 |
Editor's ViewpointMeditations Of A Minnesota Mossback |
The Nature Of Open Space Preservation
Cities must now demonstrate to the Met Council that recent housing developments demonstrate a target density of at least 3 units per net acre.
"Don't ask a dog to guard your food."
There's a lot of wisdom in that. It's a bit like "Don't ask the Metropolitan Council to stop growth."
Dogs are dogs, and they look out for their doggy interests.
The Metropolitan Council looks out for its interests - which have nothing to do with hindering growth.
Many years ago, one was more likely to hear local governments kick about the constraints imposed by the Met Council, than to ask for Council opinion on local issues. Communities often saw regional planning efforts as unwanted interference in city business.
Sometimes the Council did interfere. In one well-known instance, in response to the Met Council's efforts to impose sanitary sewer within its borders, the city of Lake Elmo initiated a legal battle, and lost it. Sewers have come to Lake Elmo.
In a turnabout, I have lately heard local government officials and residents look to the Met Council for direction in local open space planning efforts. This makes no sense at all.
The Met Council is a regional planning agency. Its ultimate objective? Improved efficiency, as in "support[ing] development that makes the most efficient use of public resources and investments."
The mission of the Council "is to develop, in cooperation with local communities, a comprehensive regional planning framework, focusing on transportation, wastewater, parks and aviation systems, that guides the efficient growth of the metropolitan area."
And growth has happened. Between 1970 and 2004, the seven-county metropolitan area grew from 1.87 million to 2.77 million - on the Met Council's watch.
Growth will continue. The Council projects that by 2030, more than 3.6 million people will live here - roughly double the number in 1970. All those people need places to live, and it is the charge of the Met Council to make sure they find housing without overtaxing the public's pocketbook - and its infrastructure systems.
What efficient means is that the Council will try to minimize the cost of providing these services - transportation, airports, sewer and water, and parks - to all of us.
One of the most effective ways to minimize these costs is through the use of increased development density. Think about it: a mile of sewer can serve 100 households - or 1,000 - depending on how many units you build next to the pipe.
As local development pressures mount, cities look to add sewer connections. Before obtaining those sewer extension permits from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, cities must now demonstrate to the Met Council that recent housing developments - as an aggregate - demonstrate a target density of at least 3 units per net acre.
So we know who's promoting higher development density. But, you may wonder, who is looking after the preservation of local open space?
Only you.
You voted for open space in Washington County. You answered the Lino Lakes quality of life survey in 2006 and said "Parks and trails are important." Your tax dollars purchased the first public lakeshore in Centerville in over 100 years.
Now, more than ever, local communities must continue to take the initiative to squirrel away - forever - the green spaces that make living in the suburbs extraordinary, while facing the fact that land prices have never been higher.
These are tough issues! Who should pay for local parks? How can communities ensure that its open spaces are not lost, one development at a time? Where can cities obtain the planning and legal resources needed to ensure that open space preservation agreements are legally binding?
The Met Council? No, no, and no.
As local taxpayers, we must help shoulder the burden of setting aside space for local parks and greenways. We must insist that open space remains a priority local agenda item in the coming months. We should learn about various planning tools - such as Transfer of Development Rights - available to cities and counties. And we need to insist on obtaining the best legal help available to ensure that land held "in perpetuity" won't, through some loophole, find its way back into the land market.
And then, maybe, our cities will retain some of that openness that beckoned us here in the first place.
The question of how best to conserve our open spaces can't be left to the Met Council. The Council's charge is the efficient use of land, not setting it aside.
It's the nature of the beast.