dopkick t1_jc0q9yx wrote on March 13, 2023 at 4:40 AM

First and foremost, let’s keep in mind that community gardens are a hobby. They’re not going to produce enough food to actually sustain families. In practice they’re often not efficiently utilized as well.

I would rather see a more comprehensive strategy for planting things that attract pollinators across the entire city. Why limit it to small plots here and there?

Also, those vacant townhouses that this sub has a hard on for would be much better community gardens. The land is generally not desirable so the city would not be losing out on prospective tax revenue.

elephantsandrainbows OP t1_jc1s4xo wrote on March 13, 2023 at 12:40 PM

Hello! We have garden plots as well as pollinator gardens that run along the whole perimeter of the area, including native bushes and trees. :) We want to make the space as pollinator-friendly as possible

dopkick t1_jc1tesu wrote on March 13, 2023 at 12:52 PM

Yes, but that can be accomplished at a city-wide level with the existing infrastructure. You don't need valuable land and the city losing tax revenue for your hobby.

Let's assume that 10 townhomes could be built in this space. Let's assume they are $650,000 each. And the people living in them bring in $200,000 per year per unit. All very reasonable assumptions. That's $146,000 per year in real estate taxes and $64,000 per year in income tax. Or $210,000 per year total.

For $210,000 I can hire two people (fully burdened) with the sole task of planting native shrubs. Or I can support your hobby. Not a hard choice.

wake8888 t1_jc26jow wrote on March 13, 2023 at 2:35 PM

After dozens of dealings with city government, I have a hard time believing the $210k wouldn't be badly squandered instead of hiring two people planting native shrubs. I wouldn't trust the city to follow through unless there was something binding requiring them to do so.

dopkick t1_jc27cre wrote on March 13, 2023 at 2:40 PM

I don't disagree. However, I still think $210K to subsidize hobbies is ridiculous.

wake8888 t1_jc290io wrote on March 13, 2023 at 2:52 PM

I agree that there are far more effective ways to spend $210k, should it be properly earmarked somehow. It's only $210k if the City receives the tax though. Since real estate and income taxes go into the City's coffers, we can't trust that it would be used to help LP or even properly at all. I feel like it's a roll of the dice with pretty bad odds that something tangible and net-good would come out of the money should the City receive it. That means it's not really worth $210k to LP unless some responsible party holds it and will use it as such.

dopkick t1_jc2kbe5 wrote on March 13, 2023 at 4:07 PM

But the point of taxes is that it all rolls up to a single bucket at the strategic level to be spent on the most high impact projects across the city in a timely fashion. LP might see $0 of that $210K be reinvested for 10 years. Then might be the recipients of a $10M project. Saying tax dollars need to be spent exclusively locally basically ensure the rich get much richer and the poor get driven away.

One-Seaworthiness-28 t1_jcbjg12 wrote on March 15, 2023 at 5:36 PM

Um, no. The number of vacant properties in Baltimore is decreasing at a very fast rate. In 2020 Baltimore had 16,000+ vacant properties and now it is 14,000. There is new legislation within the city currently being sponsored by Odette Ramos so the city can better manage and dispense with vacant properties. We're not turning any vacants into community gardens when they can become revenue generators for the city.