1992
DOI: 10.1080/00420989220080611
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

An Empirical Estimation of the Price Effects of Development Impact Fees

Abstract: Empirical analysis of the price of vacant lots sold in three Toronto suburban municipalities during the 1977-86 period shows that development impact fees directly increased lot prices by approximately 1 .2 times the size of the fee . The extent of the increase was related to city growth rates. In general, the faster the rate of growth the lower was the price effect of development impact fees . The effects of growth, however, were not consistent across the three municipalities as one municipality appeared to be… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
28
1

Year Published

1999
1999
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 41 publications
(30 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
1
28
1
Order By: Relevance
“…As discussed above, if neither the developer nor landowner is willing to bear the cost of these additional supply chain costs, then the burden must fall to the home buyer by way of higher house prices. This concept is consistently captured by a vast number of academics, particularly in the USA and Canada over the past three decades including (but not limited to): Ellickson (1977), Snyder and Stegman (1986), Downing and McCaleb (1987), Huffman et al (1988), Smith (1989a, 1989b), Singell and Lillydahl (1990), Skaburskis and Qadeer (1992), Altshuler and Gomez-Ibanez (1993), Dresch and Sheffrin (1997), Brueckner (1997), Skidmore and Peddle (1998), Yinger (1998), Baden and Coursey (1999), Mayer and Sommerville (2000), Evans-Cowley and Lawhon (2003), Ihlanfeldt and Shaughnessey (2004), Mathur, Waddell, and Blanco (2004), Campbell (2004), Been (2005), Evans-Cowley, Forgey, and Rutherford (2005), Burge and Ihlanfeldt (2006) and Evans-Cowley et al (2009).…”
Section: The New Home Buyermentioning
confidence: 98%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…As discussed above, if neither the developer nor landowner is willing to bear the cost of these additional supply chain costs, then the burden must fall to the home buyer by way of higher house prices. This concept is consistently captured by a vast number of academics, particularly in the USA and Canada over the past three decades including (but not limited to): Ellickson (1977), Snyder and Stegman (1986), Downing and McCaleb (1987), Huffman et al (1988), Smith (1989a, 1989b), Singell and Lillydahl (1990), Skaburskis and Qadeer (1992), Altshuler and Gomez-Ibanez (1993), Dresch and Sheffrin (1997), Brueckner (1997), Skidmore and Peddle (1998), Yinger (1998), Baden and Coursey (1999), Mayer and Sommerville (2000), Evans-Cowley and Lawhon (2003), Ihlanfeldt and Shaughnessey (2004), Mathur, Waddell, and Blanco (2004), Campbell (2004), Been (2005), Evans-Cowley, Forgey, and Rutherford (2005), Burge and Ihlanfeldt (2006) and Evans-Cowley et al (2009).…”
Section: The New Home Buyermentioning
confidence: 98%
“…These include studies on: the price impacts of infrastructure charges on new and existing housing by Smith (1989a, 1989b), Singell and Lillydahl (1990), Lawhon (1996), Dresch and Sheffrin (1997), Baden and Coursey (1999), Mathur, Waddell, and Blanco (2004), Ihlanfeldt and Shaughnessy (2004), Campbell (2004), Evans-Cowley et al (2009), Burge and Ihlanfeldt (2006); on existing homes only (Mathur 2007); on the price of undeveloped land (Nelson et al 1991;Nelson, Frank, and Nicholas 1992;Ihlanfeldt and Shaughnessy 2004;Campbell 2004;Evans-Cowley, Forgey, and Rutherford 2005); on vacant developed residential lots (Skaburskis and Qadeer 1992;Evans-Cowley, Forgey, and Rutherford 2005); and on the supply of new housing (Skidmore and Peddle 1998;Mayer and Somerville 2000). Each of these studies used various forms of hedonic modelling, an econometric technique for multiple regression analysis.…”
Section: How Much Do House Prices Increase By?mentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Alternatively, a development tax will increase the costs of transferring agricultural land to urban uses (see also Skaburskis and Qadeer, 1992). Consequently, this will reduce the amount of land used for urban purposes (Fig.…”
Section: Development Tax and Urban Growth Controlsmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Development taxes on building on greenfields have a connection with development cost charges to finance infrastructure provision and to compensate for the impact on government services. In relation to these development cost charges, Skaburskis (2003) debates the idea of 'pricing city form' (see also Skaburskis and Tomalty, 2000;Skaburskis and Qadeer, 1992) by introducing development cost charges that cover all the costs of development. In Canada, development cost regimes were not always based on a careful calculation of the costs, but may be "based on the city councillors' views of 'what the market would bear"' (Skaburskis, 2003, p. 197), and therefore can be considered as a tax, rather than simply a recovery of specific costs for infrastructure provision.…”
Section: Development Tax and Urban Growth Controlsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Skaburskis and Qadeer (1992) studied the association between impact fees and vacant lot prices in the Toronto area, between 1977 and 1986. Results indicated that impact fees are associated with increased prices for vacant lots at a rate 20 percent greater than the fee.…”
Section: Empirical Researchmentioning
confidence: 99%