The case for including public green space in the Giles Farm development
December 2010
Jim Ellis, Chickahominy District resident
The unique location and context of the Giles Farm proposal presents an opportunity to create a critical mass of community-oriented spaces at the heart of the district. Doing so would help planners meet their responsibility to balance the property rights of the applicants with the rights of the greater community to enjoy their own properties – in many cases, the largest single investment they will ever be able to make – without undue adverse impacts from the new development.
The proposed development is one of the last large developments that will be possible in the Chickahominy District of Hanover County. It is located within a cluster of public and semipublic uses, including Atlee High School, Chickahominy Middle School, Cool Spring Elementary School, Atlee Recreation Association and Cool Spring Baptist Church. There are also several acres of “surplus” property behind Atlee High School, the subject of some discussion over the last couple of years. In addition, a landowner in the area has put a significant amount of land into conservation easement which borders the proposed Giles Farm project. Local residents know that coyotes, foxes and deer still use the open spaces in this area as their habitat. Several utility easements traverse the general area, offering the potential for greenway connections. Also, the Comprehensive Plan shows a large area in this vicinity designated for parks and recreation use. Finally, the Giles Farm project occupies an important position in the Chickahominy River watershed, as evidenced by the county’s desire to include a regional storm water management facility there. Local residents have seen that as more development takes place upstream, high water comes faster and higher along the watershed.
The most appropriate response to these opportunities and threats would be to include one or more small, minimally improved or completely passive public parks within the project, connected internally and externally by public greenways and trails. Existing utility easements might be used for some of these connections. This system might also be combined with a wetlands-oriented approach to managing the storm water runoff instead of the proposed impoundment facility. Over time, other developments or conservation-minded landowners might provide additional opportunities for public parks and greenways in the area. This would create a critical mass of community-oriented spaces that would mitigate the impacts of the ever-denser development patterns that are inevitably coming to the district.
It is imperative that public park and greenway spaces be incorporated in the Giles Farm proposal now, as time is slipping away too quickly. The unique set of opportunities in the Giles Farm area will never be repeated.
The idea for including publicly-owned space in the Giles Farm project is supported in several ways by several sources.
1. Positive impact on property values
Crompton (2005) notes that assumptions about the positive impact of public parks on property values have existed since at least the mid-1800s. Using modern analytical techniques, Crompton estimates that property values for residences adjacent to passive public parks increase by 20%. Furthermore, Crompton (2007) estimates that the effect of net increases in property values exist as far as three blocks away from the passive park. He asserts that the increased revenues from increased property taxes due to this effect more than offset the lost tax revenues of the park property itself and its purchase costs. See “The Impact of Parks and Open Spaces on Property Values” at http://www.cprs.org/membersonly/Winter07_PropertyValues.htm and “The impact of parks on property values: empirical evidence from the past two decades in the United States” at www.rpts.tamu.edu/faculty/crompton/Crompton/Articles/4.1.pdf.
A research synthesis published in May 2010 by Active Living Research, a national program of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, provides more detail about these issues. The synthesis notes that the aggregate increase in revenues to the locality depends on the number of residences close to the park (which argues for placing passive parks closer to more densely populated areas), and that the increase in property values can be seen anywhere from 600 feet to one mile from the green space depending on circumstances. Including the Giles Farm housing units themselves, there might be anywhere from 600 to 1,000 housing units that would experience increased values as a result of including public parks in the proposal.
See http://www.activelivingresearch.org/files/Synthesis_Shoup-Ewing_March2010.pdf.
Residents in older neighborhoods are concerned about slipping property values due to the negative impacts of the widening and stripping of main roads, the potential for increased competition for seats in our neighborhood schools if new growth is approved without phasing restrictions tied to school capacity, and a growing backlog of approved but undeveloped home sites in the county. Public parks can help to offset those concerns.
More generally, numerous studies support the idea that converting open land to suburban development is a de facto future tax increase for local residents due to the net loss of revenue created by such changes in land use, because they demand more services in the future.
2. Positive impact on obesity and chronic health conditions
This point hardly needs further explanation, at it is well known that the patterns of suburban development that characterize the Atlee area provide few opportunities for safe walking or biking as a meaningful transportation alternative to the automobile. Developing a connected network of public trails, greenways and small passive parks in the Atlee area would have a positive impact on obesity rates and the prevalence of chronic health conditions.
The recently updated Hanover County Parks and Recreation Master Plan (HCPRMP) says: “Increasingly, parks and recreation facilities are viewed as connected to health. As the 2007 Virginia Outdoors Plan states: “With exploding health-care costs and the prevalence of chronic disease, prevention programs are gaining more attention and surfacing in recreation programs across the nation.” Researchers have recommended that parks and recreation agencies do more to emphasize the health benefits of their programs and consider their role as contributing to overall public health.” (p. 41)
3. Need for and appropriate locations of trails and greenways
It is important to note that the HCPRMP reports that the county has no neighborhood parks and only about one mile of Greenways/Trails in park land. The report notes: “While some larger neighborhood developments have small HOA-maintained parks and common areas, these are usually limited to neighborhood residents and, therefore, are not considered public parks for the purposes of this report.” (Table 6.3 footnote, p. 70) The report states that Hanover County is deficient in neighborhood parks by 280 acres (derived from Table 6.4, p. 71).
The Hanover County Comprehensive Plan says “The location of park facilities is dependent upon many factors, however, locating them in an area that is conducive to the types of activities for which the park will be utilized and making them convenient to access are major factors. When trails are referenced, they are generally designed to promote fitness through hiking, biking and/or horses, as well as greenways and nature” (p. 6-8).
The Giles Farm project, as already described, has a host of characteristics that makes it ideal for some publicly owned green space. Including publicly owned green space would not be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and the Plan already designates a large area in and around the Chickahominy River for future parks and recreation (of course, that area is a swamp, so this use would be essentially as a passive natural area and habitat preservation, perhaps with some observation boardwalks).
The HCPRMP states: “A fourth presentation was made at a Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee (PRAC) meeting, held at the Taylor Complex on August 31, 2009 which was open to the public. Between forty and fifty people attended, including PRAC members and County residents. The presentation centered on Chapter 6 of this Master Plan, with specific recommendations discussed. Interest was expressed for the overall County park system, including providing neighborhood parks, preserving historic character of various areas, and creating an interconnected network of parks and open spaces via trails and greenways. Specific amenities were also requested, including additional dog parks, boat ramps, and trails.” (p. 10)
HCPRMP: “As you can see, the percentage of the population of age 0 through 44 are all declining, whereas the 45+ age group is growing significantly larger. Possible implications for parks agencies of a larger population of retirees include the need for expanded facilities overall, since retirees have more leisure time and are more likely to be interested in the health benefits of recreation facilities than the population as a whole. Additionally, retirees are more likely to be interested in fitness and nutrition programs, walking and hiking paths, and outdoor gardens and open space. As the population ages, the accessibility of park facilities will become more important: paved trails that can accommodate people with limited mobility are likely to become more important.” (p. 40)
HCPRMP: “Hanover County is a growing community with the potential for significant population increases as the Richmond and Northern Virginia metropolitan areas become more crowded. There is a need for more parks in order to meet the population demands.” (p. 47)
HCPRMP: “To the extent practical, logical, accessible pedestrian/bicycle connections between facilities should be provided, with the intent of developing a unified county-wide “system” of interconnected recreational spaces where practical. Conflicts should be minimized by locating circulation systems with adequate buffers from vehicular traffic.” (p. 48)
HCPRMP: “Currently the County has several large, regional parks that can be expanded to meet group activity demands. However, public feedback has shown a strong interest in more decentralized neighborhood parks. Hanover County has very few neighborhood parks, and the majority of those that do exist are within the Town of Ashland.” (p. 50)
HCPRMP: “Finally, all the interest in acquiring and developing open space also meant that this expansion of Parks and Recreation responsibilities would need to be funded. Most respondents wanted to see more decentralized neighborhood parks close to where they live instead of centralized regional parks. Additional smaller parks spread throughout the County are more costly to maintain than larger central parks. These costs, as well as program and maintenance costs for additional recreation programs and facilities need to be considered when deciding to expand a park system. Respondents were split on whether user fees should be instituted for various activities, indicating that the willingness to pay these fees might depend on how much they are. Most respondents were also willing to support a bond referendum to help with costs.” (p. 9)
HCPRMRP: “While the County does have some popular large central parks, Table 6.4 and Figures 6.12 through 6.14 highlight the County’s lack of local parks. Particularly deficient are smaller Community and Neighborhood Parks. Of most concern are the areas within the Suburban Service District within the County. This is a County-defined district in which the County wishes to direct growth. The other parts of the County are more rural, with densities limited to one residence per 6.25 acres. With this minimal density, neighborhood and community parks are of minimal need, as most residents have larger parcels of land on which they might recreate on their own or with friends and family. Therefore, demand for neighborhood and community parks is generally limited to the Suburban Service Area.” (pp. 74-5)
HCPRMRP: “Many residents would prefer to travel a short distance to a neighborhood park for a family picnic or to go jogging rather than having to travel several miles to a large centralized park. With the availability of school sites for use by the public, some of the recreational needs of County residents can be met; however, the further a resident lives from the Suburban Service Area, the further apart these sites become. Also, in some neighborhoods, the neighborhood park gap can be lessened by open spaces or parks that have been included in subdivisions. However, these parks are few and far between and only minimally meet resident needs.” (p. 75) Public park land in Giles Farm would meet essentially every need identified above, very efficiently and economically.
4. Summary
Public parks are economic, social, health and community resources. Their direct and indirect benefits far outweigh the costs and opportunity costs of the land, as well as the costs for maintenance and public safety patrols and the “nuisance” factor that can come with parks. These costs are greatly minimized with small, passive, neighborhood parks. With the proper attention to detail, public parks and public greenways in the Giles Farm development could serve the broader community with minimal disruption to the overall plan of development. Privately-owned homeowner-association land is not a substitute for public parks. It makes little sense to try to retroactively carve out public spaces after the project is brought online. There are few if any serious legal or financial obstacles to incorporating them now, and it is likely that the legal and financial obstacles involved in retro-fitting the project would be far more serious. If the county is serious about the words in its own Comprehensive Plan and Parks and Recreation Master Plan, this opportunity cannot be lost.
The time is right, the location is right, the idea is right. The Board of Supervisors should defer the decision on the Giles Farm proposal for at least 60 days so that the appropriate planning can be done to include public open space in the proposal.
