Local governments seem to be continually strapped for funds. While the revenue-generating role of their planners is often discussed, it is rarely investigated in any detail. We address this research gap by considering the fiscal nature of land use policy in transitoriented development. A massive and influential literature has explored the potential for leveraging rail system investments by locating high density residential developments near commuter rail stations. The feasibility and focus of these strategies have been questioned, however, in the face of evidence that local government support for these projects is mixed at best. To explain this behavior, we examine the role basic fiscal conditions play in the decision to zone land near all existing and proposed commuter rail stations in southern California. The analysis indicates that stationarea zoning depends significantly on community public finances. The results underscore how the practice of transitoriented development must account not only for travel behavior and the broader goals of any given urban design, but also for the selfinterested nature of municipal planning.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Altshuler, Alan A. , and Jose A. Gomez-Ibanez. 1993. Regulation for Revenue: The Political Economy of Land Use Exactions. Washington, D.C., and Cambridge, Mass.: The Brookings Institution and The Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
2.
Beimborn, Edward , Harvey Rabinowitz, Peter Gugliotta, Charles Mrotek, and Shuming Yan. 1991. The New Suburb: Guidelines for Transit Sensitive Suburban Land Use Design. Milwaukee, Wis.: Center for Urban Transportation Studies, University of Wisconsin.
3.
Bernick, Michael . 1990. The Promise of California's Rail Transit Lines in the Siting of New Housing: Report to the California Senate Transportation Committee and the Senate Housing and Urban Affairs Committee. Sacramento, Calif.
4.
Bernick, Michael . 1993. The Bay Area's emerging transit-based housing. Urban Land52: 38-41.
5.
Bernick, Michael , and Peter Hall. 1990. Land use law and policy for maximizing use of California's new inter-regional rail lines. IURD working paper 523. University of California-Berkeley.
6.
Bernick, Michael , and Peter Hall. 1992. The new emphasis on transit-based housing throughout the United States. IURD working paper 580. University of California-Berkeley.
7.
Bernick, Michael , Peter Hall, and R. Shaevitz. 1992. New planning strategies for transit-based housing in Northern California. IURD working paper 582. University of California-Berkeley.
8.
Bernick, Michael , and Michael Carroll. 1991. A study of housing built near rail transit stations: Northern California. IURD working paper 546. University of California-Berkeley.
9.
Bernick, Michael , and Jason Munkres. 1992. Designing transit-based communities. IURD working paper 581. University of California-Berkeley.
10.
Bernick, Michael and Robert Cervero. 1996. Transit Villages. New York: McGraw-Hill.
11.
Boarnet, Marlon , and Nicholas Compin. forthcoming. Transit-oriented development in San Diego County: Incrementally implementing a comprehensive idea. Journal of the American Planning Association.
12.
Boarnet, Marlon , and Randall Crane. 1997. L.A. story: A reality check for transit-based housing. Journal of the American Planning Association63(2): 189-204.
13.
Burchell, Robert W. , and David Listokin. 1980. Practitioner's Guide to Fiscal Impact Analysis. New Brunswick, N.J.: Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University.
14.
Calthorpe, Peter . 1993. The Next American Metropolis: Ecology, Community, and the American Dream. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.
15.
Central Orange County Fixed Guideway Project . 1990. Prospectus for the COCFGP. Santa Ana, Anaheim, Costa Mesa, Irvine, and Orange, Calif.
16.
Cervero, Robert . 1992. Land market impacts of urban rail transit and joint development: An empirical study of rail transit in Washington, D.C., and Atlanta. Working paper 135. University of California Transportation Center.
17.
Cervero, Robert. 1993. Ridership Impacts of Transit-Focused Development in California Report to the California Department of Transportation and Institute for Urban and Regional Development. IURD monograph 45. Berkeley, Calif.: University of California.
18.
Cervero, Robert . 1994. Transit Supportive Development in the United States: Experiences and Prospects. Report to the Federal Transit Administration and IURD monograph number 46. Berkeley, Calif.: University of California.
19.
Cervero, Robert , and John Landis. 1993. Assessing the impacts of urban rail transit on local real estate markets using quasi-experimental comparisons. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice27: 13-22.
20.
Cervero, Robert , and John Landis. 1995. Measuring the property value impacts of BART. Paper presented at TRB meetings. January. Washington, D.C.
21.
Cervero, Robert , and Samuel Seskin. 1995. An evaluation of the relationships between transit and urban form. In Research Results Digest 7. Transit Cooperative Research Program, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council.
22.
Cervero, Robert, John Landis, and Peter Hall. 1992. Transit Joint Development in the United States. IURD Monograph 42. Berkeley, Calif.: University of California.
23.
Cervero, Robert , Michael Bernick, and Jill Gilbert. 1994. Market opportunities and barriers to transit-based development in California. Working paper 223. University of California Transportation Center.
24.
Chula Vista, City of. 1994. General Development Plan and Specific Plan and Process for the Otay Ranch Project: Executive Summary. January. Chula Vista, Calif.
25.
Crane, Randall , and Roy Green. 1989. Debt finance at the municipal level: Decision making during the 1980s. In The Municipal Yearbook 1989, 97-106. Washington, D.C.: International City Management Association.
26.
Deakin, Elizabeth , Michael Bernick, and Tilly Chang. 1992. Implementation of residential development at rail transit stations in California: Case studies and policy options. California Dept. of Transportation, Division of Transportation Planning. Sacramento, Calif.
27.
DiMento, Joseph F. , Drusilla van Hengel, and Sherry Ryan. 1995. The Century Freeway!Transitway I-105: Nucleation, Land Use Changes and Transportation Behavior. Final Report on California. Department of Transportation contract number RTA-65V303 and Institute for Transportation Studies report number UCI-ITS-RR-95-1. Irvine, Calif.: Institute for Transportation Studies, University of California.
28.
Fischel, William A.1985. The Economics of Zoning Laws: A Property Rights Approach to American Land Use Controls. Baltimore, Md: Johns Hopkins University Press.
29.
Fischel, William A.1989. Did Serrano cause Proposition 13?National Tax Journal42: 465-474.
30.
Fischel, William A.1992. Property taxation and the Tiebout model: Evidence for the benefit view from zoning and voting. Journal of Economic Literature30: 171-177.
31.
Fisher, Ronald C.1996. State and Local Public Finance. 2nd edition. Chicago, Ill.: Richard D. Irwin.
32.
Gold, Steven D. , and Judy A. Zelio. 1990. State-Local Fiscal Indicators. Washington, D.C.: National Conference of State Legislators.
33.
Glick, Fred . 1992. Light rail transit and effective land use planning: Portland, Sacramento, and San Diego. Transportation Research Record1361: 75-80.
34.
Kain, John F.1990. Deception in Dallas: Strategic misrepresentation in rail transit promotion and evaluation. Journal of the American Planning Association56: 184-196.
35.
Knight, R. , and L. Trygg. 1977. Evidence of land use impacts of rapid transit systems. Transportation6: 231-247.
36.
Ladd, Helen F.1975. Local education expenditures, fiscal capacity and the composition of the property tax base. National Tax Journa128: 145-158.
37.
Ladd, Helen F. , and John Yinger. 1989. America i Ailing Cities: Fiscal Health and the Design of Urban Policy. Baltimore, Md: Johns Hopkins University Press.
38.
Landis, John , Robert Cervero, and Peter Hall. 1991. Transit joint development in the USA: An inventory and policy assessment. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy9: 431-452.
39.
Los Angeles, (ity of. 1993. Proposed Land Use/Transportation Policy. Planning Department, Los Angeles, Calif.
40.
Meyer, J. , and A. Gomez-Ibifiez. 1981. Autos, Transit, and Cities. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
41.
Mieszkowski, Peter , and George Zodrow. 1989. Taxation and the Tiebout model: The differential effects of head taxes, taxes on land rents and property taxes. Journal of Economic Literature27: 1098-1146.
42.
Mills, Edwin S. , and Wallace E. Oates, eds. 1975. Fiscal Zoning and Land Use Controls: The Economic Issues. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books.
43.
Nelson, Arthur C. , ed. 1988. Development Impact Fees: Policy Rationale, Practice, Theory and Issues. Chicago, Ill.: Planners Press.
44.
Payne-Maxie Consultants and Blaney-Dyett. 1980, The Land Use and Urban Development Impacts of Beltways. Final Report DOT-OS-90079 for the U.S. Department of Transportation and the U.S. Department of Housing. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
45.
Phillips, Don . 1990. California ready to go on rail binge. The Washington Post April 1: A-25-A-25, A-27-A-27.
46.
Rolleston, Barbara S.1987. Determinants of restrictive suburban zoning: An empirical analysis. Journal of Urban Economics21: 1-21.
47.
San Diego, City of. 1992. Transit-Oriented Development Design Guidelines. Prepared by Calthorpe Associates, San Francisco, Calif.
48.
Schneider, Mark . 1989. The Competitive City: The Political Economy of Suburbia. University of Pittsburgh Press.
49.
Trombley, William . 1986. San Diego on a roll with new trolley line. The Los Angeles Times March 21: 1-3.
50.
Untermann, Richard K.1984. Accommodating the Pedestrian: Adapting Towns and Neighborhoods for Walking and Bicycling. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
51.
Webber, Melvin M.1979. The BART experience: What have we learned? In Current Issues in Transportation Policy, ed. Alan Altshuler, 195-134. Lexington, Mass: Lexington Books.
52.
Wheaton, William L.C.1959. Applications of cost-revenue studies to fringe areas. Journal of the American Institute of Planners25: 170-174.
