news article

A battle for land in Gainesville—haven’t we been here before?

Gainesville, FL – In the Northwest part of Gainesville, a controversial neighborhood development plan for Suburban Heights has been a source of strife for well over a year (see Sun article from July 2nd). The unpopular development proposal (see articles by Caplan and Touchberry for a historical perspective) includes plans to develop the area for urban services including a Starbucks, a restaurant and a drive-through bank. Arguments against the development cite traffic issues, a loss in tranquility and livelihood, loss of a historical church, and a concern for lost conservation land.

Video originally posted on www.wuft.org (Touchberry, Gainesville, Florida)

Gainesville is not the only municipality that has struggled with “to develop or not to develop?” Indeed, the tradeoff between environmental and non-environmental services is as old as urban development itself! Humans make trade-offs every day. Some of them simple, both in transaction and in intention, like giving up money to buy a sandwich. Others, such as the sale of land, are much more complex.

In a city like Gainesville, land is set aside for various modes of use as determined by the City Plan Board. If an entity wants to sell a piece of land that is set aside for conservation to an entity who wants to develop the land into, say, a Starbucks, then a proposal must first be approved by the City Plan Board to change the land classification to allow the entity buying the land to develop it according to their proposal. Herein lies the key difference between the sale of sandwich and the sale of land. The transfer of rights to the sandwich are easily transacted—one buys the sandwich and then they may do with it whatever the wish. In the sale of the land, however, the City Board facilitates a “Development Review Process” (see diagram below) which can result in approval or denial of a planned development activity at any point in the process.

Development Review Process for Alachua County

See https://growth-management.alachuacounty.us/Development/ReviewProcess

It is within the Public Hearing stage of the Development Review Process that citizens of Gainesville have voiced their preferences regarding the proposed development. As of April 2018, the 7 member plan board has recommended that the City Commission deny the change in land use which will not prevent the sale of the church to the development company but it does effectively block, for now, the sale of conservation land owned by the city and denies a change in land use for the conservation area bordering the church property. The fight for this land is not over as the commission ultimately gets to decide and the developer, in spite of immense pressure, may continue to fight for the land (see Caplan article).

This most recent battle is similar to one fought a decade ago, in the same place no less, where a major pharmacy was to be built in place of the church. This leads to the question of how should one make development decisions? Is there some sort of way we can avoid the angst of fighting for a way of life or is this an inevitable spiral for land use decisions?

Exploring San Felasco, Monday, February 19, 2018, San Felasco Park, Gainesville, Florida (Misti Sharp/personal images)

Economists would argue that land, like all other resources, should be allocated to it’s highest value use. If a mall developer were to buy agricultural area, the sale would only be made if the farmer were offered a value above what it can make from the use of the property itself. And the developer should not be willing to pay any more for the property than they can earn by building their mall. In the Suburban Heights case, the developer may argue that the conservation is currently not “in-use” as an undeveloped conservation area. It is not like many of the other conservation areas in Gainesville such as the nearby San Felasco Park with trails, picnicing areas and a playground. It is, simply put, a swampy area with some trees. However, economists also readily agree that while the area may not be in use directly, there is value in indirect uses. For example, the area provides for water and air quality filtration, noise absorption (a key component of the residents argument above), and a natural area in an otherwise developed neighborhood. Residents enjoy the conservation area and they enjoy knowing that it will be there well into the future.

Economists understand that values are not only in use. Indeed, humans often hold values for resources that are non-use in nature. In the case of the farmer selling his land to a mall developer, that value may be to preserve the farm for future generations (what is known as a bequest value) or the farmer might wait to sell the land hoping that it further appreciates in value. In waiting to sell the land, the farmer maintains the option to sell the land in a future time period. These values, while non-use in nature, go into the decision making for anyone wanting to make an economic transaction and can, according to economists, be measured. Indeed, economists over the last decades have been developing tools that allow for the “commodification” of nature with some arguing that a failure to put a value on nature gives it a value of zero (see for example, this Guardian article by Tony Juniper). Payments for ecosystem services are increasingly being cited as a means to preserve biodiversity given the non-market nature of the world’s natural resources (see “Putting a Value on Nature” by the EEA).

On the other hand, environmentalists argue that the market place is largely to blame for the degradation of resources and therefore should be avoided as a solution to the problem. Additionally, what if the measurements used to ellicit these nebulous “non-use values” under-represent the true value of the resource to current and future generations? Residents in Gainesville cautioned that to lose the conservation now means to lose it permanently.

“Buy land, they’re not making it anymore.”

-Mark Twain

Other proponents argues that valuation may in fact lead to species loss and conflict as we make changes to ecosystems under the guise of providing benefits to humans that may lead to permanent displacement of species. Additionally, decisions made based on market prices can be problematic as prices often change and “economic value” is dependent on location (see Cambridge Research article). Author and environmental proponent, Richard Conniff, argued in a publication by the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies that “…when you view nature in economic terms, as a provider in a sort of “master-servant” relationship…you make a fundamental change not just in the world around us, but in ourselves.”

Little Blue Heron in a Gainesville Conservation Area (Misti Sharp/personal images)

There is no right conclusion to the development battle. Were the developer to offer Suburban Heights residents value above that provided by the amenities would they take it? Is Gainesville so short on conservation areas and so saturated with Starbucks that shutting down development is an easy choice? Economic factors are surely at work here. Let’s see what happens in the next ten years…

Dr. Misti Sharp is a lecturer at the University of Florida in the Department of Food and Resource Economics. Email the author

Sources in order of appearance:

1. http://www.gainesville.com/news/20180702/suburban-heights-project-on-hold---again

2. http://www.gainesville.com/news/20180423/neighbors-gather-1200-signatures-to-block-development

3. https://www.wuft.org/news/2018/04/25/why-some-northwest-gainesville-residents-are-trying-to-save-an-abandoned-church/

4. http://www.gainesville.com/news/20180427/board-recommends-city-commission-vote-down-development-proposal

5. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/aug/10/nature-economic-value-campaign

6. https://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/putting-a-value-on-nature

7. https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/does-it-help-conservation-to-put-a-price-on-nature

8. https://e360.yale.edu/features/ecosystem_services_whats_wrong_with_putting_a_price_on_nature