1997) Plow Or Play: a Land Use Decision (JNRLSE
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Plow or Play: A LandUse Decision Andrew C. Seibert* and James J. Vorst ABSTRACT for land acquisition in his district. The land wouldbe pur- In 1991 in Indianapolis, IN, an appropriationsbill was chased from private citizens for the construction of a new broughtto the floor of the Indiana GeneralAssembly for state park. Completionof the park wouldrequire muchmore debate. Thebill includeda $900000 appropriationfor the pur- than $900 000, but this appropriation wouldbe a vital first chase of land to build a newstate parkin northwestIndiana. step. Thepark would be located in the district of SenatorMike Gery At first, Senator Gery believed the majority of his con- of WestLafayette, a legislator whohad followed this issue very stituents supportedthe park. He could envision little objec- closely over several years. It wasan issue that wasvolatile in tion to a beautiful newstate park within easy access. How- his homedistrict. WhenSenator Gery had his chanceto pub- ever, after numeroustown meetings and personal contacts licly debateand vote on this issue on the senatefloor, he knew with constituents, he found the issue was more contentious his constituentswould be watchingclosely. This case presents than he orginally thought. SenatorGery’s decision-makingdilemma on an issue that was extremelyimportant to his constituents. SenatorGery knew The Decision to Establish a Park there was a large core of park supporters amonghis con- stituents. However,there was also a significant groupwho The Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) actively opposedthe park,including one familywho would lose oversees the state park systemin Indiana. The mission of the a substantialportion of their farmingoperation if the parkwas IDNRis "to protect, enhance, preserve, and wisely use nat- established. SenatorGery was concerned for his constituents ural, cultural, and recreational resources for the benefit of and wantedto do whatwas best for them. Hewanted to take Indiana’s citizens through professional leadership, manage- an action that wouldminimize hostile reactions, but he also ment, and education" (Indiana Department of Natural wantedto makethe best land use decisionfor the future of his Resources, 1995). Oneway the IDNRfulfills its mission is district. Each side put forth convincing argumentsthat by constructing new state parks. The IDNRrealized that SenatorGery had to consider.Through this case, studentswill someresidents of Indiana had to drive considerable dis- gain an understandingof the technical factors andethical tances to reach public outdoor recreation sites. Asa result, issues involvedin land use decisions. in 1983 the Indiana State Senate passed Concurrent Resolution no. 77, which authorized the IDNRto analyze the recreational needs of an area in northwest Indiana. This S POPULATIONINCREASES and residents focus on envi- agricultural region seemedto be particularly short on out- Aronmental concerns, land use has becomean important door recreation opportunities (Exhibit 1). The methodsused issue in the USA. Land available for agriculture has in the assessment were: 1. Comparisonswith national stan- decreased every year since 1954, and decreased 4.5%during dards, 2. Drive time from regional facilities, and 3. Distri- the 1980s (USDA,1991). Each interest group has their own bution of recreational opportunities based on population idea on the best use for a tract of land. Whenthe land in question is privately owned,the rights of the landowneralso becomean important consideration. Land use decisions usu- go ally affect several people directly, especially landowners.As a result, land issues can lead to emotional confrontations, and sorting out information in an unbiased waycan be diffi- cult. This case provides insight into the myriad of complex ~ o issues typical of land use decisions at the rural/urban inter- face. THE CASE The Indiana General Assemblyconvened in Indianapolis in 1991 for a Second Special Session. Scheduled to be debated was PL240, an extensive appropriations bill that would determine howthe state would spend its tax revenues AREADEFINED BY for the next year (Acts of Indiana, 1991). Section 34 was CONCURRENT particular interest to MikeGery, state senator from the 17th RESOLUTION#77 congressional district. That section appropriated $900 000 PUBLICOUTDOOR RECREATIONAREAS Dep.of Agronomy,1150 Lilly Hall, PurdueUniv., WestLafayette, IN 47907-1150.Indiana Agric. Exp. Stn., EducationalJournal Paper no. 28. Exhibit1. Distributionof publicoutdoor recreation areas in Indiana Received18 Mar.1996. *Corresponding author ([email protected] andthe areadefined by Concurrent Resolution #77. due.edu). Publishedin J. Nat.Resour. Life Sci. Educ.26:54-59 (1997). Abbreviations:IDNR, Indiana Department of NaturalResources. 54 ¯ d. Nat. Resour.Life Sci. Educ.,Vol. 26, no. 1, 1997 (National Park and Recreation Association, 1983). Each cial interest groups. Theredid not seemto be even one site methodverified a shortage of outdoorrecreation facilities in that wasfree of these problems.Finally, the IDNRsettled on the region (Indiana Department of Natural Resources, another TippecanoeCounty site located near Battle Ground, 1983). Indiana. Thepotential for a large lake did not exist, but the The IDNRconcluded the study area was deficient in IDNRbelieved there were other considerations that made lands available to the public for recreation use. Theyalso this site ideal. In 1989, even though local opposition was concluded, based on surveys conducted during the study, anticipated, the IDNR recommended to the General that the people of the area wanted moreoutdoor recreation Assemblythat 1121 ha (2770 acres) just southeast of Battle areas. This promptedthe General Assemblyto authorize a Ground becomeProphetstown State Park. state park site selection study. Physical Characteristics of the Site The Site Selection Process To decide the best use for a tract of land, Senator Gary The legislature, in granting the IDNRthe authority to knewit was important to assess the physical characteristics conducta site selection study, listed three conditionsfor the of that land. Although he was already somewhatfamiliar site. Theywere: with the area, he studied the proposed Prophetstown site carefully. The site waslocated just southeast of the townof 1. The site should contain between 809 and 1618 ha Battle Groundin TippecanoeCounty. Interstate Highway65 (2000 and 4000 acres) of land. would serve as the west boundary, while the Wabashand 2. The site should contain a 40 to 120 ha (100-300acre) Tippecanoe Rivers would form the south and east bound- lake. aries. Battle Ground,which contained about 700 residents, 3. The site should be located in an area bounded by wouldform part of the north boundary.Most of the county’s Interstate Highwayno. 65, U.S. HighwayNo. 24, and 130 598 residents lived about 5 miles southwest of the park US Highwayno. 31 (Exhibit 2). site in the twin cities of Lafayette and WestLafayette (U.S. Twenty-six sites were located within the study area. Census Bureau, 1995). Fifteen of these were eliminated due to obvious suitability Mostof the site (89%) was devoted to corn (Zea maysL.) problemsrelating to lake potential, feasibility of physical and soybean [Glycine max (L.)] production (Exhibit development, or present land use. The remaining 11 sites However,this land was not considered to be prime farmland wereinspected in the field and ranked. The site selected as because of droughtiness, slope, or flooding problems. Much the best was located in Tippecanoe County (Indiana of this land waslocated in a floodplain that was highly pro- Departmentof Natural Resources, 1991). However,this site ductive but frequently flooded. Most of the upland farm- was abandonedin 1987 due to local opposition and potential ground was sloping, but soil erosion was generally not a construction problems. problem because of the soil conservation practices being By1989, 7 yr had passed since the authorization to select followed. Accordingto GeorgeParker, Professor of Forestry a park site. With the loss of the TippecanoeCounty site, the at nearby PurdueUniversity, the most serious erosion prob- IDNRstill had no place to build a park, despite spending a lem at the site was the streambankerosion that occurred on considerable amount of taxpayers’ moneyduring the site the Wabashand Tippecanoe Rivers. Senator Gary knewDr. selection process. Theydecided to reevaluate sites previous- Parker well, and often relied upon him for informationabout ly overlookedbecause they failed to meet the lake criteria the Prophetstownsite. outlined by the General Assembly. However,it seemed as Nonagricultural land at the proposed park site was pri- thoughevery potential site had either serious physical limi- marily timber, wetlands, and residential tracts (Exhibit 3). tations, local opposition, or was opposedby influential spa- There were two large housing developmentswithin the pro- posed park boundaries. The IDNRproposed to exclude these from the park and allow the residents to stay there to ~ RE81DENTIAL AREAS AGRICULTURAL J HOUSINGEXCLUSIONS ~ LAND SITE SELECTION STUDY AREA WETLANDS ~LANDFORESTED Exhibit 2. Thelocation of the site selection study area for a newstate park in Indiana. Exhibit 3. Land uses at the proposedsite of ProphetstownState Park. J. Nat. Resour.Life Sci. Educ.,Vol. 26, no. 1, 1997¯ 55 reduce the number of buyouts, thereby saving moneyand Becauseof the long Indian presence in the area, it was avoiding adverse reactions from unwilling sellers. When thought the proposed park area