Less Development Means Lower Taxes - A Chester , NH Study

Concerns arose in Chester when projected development was expected to increase 34% between 1990 and the year 2000. More and more previously undeveloped areas of Chester were being developed into neighborhoods of single family homes. More and more people were choosing "to live in the country" so that their children could enjoy the lifestyle that it brings. Unfortunately, the building of these homes was threatening the very rural character that is so attractive in the town.

Traditionally, towns in New Hampshire have relied heavily on property taxation as the primary source of revenue. A common argument is that, if more of the town's land is conserved, the tax base of the town declines because that land becomes valued at its current use.

The Chester Conservation Commission set out to see if this theory was true. A study was prepared by a graduate student of Economics at Antioch College , which provided interesting findings on the effect on the tax rate of increasing development in that town.

For the analysis, the revenue to Chester from four different neighborhoods was compared to the additional expense of educating those neighborhoods' children in order to estimate the annual net fiscal impact of those neighborhoods to the town. The findings showed that it cost the community $449,206 dollars more to educate children from the 117 new homes than those new residents paid in taxes.

Pine Ridge in Peterborough followed suit and discovered that in the 188 home development , Pine Ridge's cost to the town was $128,124 dollars more than it raised in taxes.

One thing was very clear. Land conservation, without the burden of schools and service needs, helped the town fiscally--excessive building did not.

Today Sandown, like Chester and Peterborough , is at a crossroads. Our infrastructure is not supporting the development boom. These are nice towns to live in as long as we keep a controlled growth pattern, complimented by a balance of areas of open space.

Setting aside more land as permanently protected open space provides a buffer against increasing property taxes due to increased development.

After all, "You don't send cows to school," so they say.

Remember to come to Town Meeting Deliberative Session on February 7, 2004 and support the Open Space article on the warrant. It really does work toward reducing the revenue vs. expenditure gap.

Thank you,
The Southeast Lands Sub Committee