I recall hearing (sorry no cite) that in the post WWII years when subdivisions and suburbs really took off, there seemed to be zoning requirements which specified that for every X number of homes built, Y acres of open space had to be dedicated. For example for every 25 homes with an average lot size of .25 acres, there must be 3 acres of dedicated open space (read: park land). I just made those figures up, but they convey the general idea.
Now if the above was true at one point in time, is this still the case? My own suspicion is that dedicated open space has lost its appeal and developers now prefer to offer larger lot sizes (so every family can have their own mini-playground, pool, BBQ site, and open multi-use area. Obviously more money for the developers this way, but at a cost of less community space.
My question then is two fold: 1) Does anyone have any evidence to support (or refute) what I’ve suggested in the first paragraph? and 2) Have these zoning requirements (for lack of a better term) gone by the wayside in favor of larger lot sizes?
If one peruses the Indianapolis zoning code (http://www.indygov.org/dmd/zoning/zonindex.htm) one finds that, for the majority of “residential” (D) districts, the open space requirement is a minimum percentage of an individual parcel of land, with no mention of general “park land” requirement. There are some D districts that permit less than this minimum, but only if the division has a certain amount of undeveloped common-use land within its boundaries. As far as I can tell, this is how Indianapolis has been doing things since 1970.
If anything, in Indianapolis, there has been greater public pressure to increase “dedicated open space”, primarily by means of demands to restrict further commercial/industrial zoning designations and preserving explicit “greenspace”. Since Indy is part of the federal flood control programs, it has been easy to pull some lands off construction plans simply be refusing to issue new building permits in the flood zones.
Jackson Metro area communities all require a certain amount of green space, in both commercial and residential devlopments.
None of this green space has to be dedicated to “parks” per se; ususally it’s called “common area” and is owned by the business park association or homeowners association.
The trouble with parks is that most communities (here) cannot afford the upkeep on the amount of parks which consultants recommend they have.
These ordinances still exist, but every municipaility sets its own rules. There are therefore thousands of different situations, so your specific question is difficult to answer.
In general, though, you are correct. One way that some munipalities deal with this is to offer an alternative to donations of actual land. Instead, the developer gives cash, which in theory is used to expand or upgrade existing parks, or to buy new park land. Again, though, communities differ.
My answer was misleading. I don’t think that there is a trend towards abolishing these ordinances. If anything, developers are required to make more donations, rather than fewer. As I said, though, that donantion is often cash these days.
(Sometimes there are road and school impact donations required as well.)
First of all thanks to Dogface for the info and the website, which was particularly educational. And thanks to NinetyWt for the specifics regarding the Jackson metro area. My question for you Ninety, is if municipalities claim they can’t afford the upkeep are they somehow in violation of their own local ordinances?
Also, I’m not married to the term park in favor of open space or common areas, I use “park” mainly for shorthand. So for my argument, I’d just group any of these communual(?) lands together.
Now, Random I was not aware of the cash donation option–do you have any specific reference (either local or more general) that outlines this prescription? Because if this cash donation option is becomimg more widely practiced, then it tends to support my underlying suspicion.
My suspicion is that parkland (including open space, common areas, etc.) is less accessible for most people than it once was. Using Random’s example, if developers can make a cash donation rather than dedicate open space, the distance that residents of a subdivision must travel is greater than it would be for those who did have dedicated open space in their subdivision. So the cash developers must offer may well go to “park” resources, but it may go to the largescale park outside of town rather than to developing a neighborhood park that subdivision residents can walk to.
So continuing the line of questions raised through some of these responses:
Are municipalities in violation of their own zoning ordinances if they claim they cannot afford the upkeep/maintenance of public open space?
Do the cash donations seem to be a growing trend? In my view this would result in a smaller percentage of “park” land.
jh, the municipality would be under the same landscaping ordinance as anyone else; for example, a new fire station would have to have the same percent “landscaped area” as a WalMart. It would be hard for the municipality to get away without that.
What I (so awkwardly) was trying to say is this: Professionals in the realm of parks & recreation can estimate what is a good ratio of “parks” to population for a municipality. For example, in my suburb it is estimated that we need 6 big parks; 3 medium sized parks; and several small “neighborhood” parks. In actuality we have 2 big parks, no medium size and a handful of “neighborhood” parks. As budgets are squeezed, things like police cars and asphalt will be purchased; land for parks will not.
However, if the municipality does not purchase land for large parks they will not be in violation of any ordinance; they may not be following their “future planning” but that is not legally binding.
I agree with your second point, but not your first. Assuming we’re talking about a requirement in an ordinance (rather than a state statute), the municipality can always exempt itself. It’s the same principle as when Congress exempts itself from its own labor and other laws.
Even without an exemption, who’s going to prosecute? (There are a few ordinances that give certain specific private parties to enforce certain ordinances through a civil suit, but they’re fairly rare.)
What the municipality may be faced with is a legal claim (or defense) made by a private landowner that the ordinance governing zoning/landscaping/whatever is arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable and therefore unconstitutional. The failure of the municipality to follow the ordinance on the property next door may be used as evidence against it in this context.
(If there are other attorneys who do land use/local government work, I’m aware that this post avoids addressing some nuances.)
It’s up to the individual municipality to make such rules and to enforce them. One trend, mentioned by Open Space advocates, is for subdividers to set aside a strip of land on the edge of each lot that’s left as “open space” but which does not constitute usable space. E.g., a bunch of trees on a strip ten feet wide and the length of the subdivision at the edge of your property that is deeded to the city meets a typical “open space” requirement but hardly constitutes a decent bit of parkland.
BTW, in some places parkland is protected. E.g., (as of 1997 when I left) every public park in New York State is held by the municipality as park land in trust for the citizens of the state (not of the city, town, village, or whatever) and can be alienated from park use only by specific act of the state legislature.
)