Profits and Parkland

We’re glad the Orange County Planning Commission didn’t rush into approving a proposal last Tuesday that would free home builders from requirements to provide local parkland as part of new housing developments.

The fact that the potential impact of such a change in park policy still has not been determined was reason enough for delay. But there are even other reasons that make a good case for denial.

The Planning Commission should have no part of the county Board of Supervisors’ abandonment of a long-standing commitment to encourage development of local public parks. The board has been moving away from that in the last year to satisfy builder demands for less parkland dedication in general and more private exclusive playgrounds in housing projects.

The park rule changes before the Planning Commission, however, have even more to do with builder profits than with where the emphasis ought to be--on acquiring as much irreplaceable parkland as possible at the time of development before the opportunity to secure it is lost forever.

The proposed rule change is tied to the county’s affordable housing program, which the supervisors decided to phase out in 1983. Under that program, builders were required to set aside 25% of the total units in a project for low- and moderate-income housing. Those who provided more were given “credits” that they could use on future developments or sell to other builders who didn’t want to include the lower-cost housing.

That was fine until the county decided to phase out the 25% requirement and let developers voluntarily provide a housing mix. The builders, however, wanted to be compensated for their accrued credits, so the supervisors decided to phase out the mandatory program over a three-year period and give the developers a chance to use up their credits. Fair enough. Why then did the board decide last June to also allow builders to use the excess credits to avoid the county requirement to set aside 2.5 acres of land for local parks for every 1,000 people living in a new development?

Some south county homeowner association leaders have criticized the supervisors’ attempt to help developers increase profits at the expense of parkland, and Commissioner C. Douglas Leavenworth at last Tuesday’s Planning Commission session asked:”What have excess affordable housing credits to do with parkland?” Then he answered his own question declaring, “They don’t have anything to do with it.” We agree. The public lost the mandatory affordable housing program. Because it did, why must it now lose parkland, too?