Givings: Does Protecting Land Increase Its Value? - #22
[Note: This post is part of a series.]
In Washington, proponents of Initiative 933 often claim that the measure is a sort of righteous response to certain land protections—protections that they see as burdensome regulations. They allege that such protections reduce the value of land. But do they?
This summer, an extension student at the University of Washington, John Abbotts, conducted a study of changes to land values in rural King County from 1993 to 2004. What he found may be a surprise: Land with environmental protections did not lose value. In fact, regulated land may have gained more value than land without the regulations.
Here’s the technical part. (But it won’t hurt.) Abbotts analyzed land zoned “RA-5,” a designation for property that is considered rural and where only one dwelling is permitted per 5 acres. It’s very common in eastern King County. And he chose three watersheds—Bear Creek, Evans Creek, and Patterson Creek—to compare. Why those three? Because since 1995 the Bear and Evans watersheds have been under regulations similar to the hotly-debated “critical areas ordinances” that went into effect countywide in 2005. So Bear and Evans are two examples of what happens to property values under regulations; Patterson is an example of what happens without them.
So, how did the property values fare?
