|
By GIL HUTCHINSON
Special to the Brentwood Home Page
With the recent defeat of the proposed rezoning to commercial of the 54.5 acres of land at the end of Mallory Lane, known as the “Flag Pole Property,” the question becomes “what’s next?”
The developer is surely contemplating some type of proposal for a residential development under the current R-2 zoning for the Planning Commission’s consideration. A proposal, mind you, that is not likely to deed any open space to the city as was previously proposed. That may be fine as comments made during the public hearing and commission meetings suggest that many residents near the “Flag Pole Property” appear to favor traditional residential R-2 development, or possibly rezoning to an OSRD (Open Space Residential Development) subdivision.
One feels a high degree of sympathy for nearby residents in light of the fact that this was the fifth or sixth time that they’ve had to come before the City Commission to contend with rezoning proposals for this land since the early 1980s. But is residential development of this beautiful property the best way to go? With commercial development thwarted, and residential development on the horizon, maybe it’s time to talk about a third alternative before it’s too late: Finding some creative and cost effective way to work with the city to acquire some or all of this land so that it could be left in its current state forever!
Why not? The “knee jerk reaction” to acquiring this land is to say “We can’t afford it right now in these hard times. Acquiring open space is a luxury. It uses scarce public dollars and precludes the use of land for future residential development. Residential is the way to go and what we want!”
But is that true? There are two significant concerns with the prospect of additional residential development of this property that should be part of the thought process and decision making going forward:
Increased community costs. Research shows that residential land uses do not cover their costs and must be subsidized by other types of land uses. The costs for local services (schools, police and fire, roads, solid waste and sewer treatment, etc.) outweigh the increased tax revenue. From a purely economic standpoint, residential development is a tax liability to all of us, not an asset.
Additional traffic considerations. If this area is developed as residential (which eventually means the adjacent property as well), approximately 70-80 single family, one-acre lots could be constructed. The traffic volume generated by those lots is estimated to exceed more than 700 additional trips per day. This additional traffic would be routed to Wikle Road, General MacArthur or both. There may also be concerns that the city will need to connect Wikle and General MacArthur to insure access for emergency vehicles.
An increasing amount of research is showing that open space conservation is not always an expense but an investment that can produce important economic benefits. As noted in our report the City’s Environmental Quality Coordinating Committee, instead of costing money, conserving open space as a smart growth strategy can save communities money:
- Bowdoinham, Maine, chose to purchase development rights on a 307-acre dairy farm when research indicated that the costs of supporting the development would not be met by anticipated property revenues. “Undeveloped land is the best tax break a town has,” concluded selectman George Christopher.
- A study in Woodbridge, Conn. revealed that taxpayers would be better off buying a 292-acre tract than permitting it to be developed. “This town cannot afford not to buy land,” wrote Robert Gregg, president of the Woodbridge Land Trust.
- “Land conservation is often less expensive for local governments than suburban style development,” writes planner Holly L. Thomas. “The old adage that cows do not send their children to school expresses a documented fact — that farms and other types of open land, far from being a drain on local taxes, actually subsidize local government by generating far more in property taxes than they demand in services. ”For this reason, even groups that usually oppose taxation have come to recognize that new taxes to acquire open space may save taxpayers money in the long run.
- “People are beginning to realize that development is a tax liability for towns, not an asset, because you have to build schools and hire more police officers. And that makes property taxes go up,” Sam Perilli, state chairman of United Taxpayers of New Jersey, an anti-tax group, told the New York Times.
Someone once said “if you like the view, you better be willing to pay for it.” The owners of this land have the right to develop their property within the constraints of city guidelines and will eventually do so.
Is working with the City to acquire this land worth considering? That’s something for the community to decide. But there is a window of opportunity here that may or may not be available for long. Time is of the essence and failure to act raises the risk of increased land costs in the future and the loss of desirable open space that may be currently available.
When it comes right down to it, and with the specter of many new connectivity issues, years of intrusive construction and significant increases in traffic, does our community really want or need another huge residential development? We’re willing to bet that most people would like to keep the land exactly the way it is with no development!
The Updated 2020 Plan supports the contention that the vast majority of citizens believe the preservation of more open space in Brentwood is important. Maybe the recent events around the “Flag Pole Property” debate afford us with the opportunity to “put our money where our mouths are” finally.
Gil Hutchinson is a Brentwood resident and served on the city’s Environmental Quality Coordinating Committee. He is also a board member of Citizens for Brentwood Green Space, a Tennessee non-profit 501(c) (3) corporation.
|
