WSP11614 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. ~ '1:>,nver ?o~l:-- <i/q!7.3 -,...... - , I ..~" I ' ,",1' . I I DItI....PWPhOIO I . 1 , DENVER-AREA DEVELOPMENT ABUTS PASTURE LAND OF A HERD OF CATILE The preservation of agricultural land has been an objective in many land-use proposals. 'Simple Solution' Suggested On Open-Space land Equity By BOB EWEGE.\! ~ Ill'nH'r ro~t Staff Writer A ran' ('vent occurred last week before the inlt>rim I:md-Ilse ~tlldy ('Omm1l1N' -or thp Colorado Legislatsre--a simple solu- tion was proposed for II complex problem. The problem is how-or whether-to compensate owners of unrle~'cloped land whose market value drops because of new laws restricting"itS de'w'lopment as resl. I dentiaJ. industrial or commercial proper- ty. The su~e~ed solution, proposed by Denver lawver Robert F. \"'eloom and Stale Rep. ~tichael Strang, R.Caroondale, is to let them be paid for that lo~t riJlhl. But that pa>'ment, unlike lhose in other proposals, would comt" from those individ- uals in thl'private market who benefit b)' the same law. The proPosal aurac1,td little aUention when it W,1S pr('!;cnled by WelOOm, perhaps because the legislators didn't full)' understand it. Strang said, But later, I in private discussiorui, se'ieral seemed in- trigut"d, The proposal is 9 simple one--bul only after a bit of background is explained. One of Ihe principal aims of mlJ{'h land- u~ leltislation is Ihe preservati(ln of "oprn space," which may mean parks, agricultural land or other open vislas, Bill to preserve that open space, the right of Ihe ov,ner to develop it has to be ~ - taken away. That may mean a financial loss, and it has Ix'pn one of Ihe most con. trovl'rJ':ial ques!i(Jns to legislators con- siderinj;llheis.<;ue. Some legislators have proposrd thai the slate buy such land at market value, or else lease its "devt"lopment rights" - much as mineral rights now are lE.'ased. The usual objt"ction there is also simple - that would cost a lot of money. And deter. mining land's true market worth is a lricky business. Strang's and Weloorn's proposal puIs that compensation concept back into the private marketplace by considering an. other I'Il'ml'nt-the landowner who bene- fits from the law. The principle can be shown by a h:..po- Iheticalcase, Suppose a gh-en area contains Iwo itkn. tical parcels of land. equally suileci for de. \'e1opment. Each has a value of S300 an acre as farmland. but a land developer is willinl! to pay $600 an acre, Passing a law which artificially re. ~Iricts Jones from de\'elopins his land. preserving it as opt'n space, but leis Smith de\elop his parcel drops Jones' mark,"t valUE.' back to tJOO an acre, Gut it also does !:Omething else-it raises the value of Smilh's l:lnd. The price of land, Iikf' any other free market commodity. reflrcts sUflply and demand, Artilicl3lly restrictmg the supply of de\'elop<lble land makes the remaining acrl'age more valuable-perhaps $900 an acre, Smith. in this instance, did nolhing to earn Ihat exlra $300 an i1cre. It is purely a windfall resulting from the passage of the law-just as was Jonl's' $300 loss. I Strang's and Welborn's solution thus boils down to Ii'll' no\'el Idea of letting I Smith pay Jones, Development Rights That would be done through a system of I ',:development rights allocable to land wbich may be sold by the owners of the land designalt'd for low-df'osity devf'lop.1 ment to the owners of land designated for I ~igh-d('nsity de,'elopment," in the legislil- ti\'f~ proposal. Strang and Welborn both emphasized the propo."3l is simply an idea to be dis- cussl'd and admittoo they weren't sure Ofl how such a simpl(> proposal in theory w(luld work oul in practice, But Strang suggeslt"d the approach might have great fle:dbility. In acu!al practice, it wouldn't be limited to two landowners, Any developml'nt right could be sold 1>)' any landowner in a gi\'en area 10 any olher ownl!r. (J460