THE ACQUISITION OF LAND FOR A RESERVE ACCOUNT
The procedure in condemnation and the practice in purchasing prevent a city from taking advantage of the many opportunities which it has of becoming possessor of lands at an advantageous price, even though the need for such lands may be only a few years distant. In appropriating land against the will of its owner the purpose for which the land is acquired must be specified, and that purpose is closely scrutinized in some states by a jury which must find that the acquisition is necessary before the city can take further steps. In purchasing, cities usually come into the market for land, particularly for the sites of public buildings, when prices are high, a procedure which no well conducted business corporation would adopt. Bargains in land are taken advantage of only rarely and only indirectly. It is possible to buy small areas for one purpose and later use them for another; but there is little purchasing on the part of cities for what might be called a reserve account, although a very accurate forecast can usually be made of needs for lands for various public purposes based on the direction and rate of growth of the population. Considerable areas, to be sure, may be purchased for park lands and later, by authorization from the legislature, be diverted in part to other uses, thus accomplishing the purpose by indirection; but this is a bad public policy since it makes park lands, even when they become inadequate in area, subject to unlimited inroads in favor of any and every other purpose.
How much money might be saved to the city by purchase of land at favorable opportunities in advance of actual need is apparent in any city from the increase in property values due to growth in population. The congestion commission appointed by the mayor of New York in 1911 looked into the value of 943 city sites and found that the assessed value in 1908 in 537 cases had increased in value over the price paid.
Table 1 shows the percentage of increase in the values of these sites.
TABLE 1.—INCREASE IN VALUE, FROM DATE OF ACQUISITION TO 1908, OF 537 PUBLIC SITES IN NEW YORK CITY, ACQUIRED FROM 1812 TO 1900[6]
| Per cent of increase in value of site | Sites which increased in value as specified | ||
| Less than 25 per cent | 91 | ||
| 25 | and less than | 101 per cent | 154 |
| 101 | and less than | 201 per cent | 94 |
| 201 | and less than | 301 per cent | 42 |
| 301 | and less than | 401 per cent | 43 |
| 401 | and less than | 501 per cent | 17 |
| 501 | and less than | 601 per cent | 18 |
| 601 | and less than | 701 per cent | 10 |
| 701 | and less than | 801 per cent | 12 |
| 801 | and less than | 901 per cent | 10 |
| 901 | and less than | 1,001 per cent | 6 |
| 1,001 | and less than | 1,501 per cent | 11 |
| 1,501 | and less than | 2,001 per cent | 10 |
| 2,001 | or more | 19 | |
| Total | 537 | ||
The dates of acquisition of the sites considered in the table varied from 1812 to 1900. Of the 406 pieces of property which showed no increase over purchase price, 230 had been acquired since 1900.
The committee pointed out that the city could do a great deal of purchasing for its park and playground accounts, even in comparatively unsettled districts, and these holdings would have influence in the carrying out of a city plan. The same is true of the purchase of land for school house sites. It has been very generally agreed that at least 30 square feet should be provided for every pupil registered in the city schools, but it is safe to say that very few cities have bought land to this amount. In 1905, Manhattan borough, New York City, lacked 65 acres for school houses alone on this basis. Almost 3000 acres were needed for playgrounds in boroughs outside of Manhattan, while Manhattan itself was hopelessly behind its recreation requirements. It would be a very good investment for New York as well as for any other city in the United States to buy school house sites at 43 cents a square foot, the price for which they can be bought in the borough of Richmond, instead of at $10.69 per square foot, which they cost in Manhattan.[7]
But it is impracticable to determine far in advance exactly which will be the best sites for schools and which for other purposes. All that can be safely said is that the total land needed for miscellaneous local uses will be at least equal to a certain minimum, and the acquirement of that minimum area by the city from time to time as favorable opportunities arise is a wise policy—provided that its ownership by the city does not withhold it for a long time from economic use pending its assignment to definite public service.
Both San Francisco and San Diego have saved considerable money by the inheritance from their Spanish founders of so-called “pueblo lands,” which they have in part used as parks and public building sites, in part have sold, and in part retain as an unapportioned reserve. Chicago’s investments in sites on Dearborn, State, and Clark Streets are returning large dividends and would yield much more if the rentals were graduated in accordance with increasing ground values. Los Angeles is proposing to use some of its landed inheritance for a housing experiment. If its plan is carried out, the city would loan the land, and the construction and maintenance of the houses be privately financed.
Limitations in law and practice on the power of the city to acquire land are for the protection of the tax payers against official extravagance and corruption. But finance commissions have well checked many kinds of municipal waste, and they can as effectively prevent a misuse of the purchasing and condemning power. City building can undoubtedly be carried out more economically through the purchase of a reasonable amount of land by the municipality for a reserve account.