By Thomas W. Blaine
District Specialist, OSU Extension
Over the past few years, the topic of land use has become one of the most constantly discussed issues in the state of Ohio. The primary concerns expressed in the media have centered around the loss of farmland and open space, the related problem of urban sprawl, decay of urban areas, and the costs of community services.
In response to this issue, Governor Voinovich appointed a twenty-one-member Farmland Preservation Task Force in 1996. The task force held numerous meetings throughout the state, hearing the views of concerned citizens as well as information from land use professionals on tools for dealing with land use change which include comprehensive land use planning, zoning, open space development (cluster housing), and purchase of development rights (PDR).
Why the Concern? Why Now?
Out migration from cities has constituted a trend not only in Ohio, but throughout most of the nation over the entire post World War II era. This phenomenon has been well documented and analyzed both in the popular media and in the scholarly literature.
In the 1950s, suburbs began to expand at the fringes of virtually every metropolitan area. The 1960s and 1970s saw a continuation of this trend. Many of the inner cities became abandoned, or left to those who could not afford to "move out." As a result, the urban tax base declined, and in turn so did the quality of infrastructure. At the same time, prosperity prevailed in the suburbs.
The out migration trends have only been punctuated by adverse movements in the business cycle. The protracted recession of 1979-82, during which home mortgage rates rose to over 15 percent, produced a dramatic decrease in land conversion rates. In fact, statistics show that for many areas in the state, the amount of land in farms actually increased slightly during this period.
The economic expansions of 1982-89 and 1992-present have produced increased demands for rural real estate both from residents who want to move beyond the suburbs and businesses that want to locate near their employees and customers. These two most recent waves of out migration have alarmed a large number of residents of Ohio. Many of those who have come together have virtually nothing in common except their concern over this issue.
These advocacy groups have pointed out that not only are the inner cities continuing to decay, but the older suburbs are now in decline as well. The "hole in the donut" is expanding, increasing the area of a blighted urban landscape, while at the same time, verdant pastures and croplands in the rural areas are being paved over and converted into strip malls and subdivisions.
As a result of their concern, many individuals and groups have sought the help of Ohio State University Extension in coming to grips with what they see as a major threat to the future of the state. Every Extension office in the Northeast District has had clientele call and ask, "What can we do about this?" These calls should not be unexpected. With its impressive history of assistance to the agricultural industry, Extension is an obvious choice for people who believe that the future of the entire industry now hands in the balance. Moreover, with an increasing emphasis in the area of community development during the past two decades, Extension has become viewed as an institution with a capacity to address issues from beyond merely an agricultural perspective. And no one is more keenly aware than the concerned clientele that a great deal more than agriculture is at stake here.
Extension's Role
Despite the fact that Extension has a history of close ties with agriculture, the professionals who assembled to form the Northeast District Rural Urban Interface Cluster and the Statewide Land Use Team in 1995 agreed that Extension's role must neither be that of an advocate for preservation nor, at the other end of the spectrum, as a mere facilitator of public discussion. Rather, Extension should be seen as a proactive force for education.
In this capacity, team members set out initially to assemble information that would describe the scope of the entire land use issue. Next, the team would identify tools for managing growth that have been developed or attempted elsewhere. Finally, the team would conduct surveys of residents in order to assess their views on land use issues, and their reactions to tools that have been identified.
Is This Really an Important Issue?
A number of skeptics have voiced their concerns about farmland preservation efforts recently. Some argue that the farmland preservation movement uses scare tactics to promote its own agenda. These skeptics argue that as technology changes, more and more food will be produced on fewer and fewer acres. They claim that the prices in agricultural markets will ensure that enough farmland will be retained to meet future demands. Some even argue that farmland preservationists are like other interest groups that seek to influence public policy for their own gain.
Despite these arguments, an over-whelming amount of evidence has emerged to indicate that allowing future growth to follow previous trends will lead to economic inefficiencies as well as substantial social and environmental costs.
Costs of community services studies have repeatedly shown that conversion of farmland to residential, commercial, and industrial uses increases the demand for public services faster than the resulting increase in the tax base. So while infrastructure is being abandoned in the inner cities and older suburbs, new infrastructure being built in the greenfields is being subsidized by public funds.
Other studies on the costs of growth show that unplanned growth costs
more money,
consumes more open space, and threatens more wildlife habitat than
growth undertaken within the context of a current comprehensive land use
plan. Yet the average land use plan in Ohio dates from the early 1970s.
Surveys of residents throughout the United States have shown that a majority of respondents believe that farmland and open space protection are appropriate socioeconomic goals. Results show that respondents have three different objectives in mind: environmental, aesthetic, and agrarian.
Tools for Dealing with Sprawl
Many areas of the country that have been facing serious land use changes for decades have developed a wide range of tools for managing growth. These range from mild measures such as current agricultural use valuation (CAUV, a property tax break for keeping land in agriculture) to draconian steps such as urban limit lines and even moratoria on all building.
Somewhere in the middle of this range, two tools have emerged that have captured the imagination of a number of people throughout Ohio. These are open space housing developments (cluster housing) and purchase of development rights (PDR).
Open space development has emerged as an alternative to the conventional large lot zoning paradigm of the 1970s. By having large minimum lot sizes (5 acres usually) zoning officials formerly believed that they would be ensuring that green space would be maintained. The evidence has shown, however, that large lot zoning rapidly consumes open space, and leaves parcels that are "too small to farm and too large to mow."
In the cluster housing concept, a parcel of land is subdivided into areas with adjacent small lots (one have acre or less). Large contiguous open areas are left in the midst of the development on the land into perpetuity.
Purchase of development rights (PDR) programs are currently being used in 14 states. In a PDR program, a farmer voluntarily sells a conservation easement on the property to a land trust, which is typically linked to a local government agency. Under the terms of the agreement, the landowner maintains ownership and possession of the land, may sell it at any time, and may use it for agricultural purposes, or let it lie fallow. The conservation easement entitles the entity which hold it the right to inspect the land periodically to ensure compliance.
In Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, the local preservation board has bought the development rights to more than 25,000 acres of farmland. These purchases have been made within the contest of a land use plan, and have led to the preservation of large contiguous areas, in the hope of preserving not only a group of farms, but a viable agricultural industry large enough to maintain the farm supply businesses necessary to its future. The Pennsylvania PDR program is funded by a two cent per pack tax on cigarettes.
Over the past year, numerous people from Ohio, including members of the Governor's Task Force, have visited Lancaster County to learn about how the program works. At the same time, those involved in the Lancaster program have visited Ohio to talk to groups of residents and land use professionals about the Pennsylvania experience.
Results of Surveys in Ohio
Since the Summer of 1996, Ohio State University Extension has conducted several surveys of residents regarding their views on land use. The two largest surveys were undertaken in Randolph Township (Portage County), and Medina County. Randolph Township is a community that has been traditionally rural, but has come under substantial pressure from growth associated with out migration from Cleveland, Akron-Canton, and Youngstown in recent years. In many respects, it is typical of rural communities located just beyond the rural urban fringe. Medina County borders on the southern part of Cuyahoga County, and has experienced enormous growth from Cleveland over the past several decades. Its population has increased from 40,000 in 1950 to 130,000 in 1955. It is very typical of counties that are adjacent to major urban centers.
More than 90 percent of the respondents surveyed agreed that preserving agriculture and rural character are important socioeconomic goals. More than 80 percent agreed that free market economics should not determine land use. There was a wide range of disagreement on whether more stringent zoning regulation should be used to manage growth. This should not be unexpected, since zoning is typically a very divisive issue, as evidenced by heated exchanges in the media virtually every time a zoning ordinance appears on the ballot.
Less than 10 percent of respondents stated that they had ever heard of purchase of development rights. When the program was explained, however, more than 75 percent stated that they would vote for PDR enabling legislation if is were on the ballot.
Respondents were then asked about their willingness to pay for PDR funding. At property mil levies ranging from 0.5 to 1.5 mils, the support rate ran from as low as 28 percent to a high of 54 percent. One of the interesting results was that willingness to pay was strongly inversely related to age.
In both areas, PDR carried a majority of support in the under 30 age category at the one mil level, and was most strongly opposed by those in the over 60 age cohort.
This bears some irony for Extension professionals working in the land use area. Many of the concerned residents who have asked for Extension's help have been senior citizens, who have stated that the younger generations are not concerned about farmland protection. But the results of our surveys clearly show (as do many studies measuring willingness to pay for environmental protection) that younger residents are more willing to pay for PDR than seniors are
It is quite likely that,, as educational efforts increase the awareness of what PDR is along with how unplanned sprawl costs taxpayers substantial amounts of money, popular support for public funding will increase. Certainly, there is a great deal of literature in environmental studies to show that this has been the case in other areas of environmental protection.
Some Concluding Observations
The intensity of public interest in land use policies ebbs and flows. Some of our current land use policies, for example, current agricultural use valuation and agricultural district legislation, were designed during periods of strong economic growth, when conversion of farmland to commercial and residential uses was taking place at a relatively rapid rate. Is farmland preservation a "hot topic" because of the health of the economy? Probably. Will interest subside when the next recession arrives? Probably, or at least, somewhat. Although the intensity of the debate may be cyclical, land use will remain as an enduring policy issue.
Land use decisions seem best made at the local level, although legislation at the state level may be necessary to give local officials the tools they need. Opinions regarding farmland or open space preservation vary from community to community. Similarly, opinions regarding local economic development and growth vary as well. Community leaders need to develop a sense of the sentiment of local residents regarding these issues. Our surveys of Randolph Township and Medina County residents illustrate one method of discovering this local sentiment.
Land use is a classic "public goods" issue. Individuals benefit from the provision of a public good (in this case, open space) but have little incentive to pay for it (through increased property taxes).
If someone else (like the landowner) is forced or encouraged to preserve farmland or open space, an individual is able to enjoy the good (open space) freely. This public good characteristic makes land use control a popular initiative; however, most are reluctant to pay for the good if others will provide it.
Our Randolph Township survey findings could be interpreted in this light. Residents strongly support retention of the rural nature of the community but show initial reluctance to pay for it through property tax levies. It remains to be seen whether this reluctance will decline as education efforts increase.
The right to sell to the highest bidder and /or the right to convert
use from agriculture to another use is part of the bundle of property right
held by the property owner. These property rights can be modified without
the owner's consent by zoning, for example, which is similar to "taking"
a portion of the property rights bundle. Is it fair to "take" rights without
compensation? Alternatively, property rights can be modified voluntarily
by an owner, for example, through the sale of development rights. "Who
pays" for these development rights is a central issue, especially given
their public good nature.
The Ohio Farmland Preservation Task Force
by Thomas W. Blaine
District Specialist, OSU Extension
In August 1996, Governor George V. Voinovich Signed an executive order establishing the Ohio Farmland Preservation Task Force. The twenty-one-member body included representatives from government, agriculture, and education. It was chaired y Lieutenant Governor Nancy P. Hollister, Dr. C. William Swank, former Executive Vice President of the Ohio Farm Bureau and Fred L. Dailey, Director of the Ohio Department of Agriculture.
The Task Force held a series of four public meetings and heard testimony from 187 speakers. More than 300 people sent letters to the Task Force, expressing opinions and making recommendations.
In a report released in June 1997, the Task Force published its findings and recommendations. The report noted that between 1960 and 1990 the state's population had grown by 13 percent but growth of urban and suburban land had increased by 65 percent. The Task Force concluded that, given current farmland conversion trends, economically viable farm communities will cease to exist in thirty-nine Ohio counties by 2027.
While concluding that solutions must begin at the local level, the Task Force made it clear that farmland loss and urban sprawl cannot be reduced without strong state support. The report concluded with a list of specific recommendations assembled under three subject areas voluntary incentives, planning and infrastructure; and economic development and urban revitalization. The recommendations were far reaching and comprehensive. They included: