It’s a great irony that in America undeveloped land has almost no value — farm acres sell for less than $5,000 per acre. Meanwhile, developed city lots sell upwards of $50,000 per acre. Is it any surprise that when people build new buildings, they opt for undeveloped land over land that is already built upon? Few incentives exist in most areas to lure developers to choose previously developed property. One result of this economic structure is urban sprawl–development pushes outward from city centers, new buildings go up, constantly pushing the boundary lines of cities outward. While the boundaries are pushed, the problem of urban blight continues to grow as developed properties in city neighborhoods sit empty.
Urban sprawl doesn’t make any economic sense in the long-term, either. Every time property is developed, it goes on the tax rolls and gets assessed differently — and developed property (that, is property with buildings on it) earns more in taxes than farmlands, wetlands or woodlands. There seems to be great financial incentive for a region to develop as much property as possible. But! Every time the boundaries are pushed and new development is built, the city/county governments must fund infrastructure to serve that new development. Roads, sewers, water lines, electrical and other utilities, and services (fire, emergency medical, police) get extended to developed properties. Whether in use or not, developed property is a continuous burden on local governments — once a road is built, it must be maintained (potholes filled, snow plowed, traffic signs and lights kept in good order). Once a sewer line goes it, it must be maintained (flushed and repaired). What new developments reap in tax dollars, they continue to spend, for, well, forever. Meanwhile, abandoned or empty buildings already within city boundaries still cost cities/counties because services and maintenance must still be provided to those properties. But whilst empty, they don’t create revenue from tax collectors.
See the problem? Undeveloped property is cheap, so developers have more incentive to build more and build new on empty swaths of land. City/county officials encourage this short-term growth at their expense in the long run, because the actual cost of development isn’t fully considered when rezoning — developers sell their plans with the promise of increased tax revenue. But the revenue doesn’t outweigh the cost of services provided to developed properties.
It makes more sense to encourage, through tax breaks or other incentives, development or re-development on properties already within city boundaries, properties already developed. It makes more sense financially to stop sprawl by encouraging creative land use within boundaries. Until we recalculate the cost of development and sprawl, expect to see farmlands and wetlands paved over for strip malls, big box stores and subdivisions ultimately at the expense of taxpayers for the short-term gain of officeholders and property developers.
A wetland is classified as any low-lying land that is flooded for at least a portion of a calendar year. Swamps, bogs, marshes and fens all fall into this category. An acre of wetland can store up to 1 to 1.5 million gallons of water. Enviro Girl thinks that’s astonishing–if we would just leave wetlands alone, we’d have no need for retention ponds in most cases. Wetlands also filter and purify water flowing into streams, lakes, rivers and oceans and they provide habitat for an amazing array of creature and plant life–everything from reptiles to insects, fungi to ferns. Without wetlands, water sources would be more polluted and flooding becomes a problem. In short, wetlands provide many services and resources, but they’re under-appreciated. Continue reading 
