Laserfiche WebLink
would be to require a land use analysis of the particular needs <br /> of each subdivision relating to parks school facilities, storm <br /> water drainage, etc. Such a flexible provision is expensive, <br /> time consuming, and subject to abuse by overzealous or unin- <br /> formed. officials. Much more common is the arbitrary require- <br /> went that some definate percentage, such as 5 or 10 percent, <br /> of the land area to be dedicated for such purposes. . <br /> "It is most unscientific to take a flat percentage of each <br /> subdivision for public land. It would. be far more logical to <br /> require, as is being done more and more, a cash contribution <br /> which would be designed to defray that part of the cost of the <br /> public sites required, to serve the particular subdivision. "'* �Z- <br /> A fitting conclusion to this discussion is a final quote from <br /> Professor John D. Johnston Jr. s <br /> "In a very real sense, all subdivision control exactions <br /> are grounded upon a judgment that subdivisions which do not <br /> provide adequate space for streets, utilities, parks, and. <br /> other public uses are defective. - Although the consumer may <br /> be able to disern the existence of such defects, his bargain- <br /> ing power is probably too weak to force subdividers to provide <br /> necessary improvements. From the municipality's point of view, <br /> the danger from a defective subdivision is actually greater <br /> than the threat posed by defectively manufactured automobiles, <br /> refrigerators, or other durable goods. The subdivision re- <br /> mains, long after the automobiles have been relegated. to the <br /> Junk heap, to spawn conditions of slum and. blight. Further, <br /> .� the removal or rehabilitation of a subdivision may necessitate <br /> large expenditures of public funds. The ability of a defec- <br /> tive environment -to cripple or maim its inhabitants may not <br /> ( 1 <br />