Financing for the Future: The Economic Benefits of Parks and Open Space.

State and local governments are investing in parks and open space not only for the traditional reasons of protecting their environment and providing recreational opportunities, but also because it makes good economic sense--saving taxpayer dollars, attracting investment, rejuvenating cities, and boosting tourism, to name a few benefits.

This article is based on a 1999 Trust for Public Land report entitled. The Economic Benefits of Parks and Open Space. The full report is available at www.tpl.org.

In the past several years local, county, and state election results have clearly demonstrated that protecting open space is an issue of growing importance to American voters. In fact, voters will not only support land conservation initiatives, they also will authorize public funds to pay for such efforts.

The election returns speak for themselves. In 1999, 102 referenda to commit public funds to protect open space were placed before voters in 22 states. Ninety percent (92 referenda) passed, generating more than $1.8 billion in open space acquisition funds. [1] Voters accomplished this by authorizing new property taxes, sales taxes, real estate excise taxes, and general obligation bonds to protect special or unique landscapes.

These statistics, however, tell only part of the story. State and local governments across the United States also launched open-space initiatives that did not require referenda. For example, Illinois Governor George Ryan signed a bill that gave communities $160 million to buy open space and Montgomery County, Maryland, announced a $100 million program to fund open space. [2]

Development of open space is hardly a new phenomenon; however, it has experienced a renaissance of extraordinary scale in the post-World-War-II era. During this period, there has been a trend away from older communities and a demand by the middle class for newer, single-use housing on individual lots. While open space everywhere is being converted to other' uses, fast-growing corridors clustered near metropolitan areas perhaps have seen the most pressure for housing and other development. For example, total population of the biggest cities in the United States' 39 largest metropolitan areas has grown by one million over the past 20 years. During this same period, however, total suburban population of these 39 metropolitan areas has grown by 30 million. [3]