Determinants for Local Development Impact Fees: Creating a new hypothesis based on Tiebout theory
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The main goal of this article is to empirically investigate what factors lead local governments to more actively implement development impact fees (DIFs). The empirical results analyzing the Colorado counties case prove that counties with high poverty rate and high property tax revenues are less likely to implement DIFs, while counties with high tourism-generated revenues are more likely to implement DIFs. Among these results, the statistical result of the property tax revenue hypothesis was opposed to the expected result. Based on this result, the author proposes using a new logic in creating the property tax revenue hypothesis, applying Tiebout theory to this hypothesis. Up until now, along with the previous studies’ results, scholars have felt free to use a hypothesis that local governments with high property tax revenues more actively implement DIFs. However, the author shows that the property tax revenue hypothesis can be changed by using the logic of Tiebout theory. Therefore, the author’s suggestion will be an academic contribution playing a meaningful role in making a hypothesis on the DIF implementation more elaborate for future studies.
Abstract
The main goal of this article is to empirically investigate what factors lead local governments to more actively implement development impact fees (DIFs). The empirical results analyzing the Colorado counties case prove that counties with high poverty rate and high property tax revenues are less likely to implement DIFs, while counties with high tourism-generated revenues are more likely to implement DIFs. Among these results, the statistical result of the property tax revenue hypothesis was opposed to the expected result. Based on this result, the author proposes using a new logic in creating the property tax revenue hypothesis, applying Tiebout theory to this hypothesis. Up until now, along with the previous studies’ results, scholars have felt free to use a hypothesis that local governments with high property tax revenues more actively implement DIFs. However, the author shows that the property tax revenue hypothesis can be changed by using the logic of Tiebout theory. Therefore, the author’s suggestion will be an academic contribution playing a meaningful role in making a hypothesis on the DIF implementation more elaborate for future studies.
참고문헌 (50)
- Anthony, J., "Do state growth management regulations reduce sprawl?", Urban Affairs Review, 39(3), pp.376~397 (2004)
- Baldassare, M., "Trouble in paradise : The suburban transformation in America" (1982), Columbia University Press
- Been, V., "Locally undesirable land uses in minority neighborhoods: Disproportionate siting or market dynamics?", The Yale Law Journal, 6, pp.1383~1422 (1994)
- Been, V., "Impact fees and housing affordability", Cityscape, 8(1), pp.139~185 (2005)
- Boatright, R. G., "Interest groups and campaign finance reform in the United States and Canada" (2011), University of Michigan Press
- Burchfield, M,, "Causes of sprawl : A portrait from space", The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121(2), pp.587~633 (2006)
- Burge, G., "Development impact fees and employment", Regional Science and Urban Economics, 39(1), pp.54~62 (2009)
- Burge, G. S., "Can development impact fees help mitigate urban sprawl", Journal of the American Planning Association, 79(3), pp.235~248 (2013)
- Burns, S., "Local authorities, funding tourism services and tourist taxes", Local Economy, 25(1), pp.47~57 (2010)
- Cahn, M. A., "Public policy: The essential readings", pp.201~211 (1995), Prentice-Hall, Inc
- Clair, T., "The effect of tax and expenditure limitations on revenue volatility : Evidence from Colorado", Public Budgeting and Finance, 32(3), pp.61~78 (2012)
- "Colorado Travel Impacts 2000-2017" (2018)[URL]
- DeGrove, J., "Land, growth and politics" (1984), Planners Press
- DeGrove, J., "Planning policy and politics: Smart growth and the states" (2005), Lincoln Institute of Land Policy
- Diaz, D., "Fiscal Stress and Growth Management Effort in Wisconsin Cities, Villages, and Towns", State and Local Government Review, 33(1), pp.7~22 (2001)
- Dierwechter, Y., "Urban growth management and its discontents: Promises practices, and geopolitics in U.S. city-regions" (2008), Palgrave Macmillan
- Dowall, D., "An examination of population-growth-managing communities", Policy Studies Journal, 9(3), pp.414~427 (1980)
- Estill, J., "Taxing development : The law and economicsof traffic impact fees", Public Interest Law Journal, 16(1), pp.1~37 (2006)
- Evans-Cowley, J. S., "The effects of impact fees on the price of housing and land: A literature review", Journal of Planning Literature, 17(3), pp.351~359 (2003)
- Feiock, R. C., "Politics, institutions and local land-use regulation", Urban Studies, 41(2), pp.363~375 (2004)
- Gyuorko, J, "Impact fees, Exclusionary zoning, and density of new development", Journal of Urban Economics, 30, pp.242~256 (1991)
- Hair, J. F., "Multivariate data analysis" (2010), Prentice Hall
- Haughwout, A., "The homeownership gap", Current Issues in Economics & Finance, 16(5), pp.1~10 (2010)
- Holt, W. G., "The encyclopedia of housing", pp.384~385 (2012), SAGE
- "Local government revenue options" (2017)[URL]
- Howell-Moroney, M., "What are the determinants of open-space ballot measures? An extension of the research", Social Science Quarterly, 85(1), pp.169~179 (2004)
- Huffman, F. E., "Who bears the burden of development impact fees?", Journal of the American Planning Association, 54(1), pp.49~55 (1988)
- Ingram, G. K., "Smart growth policies: An evaluation of programs and outcomes" (2009), Lincoln Institute of Land Policy
- Kolo, J., "Practical issues in adopting local impact fees", State and Local Government Review, 25(3), pp.197~206 (1993)
- Lawhon, L. L., "ICMA Municipal Year Book", pp.11~14 (2007), ICMA
- Maher, C. S., "The impact of tax and expenditure limits on municipal credit ratings", American Review of Public Administration, 46(5), pp.592~613 (2016)
- Mahood, H. R., "Interest groups in American national politics : An overview" (2000), Prentice Hall
- Mayo, S. D., "Growth management in Maricopa County, 1988-1992 : An application of Kingdon’s agenda-setting model", Social Science Journal, 35(4), pp.525~542 (1998)
- Mazmanian, D. A., "A multivariate model of public policy-making", American Journal of Political Science, 24(3), pp.439~468 (1980)
- "The Colorado revenue limit: The economic effects of TABOR" (2006)[URL]
- "State impact fee enabling acts" (2015)[URL]
- Mullins, D. R., "Tax and expenditure limitations : Introduction and overview", Public Budgeting and Finance, 24(4), pp.2~15 (2004)
- Nelson, A. C., "Development impact fees : The next generation", Urban Lawyer, 26(3), pp.541~562 (1994)
- "Paying for prosperity: Impact fees and job growth" (2003)[URL]
- Nelson, A. C., "Critical elements of development impact-fee programs", Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 116, pp.34~47 (1990)
- Ostrom, E., "Background on the institutional analysis and development framework", Policy Studies Journal, 39(1), pp.7~27 (2011)
- O’Sullivan, E., "Practical research methods for nonprofit and public administrator" (2011), Longman
- Protash, W., "Growth policies and community satisfaction: A test and modification of Logan’s theory", Urban Affairs Quarterly, 18(3), pp.397~412 (1983)
- Ramirez, E. E., "Local political institutions and smart growth: An empirical study of the politics of compact development", Urban Affairs Review, 45(2), pp.218~246 (2009)
- Rosenberg, R. H., "Changing culture of American land use regulations : Paying for Growth with Impact Fees", SMU Law Review, 59, pp.177~263 (2006)
- "Resolution of the board of county commissioners of San Miguel County, Colorado, adopting land use code amendments regarding residential impact fees in the Telluride R-1 School District" (2007)[URL]
- Tiebout, C., "A Pure theory of local expenditures", Journal of Political Economy, 64, pp.416~424 (1956)
- Wagner, W. E., "Using IBM SPSS statistics for research methods and social science statistics" (2013), Sage Publications, Inc
- "Colorado’s record tourism growth hits new milestone: 86 million visitors, $1.28 billion in tax revenue" (2018)[URL]
- "Paying for growth: Impact fees under Senate Bill 15" (2001)[URL]