Parks benefit everyone in Cobb

<>From the Marietta Daily Journal on Sunday, September 3, 2006 by MDJ columnist Laura Armstrong

My mom has always reminded me there are times in life you have to feed your soul.

For some of us, that's taking a vacation or buying more shoes. In my case, it usually means more flowers or a bird feeder for my garden - not exactly a priority, but a necessary ingredient for the well-being of me.

So when I hear criticism of the proposed parks bond referendum, voted overwhelmingly onto the Nov. 7 ballot by Cobb citizens, I automatically wish these critics could appreciate our desire for more greenbelts and open space to feed the soul of our thriving, triple-A-bond-rated county. These few but increasingly noisy naysayers talk as though Commission Chairman Sam Olens has suddenly spun out of fiduciary control when, to the contrary, we're in better fiscal shape than ever - which should allow him a little visionary discretion.

The truth is, we've depended on our federally funded park areas - both the Chattahoochee Recreation Area and Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield - to carry our load way too long. Though Cobb has an admirable parks program overseen by dedicated staff, it's not enough. If we don't stop erecting self-storage facilities and tire stores on every corner and look to the future, we're going to regret it later.

Critics mostly question the bottom line.

But we all know property values are higher around our local parks, and so do Realtors. Consider statistical studies done for the state of Illinois that confirm this:

• In Boulder, Colo., houses adjacent to greenbelts are valued 32 percent higher than similar properties.

• Dallas, houses near parks, especially larger ones, show a 22 percent premium.

• Historically, Boston homes around Victorian-era parks bring 11.5 percent more profit, while those surrounding federal-style parks experience a whopping 59 percent premium.

And it's not just individuals who benefit. Legendary landscape architect Frederick Law Olmstead first suggested and empirically verified something called "The Proximate Principle," which said the gain in property taxes (caused by increased values) around parks helps pay the costs of maintaining them.

One 1960s look at how parks impact communities revealed a positive net economic impact in 20 of 25 cases.

More recent impact analysis confirms that communities focusing on parks, rather than residential development, can actually save money.

This makes sense, when you think about it. People require far more county services - schools, libraries, fire, rescue, etc. - than do parks.

But mostly, beautiful parks are forever, not like that big box store, here today, abandoned tomorrow.

When they're done right, they feed the soul and nurture our sense of well-being. Did you know some 80 percent of people who live in golf course communities don't even participate in the sport? They just value the beauty and open space.

Olens, who's proved his sound judgment in the past, seems to understand parks should be a priority, right now.

Like many of you, I'm with him. Before it's too late.