes and businesses near Denver parks.
Even without the proximity principle revenues, public parks are cheaper for a city to sustain if their maintenance is less than the 16 cents on a dollar that housing costs. And, parks even do more. They generate taxes and revenues from recreation, tourists and events. Open spaces produce quantifiable benefits in pollution reduction, storm water detention and quality of health. They are the heart of neighborhoods and neighborhood cohesion.
But I’m simply making an economic point, not arguing values. Decisions regarding Park Hill Golf Course will be complex, mixing land uses. Our youngest son graduates from college next spring and we fear he cannot afford to live and teach in Denver. Who can these days? So, I see some affordable housing built on these campuses. Houses can be built many places, but once green space is lost, itap gone. Letap think 25 to 100 years ahead and get serious about building more parks. Letap keep these campuses primarily green. In fact, I thought we taxpayers already voted and paid for Park Hill Golf Course to stay green. I just hope that old economic myths don’t cloud the conversations.
Susan E. Baird is a retired senior planner for Denver Parks and Recreation.
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.
