Missing an Opportunity: In an Era of Fiscal Conservatism, Why Are Parkland Dedication and Park Impact Fees Underutilized?
Keywords:parkland dedication, park impact fees, underutilized
AbstractParkland dedication and park impact fees are governmental exactions that are imposed as a condition for permitting development. They are manifestations of the Benefit Principle of government. This recognizes that if taxes are not to be raised and quality of life is not to be reduced, then those who benefit from services should be required to pay for them. In many communities, the political mantra is dominated by fiscal conservatism. Operationally, this generally means elected officials will not support increases in taxation. Hence, exactions designed to ensure growth pays for itself are consistent with this prevailing political mantra. Despite this “goodness of fit,” they remain underutilized. The paper examines the reasons for this and suggests strategies for surmounting these challenges. The evolution of parkland dedication and park impact fees is described, and their complementarity is explained. Often, they are mistakenly regarded as operational synonyms, but different operational implications spring from their different geneses and these are highlighted. Reluctance to utilize the full potential of exactions stems primarily from the beguiling myth that population growth in a community expands the tax base which keeps taxes low. This myth frequently stems from the “urban growth machine,” which has a strong self-interest in perpetuating it and the loudest megaphones through which to disseminate this message. Evidence that exposes this shibboleth is presented. Rationales for imposing maximum exactions are presented. In sum, those of us who are elected officials can address problems of growth in three ways: Raising taxes on existing residents, allowing the level of service to decline by doing nothing, or using parkland dedications and park impact fees to make new residents pay for the new parks demand they have created. An analysis is offered as to who ultimately pays for parkland dedications and park impact fees. There are three sets of stakeholders: New homeowners, developers, and landowners. The popular belief that the fees are passed forward to new homeowners is challenged. It is pointed out that the most likely scenarios are that (i) the costs are passed back to landowners, since developers will respond to higher dedications or fees by paying less for the land; or (ii) the costs of building a dwelling are mitigated by reducing its size and/or the quality of its fittings, finishing or landscaping. The concluding section examines why they are underused and suggests a viable strategy for surmounting opposition is to point out the opportunity cost to a community’s taxpayers of not implementing maximum dedications and/or impact fees. Subscribe to JPRA
Sagamore Publishing LLC (hereinafter the “Copyright Owner”)
Journal Publishing Copyright Agreement for Authors
PLEASE REVIEW OUR POLICIES AND THE PUBLISHING AGREEMENT, AND INDICATE YOUR ACCEPTANCE OF THE TERMS BY CHECKING THE ‘AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS COPYRIGHT NOTICE’ CHECKBOX BELOW.
I understand that by submitting an article to Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, I am granting the copyright to the article submitted for consideration for publication in Journal of Park and Recreation Administration to the Copyright Owner. If after consideration of the Editor of the Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, the article is not accepted for publication, all copyright covered under this agreement will be automatically returned to the Author(s).
THE PUBLISHING AGREEMENT
Assignment of Copyright
I hereby assign to the Copyright Owner the copyright in the manuscript I am submitting in this online procedure and any tables, illustrations or other material submitted for publication as part of the manuscript in all forms and media (whether now known or later developed), throughout the world, in all languages, for the full term of copyright, effective when the article is accepted for publication.
Reversion of Rights
Articles may sometimes be accepted for publication but later be rejected in the publication process, even in some cases after public posting in “Articles in Press” form, in which case all rights will revert to the Author.
Retention of Rights for Scholarly Purposes
I understand that I retain or am hereby granted the Retained Rights. The Retained Rights include the right to use the Preprint, Accepted Manuscript, and the Published Journal Article for Personal Use and Internal Institutional Use.
All journal material is under a 12 month embargo. Authors who would like to have their articles available as open access should contact Sagamore-Venture for further information.
In the case of the Accepted Manuscript and the Published Journal Article, the Retained Rights exclude Commercial Use, other than use by the author in a subsequent compilation of the author’s works or to extend the Article to book length form or re-use by the author of portions or excerpts in other works.
Published Journal Article: the author may share a link to the formal publication through the relevant DOI.
- The Article I have submitted to the journal for review is original, has been written by the stated author(s) and has not been published elsewhere.
- The Article was not submitted for review to another journal while under review by this journal and will not be submitted to any other journal.
- The Article contains no libelous or other unlawful statements and does not contain any materials that violate any personal or proprietary rights of any other person or entity.
- I have obtained written permission from copyright owners for any excerpts from copyrighted works that are included and have credited the sources in the Article.
- If the Article was prepared jointly with other authors, I have informed the co-author(s) of the terms of this Journal Publishing Agreement and that I am signing on their behalf as their agent, and I am authorized to do so.