Concurrency is an infrastructure finance and growth management policy implemented by local government. It is a policy designed to match public facilities and private development. When implemented, concurrency policy withholds land development approval unless selectedfacilities and services exist in accordance with locally adopted level of service standards by the time the impacts of land development on thosefacilities occur Concurrency is the latestpolicy in a cumulative series of land use regulations by local governments that requires developers to pay for infrastructure needed to serve new urban land development. Concurrency policies offer an effective supplement to development impact fees and land use regulations typically employed by local governments today. Local governments may find concurrency a viable growth management tool as well as an infrastructure management alternative, but local officials should be aware how the unintended consequences and actual outcomes of concurrency may differ from the best intentions of policy makers.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Altshuler, A. , & G6mez-Ibafiez, J. A. (1993). Regulation for revenue: The political economy of land use exactions. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
2.
Audirac, I. , O'Dell, W., & Shermyen, A. (1992). Concurrency management systems in Florida: A catalog and analysis (Bureau of Economic and Business Research Monograph No. 7). Gainesville: University of Florida.
3.
Baumgaertner, W. E. , & Guckert, J. W. (1993, Summer). APFO: A successful growth management tool. Journal of Maryland Planning, pp. 10-14.
4.
Boggs, H. G. , & Apgar, R. C. (1991). Concurrency and growth management: A lawyer's primer. Journal of Land Use and Environmental Law, 7(1), 1-27.
5.
Davidson, J. (1991). Concurrency, cost allocation and comprehensiveness in adequate public facilities. Zoning and Planning Law Report, 14(5), 121-127.
6.
DeGrove, J. M. (1992). The new frontierfor land policy: Planning and growth management in the states. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
7.
Delaney, J. J. (1993). Development agreements: The road from prohibition to "let's make a deal!"The Urban Lawyer, 25(1), 49-67.
8.
Dowling, R. G. (1990). Controlling growth with level of service policies. TransportationResearchRecord, 1237,39-46.
9.
Ducker, R. (1988). Land subdivision regulation. In F. S. So & J. Getzels (Eds.), The practice of local government planning (2nd ed., pp. 198-250). Washington, DC: Intemational City Management Association.
10.
ECONorthwest . (1995). Evaluation ofpolicies recommended by the Urban GrowthManagement Task Group: Technical report. Salem, OR: Department of Land Conservation and Development.
11.
Engrossed Substitute House Bill 2929, State of Washington, RCW 36.70A (1990).
12.
Frank, J. E. , & Downing, P. B. (1988). Patterns of impact fee use. In A. C. Nelson (Ed.), Development impact fees: Policy rationale, practice, theory and issues (pp. 3-21). Chicago: Planners Press.
13.
Fulton, W. (1987). Exactions put to the test. Planning, 53, 6-10.
14.
Henderson, Young, & Co. (1994). Concurrency management system blueprint: King County, Washington (Review draft). Redmond, WA: Author.
15.
Henderson, Young, & Co. (1996). Policy analysis: Adequate public facilities requirements and focused public investment plans. Salem: Oregon Transportation and Growth Management Program.
16.
Huffman, F. E., Jr. , Nelson, A. C., Smith, M. T., & Stegman, M. A. (1988). Who bears the burden of development impact fees? In A. C. Nelson (Ed.), Development impactfees: Policy rationale, practice, theory and issues (pp. 313-323). Chicago: Planners Press.
17.
Kelly, E. D. (1993). Managing community growth: Problems, techniques and impacts. Westport, CT: Praeger.
18.
Koenig, J. (1990). Down to the wire in Florida. Planning, 56, 4-11.
19.
Leitner, M. L. (1993). A survey of state impact fee enabling legislation. The Urban Lawyer, 25(3), 491-518.
20.
Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, chap. 163, Part II, Intergovernmental Programs, Florida Laws (1993).
21.
Morris, M. , & Schwab, J. (1991, May). Adequate public facilities ordinances. Zoning News, pp. 1-4.
22.
Nelson, A. C. (Ed.). (1988). Development impactfees: Policy rationale, practice, theory and issues. Chicago: Planners Press.
23.
Nelson, A. C. (1994). Development impact fees: The next generation. The Urban Lawyer, 26(3), 541-562.
24.
Pelham, T. (1992). Adequate public facilities requirements: On Florida's concurrency system for managing growth. Florida State University Law Review, 19, 973-1052.
25.
Savage, J. P. (1993). LOS leaders. Planning, 59, 16-19.
26.
So, F. S. (1986). Public works planning. In S. M. Cristofano & W. S. Foster (Eds.), Management of local public works (pp. 70-95). Washington, DC: International City Management Association.
27.
Stuart, G. (1994). Concurrency management practices in Florida: A comparative assessment. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 120(2), 59-73.
28.
Synder, T. P. , & Stegman, M. A. (1986). Paying for growth: Using development fees to finance infrastructure. Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute.
29.
Wallis, A. D. (1991). Growth management in Florida. Cambridge, MA: John F. Kennedy School of Government, Taubman Center for State and Local Government.
30.
Weiss, M. A. (1987). The rise of the community builders: The American real estate industry and urban land planning. New York: Columbia University Press.
