THE PRESIDENT’S HOOT!

 
 
 


Lands

 

I have heard at least one developer chant at public meetings that the only way to preserve what the community wants in Indian River County is to buy it.  He is right!  Unfortunately, we cannot afford to buy all that would make this an ideal planned community.  Therefore, we will have to make some choices. 

 

Our county has had a very successful lands acquisition program.  The last referendum passed in 1992 for $26 million through matching state funds has purchased over $52 million worth of land.  Only about $2.5 million are left, earmarked for natural habitats.

 

Unfortunately development is looming.  Trees are being cut, concrete paving over paradise. An old Frank Thomas song laments, “Florida used to be green and now is becoming black and white” –asphalt top and concrete.  Perhaps the county will have to have a different symbol than three oranges as none will be left.  We are now down to two!

 

We are at a critical time in Indian River County history.  If we do not purchase land now, there will be little left to purchase in 5 years and it will be even more exorbitantly expensive.

 

We are now considering extending the funding of the Environmental Lands Acquisition Program by means of a $50 million bond referendum to be voted upon at the November 2004 General Election.

 

There has been some interest in expanding the scope of the program to include acquisition and protection of cultural heritage lands, and the purchase of development right to protect of agricultural lands.

 

The county through the Land Acquisition Advisory Committee has held two workshops intended to get public input into this process to promote full and diverse participation in decision-making.  In addition, the Trust for Public Land (TPL) will conduct a statistically valid phone survey at no public cost within 30 days to determine ballot language for a successful referendum.  The LAAC would like to have a consensus within the community when they recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners to place a new bond referendum on the ballot for the general November 2, 2004 election.

 

Buying land is a good deal financially.

 

Concern about the loss of property taxes if property is preserved is a false concern:

 

  1. Significant taxes are probably not being paid on the property being purchased anyway.
  2. Residential land value around preserved land goes up and so taxes do go up to compensate for this loss. People actually come here because it is not over crowded.
  3. Tax revenues from building residential housing does not support itself.  Studies in two counties given below show that for every $ 1 generated by residential revenues, the county and schools spend $1.20 and $1.56 for schools, roads, government buildings and emergency services. 

Ratio of Community Revenues & Expenses

 

 

 Costs for Services*

 

 

Collier Co.

Lake Co.

Land Use

Revenues

Expenses

Expenses

Residential

 $ 1.00

 $ 1.20

 $   1.56

Agriculture & Agribusiness

 $ 1.00

 $ 0.37

 $   0.07

Commercial & Industrial

 $ 1.00

 $ 0.24

 $   0.13

Vacant

 $ 1.00

 $ 0.19

 $   0.05

Open

 $ 1.00

 $ 0.26

 $   0.03

Other

 $ 1.00

 $ 0.24

 $   0.97

 

*Ratio of revenues to costs for services such as police and fire protection, buildings schools and roads
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


  1. Preserved lands provide vital services. Dr. David Cox has estimated the value of annual ecosystem services for the county acquired lands to be over $11 million a year (see his article on page 2).  These services include our water supply, flood control and storm protection, regulation, nutrient cycling, recreation /cultural opportunities, waste treatment, water regulation, habitat for plants and animals, food production, gas regulation, raw materials, biological control, climate regulation, pollination, and soil formation.

 

Another concern over the bond issue is that already 30% is preserved in Indian River County.  Most of this is the Blue Cypress Marsh, a major water supply for central Florida and an ideal recreational area for us. 

 

We really are talking about the kind of world we will leave our children, as Jamie Clark says. Will our generation leave the next a better world? Will it be as rich and diverse as the one they inhabit today? Will we meet our responsibility - our duty - to "ensure that some measure of what we have received is there to be enjoyed by tomorrow's children?"  What will our lasting legacy to future generations be? (Taken from Jamie Rappaport Clark's Testimony on Endangered Species and Critical Habitat, Before the U.S. House Committee on Resources, Hearing on H.R. 2933, "The Critical Habitat Reform Act of 2003" April 28, 2004.)

 

Why should we purchase land?  It is essential for our quality of life for each one enjoying this paradise.  It is precious; we need to take care of it for our future generations.

 

Richard H. Baker, President (May 2004)