Programs for open space preservation have traditionally been justified on aesthetic grounds or have stressed regional planning needs. Husbanding the amount of surviving open space was thought to preserve planning options and to provide needed recreational space for entire metropolitan regions. Only recently has the importance of open space for the quality of suburban community life begun to be recognized. As a report to the California State Assembly put it, "It is perhaps the visual impact of thousands upon thousands of houses built row upon row without relief which has been most responsible for stimulating burgeoning citizen interest in the problem of providing for recreation areas in subdivision developments . . . . Families who have moved to suburbia in the hope of finding escape from urban congestion have found instead that their children may there be forced into the streets in their natural pursuit of recreation space. These people turn to the community as a whole for aid inproviding the desired parks."¹

The problem has been aggravated by the generally strained financial conditions of suburban communities, which are already burdened with staggering school budgets. Few suburbs seem to have either the financial resources or the political will to sanction bond issues for open space acquisition, and thus their governing bodies are confined to the use of regulatory powers in their attempts to provide the desired park space.