60A - ENA THRIVE SANTA ANA - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

EXHIBIT 3 approximately $9,000 a year to the city tax revenue (Bremer et al, 200311). In New York, "net tax benefit [of community gardens, above any public subsidy] would be, in the aggregate, about $480 million or, per garden over $750,000" (2006, p. 28)."12 This is in addition to increased availability of fresh produce, physical activity, and local jobs, as well as broader benefits around civic engagement, physical and mental health outcomes, and cost savings for the City around emergency services. Community -led Development Overall, the Walnut and Daisy Micro -farm represents an opportunity to demonstrate a community land trust's ability to generate local wealth. THRIVE's development model is centered around the involvement of local residents in planning and implementation of economic projects. The participation of local residents is seen in itself as an important contribution to local neighborhood economy, social capital, civic engagement, and the prevention of costly health conditions including obesity and mental health issues. Moreover, THRIVE's model of community -led development - in particular the CLT model used for the Walnut and Daisy Property - can produce far-reaching, positive results in the City if implemented in other areas such as housing or commercial developments. Below is a table with community outreach events after June 2016 to the present day, which engaged Santa Ana residents and achieved the following public benefits: community members became familiarized with the concept of public lands and provided feedback specific to Santa Ana; they learned about relevant City policy; participated in community visioning for improved economic development; and dialogue with City officials and developers. This list of events pre- dates the establishment of THRIVE, August 4`" Community Outreach Event 11 From Gardening Matters, "Multiple benefits of Community Gardening," 2012. Citing p. 20 of Bremer, A., Jenkins, K. & Kanter, D. (2003). Community Gardens in Milwaukee: Procedures for their long- term stability & their import to the city.— Milwaukee: University of Wisconsin, Department of Urban Planning. ;p. 10 of Chicago Botanic Garden and the City of Chicago. (2003). Green connections: A research assessment of community gardening in Chicago. Chicago: City of Chicago.; and Sherer, P.M. (2006). The benefits of parks: Why America needs more city parks and open space. Retrieved October 31, 2006, from http://www.tpi.org 12 From Gardening Matters, "Multiple benefits of Community Gardening," 2012. Citing p. 28 of Been, V. Voicu, I., "The Effect of Community Gardens on Neighboring Property Values." Law & Economics Research Paper Series Working Paper No. 06-09. Retrieved October 31, 2006, from http://tpl.org 60A-53