Those that would benefit from improvements at Patterson Park should be the ones included within the boundaries of a special benefits district.  Such a concept seems fair – those that gain an advantage should be the ones to support those gains.  Taking a look at some park related research, it becomes apparent that improved operations and maintenance at Patterson Park would mostly benefit those park users and property owners who live in the neighborhoods surrounding Patterson Park.

By way of example, in a 2002 article about Patterson Park, urban park expert Peter Harnik noted that “virtually everyone in Baltimore – especially the residents of southeast Baltimore – considers Patterson Park a “neighborhood park’” that is used mostly by those who live near the park.[1]  Some fourteen years later, surveys of park users confirm Peter Harnik’s declaration that Patterson Park is a “neighborhood park” by indicating that the vast majority of park users live in the neighborhoods surrounding the park.[2]  Those local park users “see the park as a local amenity, one that enhances the quality of their living environment” and is “essential to the quality of life of those in the many communities that surround it . . .”[3]  Additionally, many park users indicated a desire to improve maintenance and operations at the park.[4]  Such facts indicate that any operational and maintenance improvements will mostly benefit park users made up of residents in Patterson Park’s surrounding neighborhoods.

From an economic perspective, those that own property near Patterson Park also benefit from that proximity through an increase in property values.   As recognized by Frederick L. Olmsted, Sr., “just as a local park of suitable size, location and character, and of which the proper public maintenance is reasonably assured, [a park] adds more to the value of the remaining land in the residential area which it serves than the value of the land withdrawn to create it.”[5]  This principle was further confirmed by research conducted by John Crompton of Texas A&M.  In a monograph and series of articles, Crompton coined the phrase “the proximate principle” which indicates that properties in proximity to a park typically have property values that are higher than comparable properties farther away from a park.[6] Those properties typically receive this boost in value if the park is well maintained and is an overall quality park to “which residents are passionately attached.”[7]  Parks have a negative impact on property values when they are poorly maintained, “dilapidated, dirty, blighted . . . with decrepit facilities and broken equipment in which undesirable groups congregate.”[8]  Other studies from Boston, Philadelphia, Portland and Minneapolis-St. Paul also show increases in values of properties located in proximity to urban parks.[9]

These studies and articles all define those that would benefit from improvements that stem from creating a special benefits district at Patterson Park – parks users and property owners who live in the vicinity of the park.  The next blog post will discuss specific economic data showing that the “proximate principle” holds up in Baltimore City.

 

 

[1] Peter Harnik, The Trust for Public Land, The Best Backyard in Baltimore 7-8, (2002), http://cloud.tpl.org/pubs/ccpe-baltimore-MD-park-system-rpt.pdf at 8-9.

[2] Patterson Park 2016 Master Plan at Appendix B, Seasonal Field Study of Patterson Park.

[3] Patterson Park 2016 Master Plan at xvi, 2.

[4] Patterson Park 2016 Master Plan at xii, 22, 25-26.

[5] Frederick Olmstead, Proceeding of the Eleventh National Conference on City Planning:  Niagara Falls and Buffalo, N.Y. at 14 (1919), http://scans.library.utoronto.ca/pdf/3/4/proceedingsofnat11natiuoft/proceedingsofnat11natiuoft.pdf.

[6] John Crompton, The Impact of Parks and Open Spaces on Property Taxes 1, Trust for Public Land (Constance T.F. de Brun ed., 2007),  http://cloud.tpl.org/pubs/benefits_econbenefits_landconserve.pdf (stating that the “proximate principle states that the market values of properties located near a park or open space (POS) frequently are higher than those of comparable properties located elsewhere.”); John L. Crompton, Nat’l Recreation and Park Assoc., The Proximate Principle: The Impacts of Parks, Open Space and Water Features on Residential Property Values and the Property Tax Base 18, (2^nd ed. 2004); John L. Crompton, The Impact of Parks on Property Value: Empirical Evidence from the Past Two Decades in the United States, 10 Managing Leisure 203 (Oct. 2005); John L. Crompton, The Role of the Proximate Principle in the Emergence of Urban Parks in the United Kingdom and the United States, 26 Leisure Stud. 214 (Apr. 2007); John L Crompton, The Impact of Parks on Property Values:  A Review of the Empirical Evidence, 33 J. of Leisure Res. 2 (2001).

[7] Crompton, The Impact of Parks and Open Spaces on Property Taxes at 8.

[8] Crompton, The Impact of Parks and Open Spaces on Property Taxes at 8; see also, I-Jui Lin, et. al., Examining the Economic Impact of Park Facilities on Neighboring Residential Property Values 326-27, 45 Applied Geography  326-27 (2013) (indicating the certain characteristics of urban parks can lead to negative valuations of neighboring properties especially when those parks contain active facilities such as children’s play areas and skate parks);  C.C. Konijnendijk, et al., International Federation of Park and Recreation Administration, Benefits of Urban Parks:  A Systemic Review, A Report for IFPRA 22 (2013) https://worldurbanparks.org/images/Newsletters/IfpraBenefitsOfUrbanParks.pdf (indicating crime, noise from the park and neon lights can have negative effects on property values).

[9] Kayo Tajima, New Estimates of the Demand for Urban Green Space: Implications for Valuing the Environmental Benefits of Boston’s Big Dig Project, 25 J. of Urb. Aff. 641, 654 (2003); T.R. Hammer, et al., Research Report: The Effect of a Large Park on Real Estate Value, 40 J. of the Am. Inst. of Planners 274, 277 (1974); Margot Lutzenhiser, Noelwah Netusil, The Effect of Open Spaces on a Home’s Sale Price, 19 Contemp. Econ. Pol’y 291, 297-98 (2001); Soren T. Anderson & Sarah H. West., Open Space, Residential Property Values, and Spatial Context 787, 36 Regional Sci. and Urb. Econ. 773, 787 (2006).