| Economic Arguments for Preservation To most CWPT members, it may seem obvious why our Civil War battlefields need to be protected from development. Battlefields are precious and irreplaceable resources because of the momentous events - acts of sacrifice and bravery - that occurred on their soil. Sometimes, though, "because it's the right thing to do" is not a convincing enough argument. Since most people listen when "money talks," here are some economic reasons why preserved battlefield land benefits a community. $ TOURISM According to a report by the National Park Service, local communities received $10 billion in economic benefits in 1993 from visits to U.S. national parks. These visits generated more than 200,000 jobs. The National Park Service tracks the number of "recreational visits" made to national parks throughout the system. Here are a few of the Civil War park statistics from 1999.
The Virginia Tourism Corporation estimates that visits to Civil War battlefields and other Civil War-related sites accounted for more than one seventh of all tourism in the Commonwealth in 1999. $ TAXES The American Farmland Trust has been conducting Cost of Community Services (COCS) studies in 70 different communities nationwide since the 1980s. According to these COCS studies, "the owners of farm, forest and open lands pay more in local tax revenues than it costs local government to provide services to their properties. Residential land uses, in contrast, are a net drain on municipal coffers…" The average cost to the community of providing services like roads, schools, police, fire protection, etc. to residential areas is $1.15 for every $1.00 those areas generate in taxes. The average cost of providing services to agricultural or forested areas is $.37 for every dollar generated in taxes. By allowing the development of a subdivision on farmland (or battlefield land in agricultural use), a community actually loses $1.78 for each dollar it raises in taxes ($1.15 for the cost of services plus $.63 in lost farmland revenue). $ PROPERTY VALUES According to the Urban Land Institute (ULI), "the value people place on open space translates into economic gains." A ULI report cites several examples, including Denver residents who said that they would be willing to pay more to live near a park, and an Oakland, California greenbelt that added $41 million to surrounding property values. According to a report by the Trust for Public Land, the number one factor considered by small businesses choosing a new business location is the presence of nearby parks or open space. |
 |
|||
         
 
|
IN THIS SECTION
|
 
|
|