Subdude Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 City orders Houston developers to share park costsBuilders must provide open land or pay fees, but critics fear home prices will rise as a resultBy MIKE SNYDERCopyright 2007 Houston Chronicle The Houston City Council decided Wednesday that residential developers must share the costs of ensuring that future generations of Houstonians enjoy access to parks and green space as their city grows.The council voted unanimously to require developers to provide land or pay fees for acquiring new parks, effective Nov. 1. Until now, money to acquire land for parks in Houston has come mainly from private donations....Despite the amendments, leaders of development groups said the ordinance could push new development out of the city and add costs that could put home ownership out of reach for some Houstonians."This ordinance will have a negative effect on homeownership and housing affordability," Adam Aschmann, governmental affairs director for the Greater Houston Builders Association, said in a letter to White and the council....Many cities across the country have passed similar laws over the past 20 years, including Austin and Fort Worth and several Houston suburbs.Link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 LinkThis thread is mislabeled. In order to assure reasonable profit margins, developers will just past the added cost on to consumers. Because the replacement value of all used homes now factors in the additional fee, used home prices will adjust upward. This is generally good for homeowners within city limits. It is bad for renters and anyone looking to buy a home, though. The ordinance is poorly designed. Most single-family subdivisions within the city limits (except for affordable housing) are already built with park space that would wholly or in large part satisfy the ordinance requirements, and that is done because the market demands it. Almost no part of a multifamily development will qualify as park space; additionally the fee as a percentage of total cost per housing unit is higher. These factors place a greater relative burden on multifamily than on single-family, discouraging multifamily construction more than it discourages single-family construction.It also doesn't make as much sense because the average household size of a new apartment is much lower than that of a new single-family home, and surely that translates to more demand for park space from residents of single-family homes, but each pays the same amount into a park fund.Urbanistas, like Peter Brown markets himself as even though he was an important part of bringing this ordinance about, should be ashamed of this ordinance, which hurts renters and new residents and discourages densification. Instead of distorting the market with fees, the City *could* have simply allocated more monies from the general fund to various Super Neighborhoods based upon population (which would've been more equitable anyway, since it isn't just new residents that use new parks), but then Mayor White wouldn't have had the good PR associated with lowering the tax rate...and the cherry on top is that as housing prices adjust to account for the new fees, so will assessed property values. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockmat Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 So developers can do one of two things? Either pay money or provide the land. Is that correct? That's what I gathered from this quote: "Holm said she was worried that a lower fee would encourage developers to pay the fee rather than provide land in or near their developments, which she said would be preferable."And if they chose to provide land, what does the COH expect them to do; save a piece of they're developing and leave it as a green space? And I wonder if all they have to do is leave it as grass, or at least add some trees if none were left? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 Developers are required to put in infrastructure, such as roads, water, and sewer when they build new subdivisions. If parks are considered infrastructure...and I believe increasingly they are...then this is simply an attempt to have them pay for infrastructure. The price of admission is not steep. $700 is less than 1/2 of 1% of the most basic new Houston home. It is closer to 1/4 of 1% of what is typically being built. Parks add value to a home. The homeowner recoups the investment quickly. I do not have a problem with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double L Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metrop...an/5204542.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
millennica Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metrop...an/5204542.htmlIs this the same article that was posted under the thread, Developers must fund parks? If so, the threads should be merged. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest danax Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 Is this the same article that was posted under the thread, Developers must fund parks? If so, the threads should be merged.Topics merged.Maybe I missed it but I don't see where the money that the developers would pay instead of donating land would go exactly, into the general fund or earmarked only for parkland purchase? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Original Timmy Chan's Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 Houston's Parks and Rec neglects most of the parks it has today...how the hell do they plan to take on the additional burden of these new parks? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musicman Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 Houston's Parks and Rec neglects most of the parks it has today...how the hell do they plan to take on the additional burden of these new parks?good point OTC. the "premier" parks get funding priority but many neighborhood ones are neglected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockmat Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 Topics merged.Maybe I missed it but I don't see where the money that the developers would pay instead of donating land would go exactly, into the general fund or earmarked only for parkland purchase?The new ordinance presents builders with a choice. Either provide land for public space or contribute to a city fund to purchase parkland.http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/5207827.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.