To the Editor:

Questions and concerns about cost of the driving range plan have been raised along with the fact that there are many more urgent projects in the city that should be considered.  We agree that there are many other needs, but wish to point out that this plan does not compete for money.  It will pay for itself and will also bring in additional dollars that can help fund other projects.

Also, please consider that study after study shows additional costs for city services for new residential development in a close suburban setting exceeds new tax revenue generated.  So which is really the most costly alternative for our city?  The following are extracts from some of those studies:

Population Growth, Density & the Costs of Providing Public Services

Institute of Policy Sciences & Public Affairs, Duke University, Durham, NC 

….this study provides careful estimates of the nonlinear impacts of population growth and population density on three types of local government spending ….except in sparsely populated areas, higher density typically increases public sector spending. In addition, the results suggest that population growth imposes fiscal burdens on established residents in the form of lower service levels.

Impact Fees & Housing Affordability

Vicki Been -- New York University, School of Law

…. Where public services are subject to congestion …the cost of providing services to the new residents may be higher than the cost of providing such services to existing residents…new residents will not bear the full cost…..(Downing and McCaleb).

Fiscal Impact Analysis: Methods, Cases and Intellectual Debate

Zenia Kotval and John Mullin / Research assistance from Maureen Lempke

There has been no shortage of studies attempting to estimate the fiscal impacts of residential growth ……they all show similar results: residential development requires more services and costs municipalities more than other types of land use.  In the long run, open land requires a much lower level of services than developed land ..”

Altshuler and Gomez-Ibanez   -    Harvard    -  JFK School of Govt

“The predominant view today is that new development rarely generates local tax payments sufficient to pay its own way.”   Regulation for Revenue

University of Illinois – Local Community Resources

Costs of Community Services

….. COCS usually refers to a growing body of literature that focuses on how various types of land use affect local government taxation and spending. …. Two conclusions emerge ….first is thatresidential development in any area invariably leads to increased … demand for …services,placing increased burdens on local infrastructure and public agencies. As a result, increases in local tax rates to fund additional services tend to follow growth. Second is that it is important for members of any community to ask themselves the broader question, “How do we manage growth in our community …”

Additional References

American Farmland Trust. 1993. Is Farmland Protection a Community Investment? How To Do a Cost of Community Services Study. Washington, DC.

Burchell, R.W., and D. Listokin. 1995. Land, Infrastructure, Housing Costs and Fiscal Impacts Associated with Growth: The Literature on the Impacts of Sprawl vs. Managed Growth. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Kelsey, T.W. 1996. “The Fiscal Impacts of Alternative Land Uses: What Do Cost of Community Services Studies Really Tell Us?” Journal of the Community Development Society 27:1, pp. 78-89.

Ladd, H. 1992. Effects of Population Growth on Local Spending and Taxes.Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

This material written by Allen M. Prindle, Professor of Economics, Otterbein College and Thomas W. Blaine, Northeast District Specialist, Community Development, Ohio State University Extension. Reprinted as part of a multi-state effort to improve land use education.

Sincerely,

Vincent Grillo