Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: MONDAY, January 16, 1995 TAG: 9501260016
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-6 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
One issue sure to come up is cost.
The prospect of state and federal cutbacks does hang, after all, over most public activities, particularly proposed ones. Greenways rank as one of a number of nice things the region would benefit from having, all of which must compete for ever-scarcer dollars.
Cost, though, should not be a killer. Far from it. Greenways have caught on elsewhere in the country in part because they offer more value on the taxpayers' dollar than do most kinds of recreation investment and open-space preservation.
Greenways, typically multi-use, usually follow river banks, roads, ridgelines, or rail or utility rights of way. (For our purposes, we've extended the definition to include bike paths.)
In years past, open space has been preserved often with little rhyme or reason. Hunks of land, purchased or donated or set aside for conservation, remain here and there as mostly disconnected patches of green with varying levels of access and usage.
Preservation efforts have been regarded in some cases, and with some accuracy, as a preoccupation of the privileged. But their biggest drawback is the expense of acquiring open land. There's little land available, particularly in metropolitan areas, and even less money with which to buy it.
Greenways, by contrast, are connecting rather than isolated spaces. Their linear form usually is more accessible; more useful for walking, running or biking; and more valuable as buffer. The same amount of land, extended along a trail or other narrow corridor, borders more of a community than does a traditional square park.
By using what author Charles Little calls a community's ``linear commons'' - for recreation, transportation and natural buffer - greenways can benefit a great many people, including in urban neighborhoods.
And they cost less, in part, because long, thin bands, often in floodplains or transportation rights-of-way, tend to be less suitable for development than square parcels of land.
Other ways to keep costs down include proffers from developers, by which open-space provisions become part of the deal for building rights. (Developers stand to profit from greenways near or through their properties. Leaving aside recreation, flood control and other benefits, the visual buffer alone can add to a development's value.)
Usually, conservation easements are an option. Development rights can be bought, or obtained in return for tax breaks, with ownership remaining in private hands.
In the few cases where buying land may prove necessary, big-picture analysis of cost and benefits is still likely to show a good return for a locality. As properties adjacent to linear parks and greenways increase in value, rising tax revenues can help offset land-acquisition costs.
And this is not to figure in such economic benefits as a city's enhanced ability to retain middle-class population (and tax base), or a region's increased attractiveness to employers seeking new business sites.
As the local studying proceeds, costs ought to be grounds for promoting greenways, not dismissing them.
by CNB