Any discussion of long term maintenance which seems to be a city challenge in landscaped public spaces?
I would live to see a real analysis of this. Unless I am missing something, the developer gets nice higher density and more profit by having more houses on small yards without a lawn for kids to play in. The City gets a big park to make up for those lawns. Then ALL of the City residents are on the hook to maintain and water all that grass as opposed to the individual property owners. Looks like classic displacement economics to me. Increase my profits (the developer) and stick the costs onto someone else. I also would like to see a square foot analysis of how much grass this big new park is going to have and how much grass the 500 homes would have if each house had their own lawn. Who is going to pay in 20 years, when the existing city civil servants who pushed such projects are long retired on the property tax income from such projects, to do the necessary capital upgrades a big park will require as opposed to the 500 home owners? A 25 year all in Benefit-Cost analysis telling us why this is a good Urban Planning – Economic Benefit for the town at large may well show that such decisions by the town leaders is not a great thing. Who is getting the benefits and who is getting the costs?
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.