Linking Protected Open Space into a Regional Network | Public Recreational Facilities, Parks,
and Preserves | Restoration Sites and Development Initiated Open Spaces | Open Space
Protected by Non Profit Land Trusts | Open Space Funding, Staffing, and Resources |
Open
Space Restoration, Management, and Access
Open Space Funding, Staffing, and Resources
There is insufficient funding for coordinating open space preservation and conducting field monitoring. Municipalities ultimately make the decisions on open space. The County has limited formal authority to protect open space or to directly guide development. Municipal turnover means local officials are not experienced with open space issues. Furthermore, as more open space is protected through locally passed initiatives, there will be an increased need for professional monitoring.
Rising land costs remain the major obstacle to open space protection. Rising land costs are making it more difficult for preservation programs to finance the protection of open space. Rising land costs increase the tax burden of large landowners and farmers. This scenario encourages farmers to subdivide, sell or develop their property, and buy more affordable land outside the County. Although fee-simple acquisition is still being done by the land trusts, it is increasingly expensive.
Public funds for open space may not provide reliably consistent funding amounts. There is no permanently established state fund to be used for protecting open space. Therefore, there is always a certain level of uncertainty as to how open space projects will be funded. In general, the same is true for County or municipal funding, although in Chester County voter-referendums have been quite successful. Funding for open space education efforts is even more tenuous. Municipalities do not have the resources to educate residents, businesses, or municipal officials regarding open space and natural resource protection.
The demand for open space funding currently exceeds the funding supply. It is generally accepted that more landowners would apply for open space protection funding if more funding was available. Only 50 to 75 percent of projects submitted to the County get funded, and typically those that receive funds do not get the full amount. Providing full funding for the existing open space program could be an efficient means for protecting open space, since the programs are already in place and there would be minimal start up costs.
There are complications with State funding for open space, which limit its practicality. State funding for open space protection has become less popular due to the state’s increased access requirements. As a result, local efforts are relying more on county and local funding. As Growing Greener II funding draws down, the state is providing a smaller match to County and locally-generated funding. There is a need for a permanent stream of open space funding from the state since bond and referendum-based funding sources are limited in time. Land trusts are avoiding using Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) funds for some projects because the DCNR access requirements do not accommodate landowner wishes. DCNR has also been known to change their access requirements, after awarding a land protection grant. Such a change can upset landowners and discouraged the land trusts from using DCNR funding.
Controversies regarding how public money is being spent can complicate the protection of open space. There have been calls for greater access to publicly funded open space. Public access often leads to community support, but it can also potentially impact the resources that the open space funding is intended to protect. Chester County is becoming a less diverse, exclusively wealthy community. Some people now think open space preservation has contributed to this by eliminating land available for affordable housing. There is also a sentiment that the original intent of the spray and drip irrigation sewage disposal program (which was to introduce new technologies) is no longer being met.
The Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) can be an effective tool at the regional level, but the municipality-based land use regulations in Pennsylvania can complicate such an approach. TDR is being considered and adopted more than it was ten years ago. However, open space education at the local level is not consistent. Few in the general public fully understand how zoning works in relation to open space protection.
There is still debate about the methodology used to determine how much open space in Chester County is protected versus how much is developed. There is not yet a consistent and reliable way to efficiently calculate the amount, location and intensity of land development. Ideally there should be an annual report of how many acres were developed in a given calendar year. Likewise, calculating the number of protected acres is a labor intensive process, and it relies on data from various sources that may be inaccurate or incomplete.
Linking Protected Open Space into a Regional Network | Public Recreational Facilities, Parks,
and Preserves | Restoration Sites and Development Initiated Open Spaces | Open Space
Protected by Non Profit Land Trusts | Open Space Funding, Staffing, and Resources |
Open
Space Restoration, Management, and Access
Printable version of ALL issues (PDF, 33 KB)