Throughout the greater Rochester area, around the State, and across the country, municipalities large and small are faced with the daunting challenge of managing growth and economic development to maintain and enhance their communities' quality of life.

Often these efforts include a spirited public debate over the strategies adopted by cities, towns and villages to ensure the conservation of open space within their boundaries. Increasingly, local government are borrowing significant dollars to finance the purchase of development rights to selected parcels of land to prevent future home construction. In many communities, this specific plan for open space is referred to as a "greenprint".

The Rochester Home Builders' Association (RHBA), and the local home builders it represents, strongly supports the concept of open space preservation. Over many years, builders have played an instrumental role in helping local governments accomplish desired ecological and aesthetic objectives, while accommodating the need for new housing.

Unfortunately, when well-meaning individuals seek to conserve open space through the purchase of development rights, government and builders are forced to confront each other in a bidding war that rarely serves the best interests of taxpayers, future home buyers or advocates for open space preservation.

Many parcels typically earmarked in these purchase plans are subject to state or federal conservation easement that severely restrict or prevent further development. Consequently taxpayers are unnecessarily funding the protection of underdeveloped land that already is safeguarded by laws.

In addition, greeprints that rely on the purchase of development rights can actually serve to deny local taxpayers access to the open spaces they have paid to conserve. That's because the land remains under private ownership creating "drive-by" open spaces that cannot fully be enjoyed by the community at large.

By comparison, clustered and conservation plans endorsed by RHBA as well as the National Association of Home Builders are designed to protect environmentally sensitive areas while preserving meaning fuel open space that remains accessible to the public.

Local government intervention also serves to interfere with market dynamics that determine a fair sell price for the

underdeveloped land. It's fundamental principle of economics when multiple potential buyers vie for a limited resource, prices tend to skyrocket. In the case of development rights, taxpayers are responsible for paying the premium created by this artificial competitive environment that pits the private and public sectors against each other.

Equally troubling for the RHBA and informed taxpayers is the apparent ambiguity that accompanies the process. Taxpayers have a right to know what they are buying before they authorize the borrowing of funds in a public referendum. Yet, it is often the case that at the time of the vote, identified parcels represent a "wish list" rather than a firm buy/sell agreement.

The subjective nature of this strategy leaves local governments open to charges of favoritism when negotiation take place.  For example, two land owners with similarly attractive parcel each may have no inter en ti on to sell to resident ail developers. However, one is offered a substantial sum of money to purchase development rights. The other is not. And while these deliberations are conducted in good faith, the perception of potential abuse and political intrigue cast a shadow over the process that ultimately erodes public confidence and threatens future open space initiatives.

Government planners and developers have existing tools at their disposal to accomplish open space objectives without going through the arduous, contentious and expensive process of purchasing development rights. For example, RHBA members point to the merits of modifying site plans to incrementally reduce lot size requirements, increase allowable units and use the remaining lard to create attractive and accessible open space park-lets and recreational areas for the enjoyment of all. Proposals such as this are predicated on an important recognition that open space planning is just as important for residential builders as it is for public planners and community residents. For home builders who compete for the limited number of new home buyers each year, open space utilization is simply good business.

Today, all communities are challenged to stabilize taxes in the face of rising costs. In this era of belt tightening, the funding of development rights creates an unnecessary financial burden that diverts precious resources from other pressing needs.

Remedies already exist to ensure the conservation of open space without additional taxpayer involvement. Open space at any cost should never be accompanied by a no trespassing sign.