ABSTRACT
The provision of local public goods has been a central focus of the urban political economy literature since Tiebout (1956) introduced the idea that governments compete for residents through provision of services, including environmental amenities such as open space (see also Schneider 1989, Peterson 1981). In contrast to traditional types of growth management controls that place regulatory restrictions on new development, open space preservation protects land from future development by the outright purchase of land or development rights. What are the political and policy implications of this approach? How does it differ from conventional growth management politics?
