An Analysis of Parkland Dedication Ordinances in Texas
Keywords:Parkland dedication, impact fees, exactions, Texas
AbstractParkland dedication ordinances from 48 Texas cities were analyzed. All ordinances incorporated a land requirement and a fee in lieu alternative to it, but only 10 of them contained a provision for a park development fee. Most of the cities that imposed a fee in lieu and/or park development fee appeared to derive them arbitrarily rather than empirically, which is unlikely to be accepted by the courts. A recommended approach for calculating the level of service that meets the U.S. Supreme Court’s criterion of “rough proportionality” is provided. Other widespread limitations among the ordinances were a failure to: incorporate a time period for expending fees; give credit for private amenities within a development; extend ordinances beyond the level of neighborhood parks and to subdivisions in the extra territorial jurisdiction; and mandate periodic reviews of ordinances to update them. Reasons for the underutilization of parkland dedication ordinances identified in the analyses and strategies for rectifying this issue are addressed by posing three questions. First, what are the sources of the unrealized potential of parkland dedication ordinances? Three reasons relating to their myopic scope are identified: failure to extend ordinances beyond neighborhood parks to embrace community and regional parks; failure to extend ordinance requirements into cities’ extraterritorial jurisdictions; and inability to take advantage of reimbursement provision ordinances. A second source of their unrealized potential is the failure to set dedications at a level that covers all the costs associated with the acquisition and development of the additional park capacity required to meet the demands of new residents. The second question was, why is their potential not being realized? Two reasons are suggested: inertia, and vigorous opposition from the development community. The inertia stems from the ordinances not appearing on the agendas of many elected officials because no requirement is included that they be reviewed at regular intervals. Developers routinely oppose any expansions of these ordinances and they are a powerful political constituency in many communities. Rebuttals to the developers’ arguments are provided. The third question asks, why should elected officials warmly embrace parkland dedication? There are three reasons: it is fiscally conservative in that those who are benefitting from the service are paying for it; the alternatives are to raise taxes on existing residents or lower the community’s quality of life, neither of which are politically attractive; 71 and a recognition that parkland dedication requirements are not likely to lead to any resident being unable to afford a new home.?
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.