|
|
|
|
It certainly would be nice if Brown Township remained largely farmland. I enjoy the rural setting, with the open vistas and fields of crops (see Room to Explode). But I also recognize that there are folks who own land that might want to sell it -- indeed some are counting on being able to sell it to fund their retirement or send their kids to college. And the best price will almost always come from residential developers. I once asked a neighbor if he would be willing to sell the farm that had been in his family for at least three generations. He said that of course he would. His ancestors came to America from Europe, where they had presumably lived for centuries, because land was affordable here. The land may have sentimental value, but it's primarily what the economists call a 'factor of production.' My neighbor said he could sell his farm land here, and then go out into Madison or Clark county and buy two or three times as much land. I understand that. So how do we resolve two conflicting interests: those of the farmer/landowners who want to sell out for the best price and those of us who want to stay in the township and not have it turn into another jungle of 4-houses-per-acre developments? This problem has been faced in many communities across the country, and good solutions have been found. The Brown Township Comprehensive Plan was updated in 2005 to include these concepts. Two of the most important ones are Conservation (or Cluster) Development, and Purchase of Development Rights. Conservation development is an approach used to cluster homes into small village-like groups while leaving significant amounts of space open for the shared use of the cluster. Here is an article that discusses the conservation development approach promoted by Randall Arendt, who taught a class here in Columbus which many of us from the Brown Twp planning team attended. A good deal of Arendt's thinking was incorporated into the Brown Twp Comprehensive Plan. A key thing to notice is that this is a method for development. It is not anti-development at all. It's just that few, if any, developers in Central Ohio have ever tried this approach, and they're afraid that conservation development will limit their profits. I think there's a good chance that a conservation style development would limit their revenue. On a 100 acre tract of land, a developer could build something on the order of 400 houses (remember that they use some of the land for roads, easements, and storm water management). If each one of those houses sold for $150,000, that's $60 million!! Using conservation development, the 400 houses would still be allowed, but they would have to be clustered in 60 of the acres (making the lot sizes about 6,000 sqft). The other 40 acres would be permanent open space. So the first big question for the developer is: are there 400 homebuyers out there who would pay $150,000 for a house on a 6,000sqft lot if they also get 40 acres of shared open space? After all, that's what it takes to generate $60 million in revenue. There's some other important factors in play. When all the homes are clustered in a smaller area, it costs less to build roads and utility lines. The amount of land that needs to be graded is reduced as well. Let's say these cost savings come out to $5 million. Remember that the developer lives on his profits, not revenue. So if his expenses are reduced by $5 million, he can generate the same profit as before by selling his houses for a total of $55 million, or $137,500 per house. Upscale developments in Central Ohio, such as the Heritage Lakes neighborhood built by Planned Development often incorporate a golf course in the plan. Why? Frankly, because Central Ohio topology isn't very interesting, and without a beachfront, mountains, or other nice vistas, a golf course is a good way to create attractive views. According to Arendt, studies have shown that only about half the households in a golf community have an active golfer. So many people live along a golf course just to enjoy the open space and often, the exclusivity. Arendt says to just forget the golf course, and keep the open space. Dan O'Brien spent millions building the golf course and clubhouse at Heritage Lakes. Arendt observes that there is also a market for people who want houses on decent sized lots (perhaps a third of an acre), and lots of open space, but that the open space does not have to be a golf course. There are examples of horse farms in the open space, and also of continued crop farming. Some developments have been allowed to go back to a natural state. The point is that there are ways to have both low density development and reasonable profit for the developers. The trick is getting one to take the chance. It could be that we need to figure out a way to reward a developer who does that. Please go over to the blog and let all of us know what you think. You are encouraged to return to the Research Page and step through all the topics listed on the left side to continue your understanding of school funding and politics in our community. |
|
Send mail to
savehilliardschools@msn.com with
questions or comments about this web site.
|
