HomeMy WebLinkAbout2961-430
G yl'1'j'1-
~"'\j'o{.,.~)
Page 1 of2
Jeanie Orr
'LA Iv I
From: Jill Silver [jsilver@10000yearsinstitute.org]
Sent: Friday, February 06, 20094:03 PM
To: Jack Westerman
Cc: jeffbocc; Philip Morley; AI Scalf; #Long-Range Planning
Subject: Shoreline Master Program Update and Property Values
Dear Mr. Westerman:
I wanted to personally connect with you and offer a perspective on the valuation of shorelines that you may not
have considered in your initial analysis of the impact of the proposed SMP update to county property owners and
taxpayers.
I'm not sure if you're familiar with the concept of ecosystem services - but essentially, if we were to replace all the
'services' we receive from our environment with 'built' infrastructure - it'd cost a lot of money. I'm inserting below
links to some resources that explain the concept, and attaching one which discuss how protecting our
environment actually improves property values and economic development - and thus benefit county coffers.
One great report on valuation of Puget Sound resources - A New View of the puget Sound Economy: The
Economic Value of Nature's Services in the Puget Sound Basin is available through Earth Economics at
http://www.eartheconomics.org/ .
Another interesting report is Valuing Puget Sound's Valued Ecosystem Components, Puget Sound Nearshore
Partnership Report No. 2007-07 by Leschine, and Petersen, 2007, available at www.pugetsoundne_g[!ihorfLQrg.
There are a lot of other great reports there on the Puget Sound ecosystem - plants, animals, water quality,
marine resources.
I remember that when you made a presentation to the Critical Areas Ordinance Review Committee sometime in
2007, you expressed surprise that properties with functioning (duck-filled) wetlands and an eagle in a tree that
was under a WDFW permit restriction had higher than asking price offered for them. So, I'm wondering about
your reported analysis that buffering shorelines would result in a devaluation of properties.
I think we need to consider all costs of development on property values before concluding that property values will
drop due to buffers. Inappropriate development causes or exacerbates shoreline erosion, landslides, and
flooding. How do these catastrophes impact the value of properties? When a bluff fails below a home built too
close to the edge - what happens to the value of that home? How much are people with homes built too close to
the wave impact zone spending on bulkheads to stop nearshore erosion?
Another question is - how do these impacts affect our taxes? Do revenues drop and expenses rise when we lose
ecosystem services? How are those bulkheads impacting the food web that supports salmon and orcas - both
having declining industries that employ people who pay taxes that support our county. Another thing to consider
is that the county spent $10 million in the past decade repairing roads in river migration zones - our tax dollars in
action addressing inappropriate development.
County citizens would benefit from an analysis that incorporates all those costs.
Finally, I wanted to correct a couple of misconceptions that are being bandied about. You know, I expect, that
there are some 3,500 non-conforming lots in Jefferson County - but that the SMP update provides for
development opportunities on all these lots - tho we'd hope that lot consolidation and fee-simple purchase of
some of the most ecologically important properties would reduce that number. I hope by now you also know that
the rumor is FALSE that if a shoreline house burns down in one of these existing non-conforming lots, it cannot be
rebuilt.
I hope this information is helpful. I'd be happy to meet with you to discuss these issues further - so please let me
know if you'd be interested.
Thank you for your service to Jefferson County.
2/9/2009
Page 2 of2 .
Jill
Jill Silver
Executive Director
10,000 Years Institute
211 Taylor Street, Suite 35A
Port 'l'ownsend, W A 98368
:560.385.0715
lliilves~lQQQQy~~r$tn$l:jmtg.Qrg
www.10000yearsinstitute.org
2/9/2009
Streamside Setbacks Increase Property ValDes and Attract Economic Development
Research compiled by Citizens for a Better Flathead 9/07. The following research is submitted for the record in
support of the Whitefish Critical Areas Ordinance.
Property values are influenced by many factors that vary depending on time, location, and
purchaser's needs or desires. Appraisal values for waterfront property are typically higher than for
non waterfront property . Yet, a growing body of research shows that property located on water
bodies that have protections to keep water clean and the habitat vital attract more buyers and a higher
price. Additionally, research shows communities that set limits on inappropriate development and
maintain the scenic and wild qualities of rivers, streams, wetlands, and lake shores attract and retain
economic development. Below is a sample of some of this research.
A study done near Oakland, California, found that a 3-mile greenbelt around Lake Merritt added $41
million to the surrounding property values.! A study done on Portland, Oregon found similar results.
Portland has two levels of environmental zoning with strong restrictions on development of parcels
in the environmental protection zone (p-zone) and somewhat more accommodation of some
development in the conservation zone (c-zone). A study published by the Journal of Land
Economics found that properties with a c-zone designation in North Portland sell for 35% more than
homes without any environmental zoning? Furthermore, a study of home prices in three California
counties found urban stream restoration projects which decreased flooding, stabilized banks, and
enhanced fisheries added between 3% and 13% to mean property value?
Research on the effects of Michigan State's Natural River Program, which sets out simple zoning
criteria that local communities use to design a plan for protecting their river together across township
and county boundaries, also documents the economic benefits of putting in place protections. A
comprehensive 1996 Michigan State University study found that property on designated Natural
Rivers sells at higher prices and sells more readily than land on non-designated rivers. In particular,
the study found:
· The number of property sales on Natural Rivers increased at a rate of 20.8 % from 1986 to
1995, while non-designated rivers showed no upward trend.
· Prices paid for Natural River properties were both higher and increased faster - at a rate of
17.8% from 1986 to 1995 -than on non-designated rivers.
1 168. Lerner, S. and W. Poole, The Economic Benefits of Parks and Open space. 1999, The Trust for Public Land:
Washington, D.C.
2185. Netusil, N .R., The effect of environmental zoning and amenities on property values:Portland, Oregon. Land
Economics, 2005. 81(2): p.227-246.
3 Streiner, C.F. and J.B. Loomis, Estimating the Benefits of Urban Stream Restoration Using the Hedonic Price Method.
Rivers, 1995.5(4): p. 267-278.
1
· Prices paid for vacant, undeveloped land were the same along Natural Rivers and
nondesignated rivers. That is, Natural River zoning restrictions had no negative effect on a
property's potential in the eyes of buyers.
Of the fourteen rivers under Natural River zoning, ten had building setbacks of 200 to 150 feet and
four had setbacks of 100 to 125 feet.4
Following a greenbelt acquisition in Boulder, CO, adjacent property values increased by 32%.5
. In a study of properties located close to streams in British Columbia, it was found that residential
property values increase by 15 - 20% when close to greenways.6
In 1983, a study was conducted in Madison County, Montana that found "development along the
Madison River will adversely affect the important economic and recreational opportunities that so
many people depend on...,,7
. In a study conducted by the University of Arizona, it found that housing prices increase by 6 percent
for homes near a protected riparian corridor.8 Other studies indicate that the adoption of enhanced
stream setbacks may cause the value of existing homes near streams to go up on the long term?
Local governments also benefit from protecting streamside areas. Such protection may lower
servicing and stormwater management costs while increasing the attractiveness of communities as a
place to raise families. Johnson County in Kansas saved an estimated $120 million on engineered
stormwater controls by setting aside $600,000 worth of riparian greenways.1O
Wetlands and riparian areas protected as open space can reduce overall costs for local governments
as well. A study done in Flathead County found that for every dollar generated by residential land in
the county in FY 1997, it cost $0.53 to provide services to open space and agricultural land, while it
cost $1.52 to provide the same services for residential land. 11 Between 1992 and 1997, the
population of Flathead County grew by 22.6 percent, while the average homeowners' local tax bill
increased 65 percent, which was partially a result of the cost of paying for sprawling development
patterns.12 Studies done by the American Farm Land Trust across the country reinforce that
agricultural and open space often provide more in revenue to local governments than they demand in
services. Residential land, on the other hand, incurs higher service costs than it provides in revenue.
4 Michigan Land Institute, http://mlui.org/downloads/naturalrivers.pdf
5 "A Planning Guide for Protecting Montana's Wetlands and Riparian Areas." Published by Montana Watercourse,
Montana Department of Environmental Quality, and Montana Audubon. July 2003.
6 Quayle and Hamilton 1999.
7 "A Planning Guide for Protecting Montana's Wetlands and Riparian Areas." Published by Montana Watercourse,
Montana Department of Environmental Quality, and Montana Audubon. July 2003.
8 Colby, B, PhD, & Wishart, S. Riparian Areas Generate Property Values for Landowners. Agriculture and Resource
Economics, The University of Arizona, January 2002.
9 Ibid.
IOSandbom, Calvin. 1996. Green Space and Growth: Conserving Natural Areas in BC
Communities. B.C. Commission on Resources and Environment, Victoria, B.C.
II Citizens for a Better Flathead. "A Review of the Fiscal Impacts of Different Land Uses on County Government and
School Districts in Flathead County, Montana, for the Fiscal Year 1997 & 1998" January 1997.
12 Montana Smart Growth Coalition. Retrieved from www.mtsmartgrowth.org
2
In a letter Governor Schweitzer wrote to agency directors, on March 8th, 2006, at DEQ, DNRC, and
FWP, he stated that:
"Development along rivers and streams that destroys protective riparian areas is possibly
the single most urgent ecosystem threat facing Montana today. Not only do these
waterways and riparian areas provide fish and wildlife habitat, they also provide jobs and
recreation.,,13
Clean water is directly linked to a strong economy. In the Flathead, tourism is a major component of
the economy because of the vast natural resources and amenities people from all over the world
come to enjoy. In 2006, visitors to the Flathead Valley spent a total of $297,092,216. In 2006, the
top four primary attractions for visitors were Glacier National Park (48%), mountains/forests (14%),
visiting family/friends (12%), and open space/uncrowded areas (10%). For those on vacation their
top attractions were Glacier National Park (77%), mountains/forests (68%), open space/uncrowded
areas (47%), lakes (41 %), and rivers (39%).14
The abundance of fish and wildlife species supported by riparian areas provides many outdoor
recreational activities, including hunting, fishing, birdwatching, and hiking, that are important to
Montanans.
A study published in 1998 by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service found that in 1995 overl,084,000
people participated in wildlife-associated recreation in Montana, spending over $678 million.1s Of
those participating 336,000 fished, 194,000 hunted, and 554,000 participated in wildlife watching
activities.16 Furthermore, this spending does not include travel related expenses, such as food and
lodging. The majority of recreation activities in Montana depend upon the existence of healthy,
productive wetlands and riparian habitant.17
In summary, as outlined above there are numerous economic, environmental and social benefits of
streamside setbacks: they protect private property from flooding and erosion, protect water quality
and quantity, provide opportunities for quality recreation, protect valuable water recharge areas,
preserve fish and wildlife habitat, contribute to a strong economy and property values while
preserving the use and enjoyment of private property.
While some public comments have raised concerns and speculated about the loss in property values
these studies do not support such speculation. Indeed, the real question Whitefish should be
asking is what will be the loss in property values if we do not put in place safeguards to
preserve our water quality?
13 Governor Brian Schweitzer. Letter to Directors at the Department of Environmental Quality. Department of Natural
Resources and Conservation. and the Fish Wildlife and Parks. March 8,2006.
14 Nickerson, N & Oschell, C. Niche News: Flathead County Traveler Characteristics. The Institute for Tourism and
Recreation Research, University of Montana, April 2007.
15 Residents and nonresidents are included in these statistics.
16 All 3 cases studies were taken from "A Planning Guide for Protecting Montana's Wetlands and Riparian Areas."
Published by Montana Watercourse, Montana Department of Environmental Quality, and Montana Audubon. July 2003.
17 Ibid.
3