The “open space” that I know about is set aside by private land owners. Open space is something forced on land owners who subdivide land. Under certain circumstances these sub dividers or developers have to buy land somewhere remote, instead of dedicate it in the area of the development and dedicated as land loss mitigation.People develop prime land and mitigate with slopes and other less desirable land.I think sometimes biologists are involved to rate the value of the land for mitigation purposes. I don’t know much about the whole mitigation process though.

Open space isn’t designated officially for future anything in many cases. It’s just “open space”.It is probably supposed to be considered habitat but any fool knows sooner or later that much of it is going to get taken out of open space and put to a different use.Something dedicated more officially might not.Like a dedicated green belt for instance. I think “open space” is going to prove to be some sort of tax, or land grab profiteering scheme, somewhere down the line ,when that use becomes imminent.Whoever wants to use it ,when planners see fit, is probably going to have to buy it out of “open space” status or else they are going to find ways to steer it to people in the power brokering circles. I can’t figure out what the end game of forcing people to set aside open space is for otherwise.I live in a pretty rural area and I can visualize strip malls owned by John Moores surrounded by “Liberty Station II”.

I made this all up of course. It probably is not what you are asking.May or may not be true. If it does happen we might be dead of old age.

I would guess that open space you are concerned with will stay open space for a very long time, but you probably should go talk to the planners for the area.