Open Space Forever? Prescott Weighs a Lasting Decision in August
The Good, Bad, and the Ugly.
PRESCOTT, AZ A small but passionate group of Prescott residents won a “yes” vote on March 25th from the city council for Proposition 484 to go on the August 5, 2025 ballot that will designate certain lands as open space in perpetuity. The goal? To shield parts of our publicly owned land from development forever. With Prescott already nestled within 1.5 million acres of national forest, this proposal doubles down on our region’s natural legacy. But as our city grows, the consequences, good and bad, could echo for decades.
The Upsides are Compelling.
Preserving open space would lock in the rugged beauty that defines Prescott, complementing the vast Prescott National Forest encircling us. Those 1.5 million acres already offer a buffer of wilderness, but local protection could:
Secure habitats and views closer to home, from wildlife corridors to hiking trails.
Add benefits to a community that thrives on outdoor recreation.
Could bolster climate resilience by absorbing runoff and cooling urban heat.
Attract more residents and visitors who cherish our pine-clad hills and plentiful lakes.
The Downsides Can’t be Ignored.
The words “in perpetuity” carries risks. Arizona’s population is rising, and Prescott’s growth shows no signs of slowing with several approved subdivisions already on the books. But with 1.5 million acres of national forest already off-limits to development, further restricting local land will box us in. Where will future families live if the housing supply shrinks? Prices are climbing, fewer buildable acres will price out longtime locals, favoring deep-pocketed newcomers. Economic growth could stall too. Areas near Prescott Regional Airport or commercial zones might be untouchable, curbing jobs and tax revenue for schools or roads. The forest gives us a head start on open space, but it doesn’t pay our bills.
Maintenance is another hurdle. Open space, unlike the federally managed forest, falls on the city to upkeep. Trails, wildfire prevention, and weed control aren’t cheap, and without a funding plan, taxpayers could foot the bill or watch “preserved” lands degrade. Legal tangles loom as well. State trust lands, meant to generate revenue, don’t align with “forever” pledges, and developers might push back if their plans are thwarted.
Balance is the crux. A strict policy could haunt us in the future if Prescott’s economic growth and population continues at this pace and needs space to expand. The national forest already limits our footprint, do we need more constraints, or smarter ones?
Needing Voter Approval to Free Up Open Space Could Take Years.
Experience shows that the government often moves slowly, reacting rather than planning ahead. For now, let’s assume a future city council spots a looming crisis and acts quickly to free up protected land for development. At best, here’s what an efficient process might look like:
The need for expansion would have to be formally recognized – 6 to 12 months.
Voter approval process – 12 to 18 months.
Legal and Administrative Updates – 3 to 6 Months.
Project Planning and Permitting – 12 to 18 Months.
Breaking Ground 12 to 36 Months.
At best, it would take 6 + years before any “Open Space” could be utilized to tackle affordable housing or economic needs. At worst it could face public backlash and add years of legal challenges or derail it entirely. This resolution is a big neon “Stop Sign” to job creators and entrepreneurs who will be welcomed in nearby Prescott Valley who’s “Open for Business”.
This isn’t just about 2025, it’s about who we’ll be in 2045. With 1.5 million acres of forest already ours to enjoy, this resident asks: how much more do we protect, and at what cost? It’s a chance to cement what we love about Prescott, but it demands we weigh permanence against adaptability. This is now in the hands of residents to shape our future. Let’s make it a choice we won’t regret!
Thank you for presenting your perspectives on Proposition 484, which would encourage the City of Prescott to create and maintain Natural Open Space in perpetuity. You raise many good points for both sides. However, I feel that arguments favoring Prop 484 remain more compelling than the opposition’s. I'll explain.
To summarize my points articulated more fully below,
Proposition 484 essentially asks the following questions: Do we want developers and outsiders to transform Our Hometown of Prescott into a bustling City with all its commotion and problems?
OR,
Do we choose to trust the citizens of Our Hometown of Prescott to decide for themselves just how much development we want and how fast we want it?
With that said, here are a few more brief details.
A). The question comes down to this. Do we want mid-sized-town Prescott to transform into a significant urban cityscape with few remaining parks, green spaces, or natural areas within? If the majority of true remaining Open Space is relegated to the National Forests, then that peripheral and hard-to-access nature will remain elusive to most in our community and lie often behind a paywall (if parking is even available). What makes the Prescott region regionally unique and so attractive to tourism and residents is the interplay of residential and natural spaces. Voting YES on Proposition 484 allows us to maintain that rare and attractive attribute rather than descend into the bustling and fraught cityscape that a no vote on Prop 484 could easily create.
B). The limiting factor on otherwise endless growth will likely be water availability. Given that the aquifers upon which our current and future welfare quite literally depend are finite and replenishing more slowly than our draw, water will ultimately limit both our quantity and our housing affordability. As you are talking about 2045, this limitation is not trivial.
C) I admit to being unmoved by your argument about the development timelines (delays) related to the passage of Prop 484. You are rightfully calling for SMART development, NOT FAST development. So, that strikes me as a non-issue. If anything, it is meaningful to slow the pace of irrevocable development so that we can consider, process, and deliberate properly just how big a city we are trying to create. When the citizens are calling the shots on "how much" and "how fast", I consider that a good thing.
Finally, D). Certain Open Space might require some city funds to keep, but Nature has a lot of practice taking care of itself just fine. While there might be some nominal expenses for upkeep, the more Natural the Open Space, the less upkeep will be required. Additionally, given that a majority of the Open Space would be in the Granite Dells, that area needs little if any human input to remain functionally viable. Nature is naturally self-regenerating. By contrast, once we humans step in and convert nature into a human habitat, yes, that is precisely when significant expenses to upkeep accrue. Thus, if our main objective is to keep costs down, let nature remain nature.
I hope that I was able to articulate clearly my wholehearted support for this modest 484 measure to simply place the decision-making power and future into the hands of the Prescott Citizens (rather than our elected officials).
I confess that I am not afraid of allowing our citizens to decide our own futures directly. Truly, allowing some level of citizen autonomy is what we need to make sure that Our Hometown remains... Our Hometown and not someone else's bustling, (increasingly crime-ridden?) City.
Thank you for expressing your views and allowing me to express mine. I appreciate the constructive and healthful discussion. With much respect, Peter Sherman (Prescott, AZ)