This article reviews three impact fee programs spread across three continents (North America, Australia, and Asia) in a search for those impact fee design features that meet the nexus and rough proportionality principles and promote vertical equity. To meet the nexus and rough proportionality principles, we assert that the impact fee should vary by use, intensity of use, and type of infrastructure or service funded by the fee, and that the fee should be based on clearly articulated service standards. Finally, specific policies that may be used to increase vertical equity include (a) allowing developers to pay the fee in installments and/or at a later stage of project development, (b) granting impact fee waivers for affordable housing, and (c) exempting smaller properties from paying the fee.
City of Fremont. (2008a). Comprehensive development impact fee capital facilities fee technical report. Fremont, CA: Author.
12.
City of Fremont. (2008b). Comprehensive development impact fee fire facility fee technical report. Fremont, CA: Author.
13.
City of Fremont. (2008c). Comprehensive development impact fee park dedication in lieu fee and park facilities fee technical report. Fremont, CA: Author.
14.
City of Fremont. (2008d). Comprehensive development impact fee traffic impact fee technical report. Fremont, CA: Author.
ConnerlyC. (1988). The social implications of impact fees. Journal of the American Planning Association, 54, 75-78.
20.
Evans-CowleyJ. S. (2006). Development exactions: Process and planning issues. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
21.
Evans-CowleyJ. S.LockwoodL. J.RutherfordR. C.SpringerT. M. (2009). The effect of development impact fees on housing values. Journal of Housing Research, 18, 173-193.
22.
Government of Tamil Nadu. (2009). Creation of Tamil Nadu town and country planning state infrastructure and amenities fund. Retrieved from http://www.tniuscbe.org/download/go/go1530.pdf
IhlanfeldtK. R.ShaughnessyT. M. (2004). An empirical investigation of the effect of impact fees on housing and land markets. Regional Science & Urban Economics, 34, 639-661.
MathurS. (2007). Do impact fees raise the price of existing housing?Housing Policy Debate, 18, 635-659.
29.
MathurS. (2013). Use of land pooling and reconstitution for urban development: Experiences from Gujarat, India. Habitat International, 38, 199-206.
30.
MathurS. (2014). Innovation in public transport finance: Property value capture. Surrey, UK: Ashgate.
31.
MathurS.WaddellP.BlancoH. (2004). The effect of impact fees on the price of new single-family housing. Urban Studies, 41, 1303-1312.
32.
Municipal Research & Services Center. (2014). A comparison of 2013 TIF base rates in 60 cities and 5 counties in Western Washington. Seattle, WA: Municipal Research & Services Center.
33.
NelsonA. C.NicholasJ. C.JuergensmeyerJ. C. (2009). Impact fees: Principles and practice of proportionate-share development fees. Chicago, IL: American Planning Association.
34.
NelsonA. C.BowlesL. K.JuergensmeyerJ. C.NicholasJ. C.ArnoldC. A.MerriamD. (2008). A guide to impact fees and housing affordability. Washington, DC: Island Press.
35.
NicholasJ. C. (1988). The calculation of proportionate-share impact fees (Planning Advisory Service Report No. 408). Chicago, IL: American Planning Association.
SmithG. (2008). Use of fees or alternatives to fund transit (Legal Research Digest 28, Transit Cooperative Research Program). Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board. Retrieved from http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_lrd_28.pdf
39.
Tamil Nadu Government Gazette. (2008). Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning (Levy of infrastructure and amenities charges) rules, 2008. Retrieved from http://www.tn.gov.in/tcp/gos/GOs_IA.pdf
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2011). File 3: Urban population by major area, region and country, 1950–2050 (thousands). New York, NY: United Nations.
