I approve of this, with one reservation.
The Houston City Council decided Wednesday that residential developers must share the costs of ensuring that future generations of Houstonians enjoy access to parks and green space as their city grows.
The council voted unanimously to require developers to provide land or pay fees for acquiring new parks, effective Nov. 1. Until now, money to acquire land for parks in Houston has come mainly from private donations.
Mayor Bill White hailed the vote as a historic signal that city officials are attuned to quality of life issues as well as to the needs of business and industry.
“Citizens should know that no special interest pulls the strings at City Hall,” White said.
Developers gained some concessions Wednesday when the council agreed to reduce the park fees for all residential development from $800 to $700 per housing unit and to reduce the amount of land required for single-family developments.
The draft recommended by city staff included different formulas to calculate the land required for single- and multi-family developments. A developer who built 100 apartments, for example, would have to provide 1.8 acres, while a 100-house single-family development would require 2.6 acres.
The council agreed Wednesday to apply the 1.8-acre standard to single- and multi-family developments.
Despite the amendments, leaders of development groups said the ordinance could push new development out of the city and add costs that could put home ownership out of reach for some Houstonians.
“This ordinance will have a negative effect on homeownership and housing affordability,” Adam Aschmann, governmental affairs director for the Greater Houston Builders Association, said in a letter to White and the council.
Wednesday’s vote came after about two hours of discussion on a host of amendments offered by council members, some of which ultimately were withdrawn. The vote to reduce the single-family acreage requirement was unanimous, while Councilwoman Pam Holm cast the only vote against reducing the fee.
Holm said she was worried that a lower fee would encourage developers to pay the fee rather than provide land in or near their developments, which she said would be preferable.
But Councilwoman Anne Clutterbuck, who offered the amendment lowering the fee, said she was concerned about adding costs that could price low- or moderate-income families out of the house market.
I do not share the concerns about the effect of the additional cost. If developers simply tack on an extra $700 to each house they build, is that going to price any out from buying it? By my calculations, the difference in payments for a 30-year mortgage at seven percent interest on a $150,000 house note when that extra cost is added is five bucks a month. I really don’t see that as being a factor.
What does concern me is something that was brought up when this proposal was first floated.
The money raised by the fee in Houston would go into a fund that would pay for acquiring parkland or adding new facilities, such as sports fields or playground equipment, to existing parks.
The money could not be used for routine maintenance. Joe Turner, Houston’s parks and recreation director, acknowledged that maintaining the new parks the city acquired through the ordinance would require increased maintenance staffing funded by taxpayers.
I support efforts to acquire more park space. I’m not surprised that this passed unanimously. Every candidate I’ve interviewed and asked about this ordinance expressed approval of it. But how are we going to pay for the upkeep of that increased park space? It’s not clear to me that we’ve fully addressed this issue. I hope that matter is taken up in the near future.
If I was a developer, the most profitable scenerio would be to designate and build park space in a low-elevation flood control detention area. If constructed in an appealing, functional manner, it could become the center of the community and an example for other development. Money contributed to the City of Houston should also be used on such acreage.
The argument could be made that the property tax revenue generated by the development that made the parks possible would be enough to cover any increase in staffing necessary to maintain those new parks.