Conventional fiscal impact analysis, as applied by many planners, uses inputs as a proxy measure for outputs. We argue that it is the impacts of urban development on outputs, not on inputs, that are of fundamental concern. Moreover, we provide evidence that inputs are often a poor proxy for outputs, and so we call upon the planning profession to rethink its approach to fiscal impact analysis. To this end we outline a conceptual framework for fiscal impacts and articulate a strategy by which it can be applied across a range of diverse services provided by local governments.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anderson, J.L.1987. Modeling trio used for distribution system analysis. Water/Engineering &-Management134: 25-28.
2.
Arentze, TA. , A.W.J. Borgers, and H.J.P. Timmermans. 1994. Geographical information systems and the measurement of accessibility in the context of multipurpose travel: A new approach. Geographical Systems1(2): 87-102
3.
Arnott, R. , and J. Rowse. 1987. Peer group effects and educational attainment. Journal of Public Economics32: 287-305.
4.
Attansasio, R. , and D. Danicic. 1994. Comparing three stormwater pollutant load models. Public Works125: 51-54.
5.
Auerhahn, E.1988. Implementing an impact fee system: ten years of experience in Broward County, Florida. Journal of the American Planning Association54(1): 67-70.
6.
Barnebey, M.P. , T. MacRostie, Gj. Schoennauer, G.T. Simpson, and J. Winters. 1988. Paying for growth: Community approaches to development impact fees. Journal of the American Planning Association54(1): 18-28.
7.
Brueckner, J.K.1981. Congested public goods: The case of fire protection. Journal of Public Economics15: 45-58.
8.
Burchell, R.W. , and D. Listokin. 1978. The Fiscal Impact Handbook. New Brunswick: The Center for Urban Policy Research.
9.
Chaiken, J.M. , E.J. Ignall, and W.E. Walker. 1975. Deployment Methodology For Fire Departments. Santa Monica: The Rand Corporation.
10.
Clark, R.M. , and R.G. Stevie. 1981. A water supply cost model incorporating spatial variables. Land Economics57(1): 18-32.
11.
Connerly, C.E.1988. The social implications of impact fees. Journal of the American Planning Association54(1): 75-78.
12.
Craig, S.G. , and E J. Heikkila. 1989. Urban safety in Vancouver: Allocation and production of a congestible public good. Canadian Journal of Economics22(4): 867-884.
13.
Department of Public Works. 1994. Npdes Stormwater Discharge Program. Los Angeles County internal memorandum.
14.
Dynarski, M. , R. Schwab, and E. Zampelli. 1989. Local characteristics and public production: The case of education. Journal of Urban Economics26: 250-263.
15.
Hanson, S. , and M. Schwab. 1987. Accessibility and intraurban travel. Environment and Planning A19(6): 735-748.
16.
Heikkila, E.J. , and C. Kantiotou. 1992. Calculating fiscal impacts where spatial effects are present. Regional Science and Urban Economics22: 475-490.
17.
Heikkila, E.J.1990. Modeling fiscal impacts using expert GIS: Theory and strategy. Computers Environment and Urban Systems14: 25-35.
18.
Heikkila, E.J. , and S.G. Craig1991. Nested fiscal impact measures using the new theory of local public goods, Journal of Regional Science31(1): 65-81.
19.
Huffman, F.E. , A.C. Nelson, M.T. Smith, and M.A. Stegman. 1988. Who bears the burden of development impact fees?Journal of the American Planning Association54(1): 49-55.
20.
Ladd, H.F.1994. Fiscal impacts of local population growth: A conceptual and empirical analysis. Regional Science and Urban Economics24: 661-686.
21.
Lillydahl, J.H. , A.C Nelson, TV. Ramis, A. Rivasplata, and S.R. Schell. 1988. The need for a standard state impact fee enabling act. Journal of the American Planning Association54(1): 7-17.
22.
Moore, J. E. II , and P. Gordon. 1990. A sequential programming model of urban land development. Socio-Economic Planning Science24(3): 199-216.
23.
Myers, D.1988. Building knowledge about quality of life for urban planning. Journal of the American Planning Association54(3): 347-359.
24.
Nelson, A.C.1988. Symposium: Development impact fees introduction. Journal of the American Planning Association54(1): 3-6.
25.
Nelson, A.C. , ed. 1988. Development Impact Fees: Policy Rationale, Practice, Theory and Issues. Chicago: American Planning Association.
26.
Nicholas, J.C. , and A.C. Nelson. 1988. Determining the appropriate development impact fee using the rational nexus test. Journal of the American Planning Association54(1): 56-66.
27.
Nicholas, J.C. , A.C. Nelson, and J.C. Juergensmeyer. 1991. A Practitioner's Guide to Development Impact Fees. Chicago: American Planning Association.
28.
Nicholas, J.C.1988. The Calculation of Proportionate-share Impact Fees. Chicago: American Planning Association.
29.
Ormsbee, L.E. , and K.E. Lansey. 1994. Optimal control of water supply pumping systems. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management120(2): 237-252.
30.
Peiser, R.1988. Calculating equity-neutral water and sewer impact fees. Journal of the American Planing Association54(1): 38-48.
31.
Rubinfeld, D.L. , and P. Shapiro. 1989. Micro-estimation of the demand for schooling. Regional Science and Urban Economics19: 381-398.
32.
Shieh, J.Y 1995. Using GIS to measure accessibility impacts of transportation policies: Application to Taipei. Ph.D. dissertation. School of Urban Planning and Development, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
33.
Snyder, TP. , and M.A. Stegman. 1987. Payingfbr Growth: Using Development Impact Fees to Finance Infrastructure. Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute.
34.
Stroud, N.1988. Legal considerations of development impact fees. Journal of the American Planning Association54(1): 29-37.
35.
Varian, H.R.1992. Microeconomic Analysis, 3rd edition. New York: W.W. Norton and Co.
36.
Weibull, J.W.1980. On the numerical measurement of accessibility. Environmentand Planning A12: 53-67.
