Effects of an Urban Growth Management System on Land Values

Effect of Local Variations in Public Services on Housing Production at the Fringe of a Growth-Controlled Multi-County Metropolitan Area

“…Specifically, however, they make additional clarification on the positive effects of services especially on residential land-use as opposed to what is contended in some other studies (Habig, 1972). Further, the combined effects of public facilities and access on fringe area housing is consistent with other significant findings in other parts of the country (Morrill, 1965;Lee, 1977;Bourne, 1974;Gleeson, 1979).…”

Unplanned rural living and its policy implications: Some findings from Bundaberg, Australia

“…Such parcels would be less attractive for urban subdivision, given that a developer would have to spread development costs over a small area or attempt amalgamation of a number of such parcels over a period of time, which would tend to increase holding costs and risk (Anstey, 2004). The findings of a number of other studies are consistent with this expectation (Smith, 1967;Gleeson, 1979;Brown et al, 1981).…”

Must Growth Restrictions Eliminate Moderate–Priced Housing?

“…In that respect, the Boulder experience has been similar to the experience in Brooklyn Park, Minnesota, identified by Gleeson (1979), where mandated concentration of development did not have exclusionary effects. Gleeson concluded, "Systems that merely concentrate development are much less likely [than systems that limit the number of developments] to have exclusionary effects; in fact, if they maintain adequate supplies of developable land and practice inclusionary programs/controls, they are unlikely to have any serious exclusionary effect at all" (p. 363).…”