Summary of paper prepared by John C. Bergstrom, Jeffrey H. Dorfman and
Keith R.
Ihlandfeldt, under contract for the American Farmland Trust and The Georgia
Conservancy
In metropolitan Atlanta, the city and suburbs are competing for new development
and
the economic opportunity that accompanies it. The suburbs are winning
this
competition and the result is sprawl and urban decay. This outcome
is not simply a
function of the free market. Government policy decisions have a pervasive
influence
on the market for land and its use. If we want to change land use
patterns, we must
change public policy.
Three Ph.D. economists from Georgia universities studied taxes and fees,
development
regulations and procedures, redevelopment incentives and transportation
policies, all
of which have a strong influence on land use in metro Atlanta. Based
on an analysis of
the internal rate of return of four hypothetical development projects at
five urban and
suburban locations, they concluded that public policies contribute to the
greater
profitability of all types of development at three suburban locations than
at two
locations within the City of Atlanta. The accuracy of these results
is confirmed by
how closely they mirror the kinds of development that are occurring in
the region.
The cost of land, averaging 8 times higher in the city than in the suburbs,
is the single
most important factor favoring suburban development. Though its price
is a function
of market supply and demand, the demand for land for development on the
suburban
edge of the metro region has been greatly increased by the construction
of highways.
This policy decision has brought thousands of acres of remote rural land
into
competition with the city, while creating enormous wealth in the outskirts
by
increasing private land values by $10,000 per acre.
Higher city rental rates offset the land cost advantage of the suburbs
to some extent,
particularly for apartments. Development requirements like parking
spaces, as well as
the longer period it takes to receive permission to build in the city,
also play major
roles in giving the suburbs a competitive advantage. Taxes and impact
fees give a
smaller but still significant advantage to the suburbs. On the other
hand, the abatement
of taxes in urban enterprise and empowerment zones in the city is an important
counterweight to the advantage conferred on the suburbs by other policies.
These
trends were corroborated by a survey of local developers.
The researchers' analysis was reviewed by academic peers and discussed
at a
roundtable meeting of local private and public leaders. The report also
contains a
summary of their views.
Policy Recommendations
Based on the research and views of local leaders, this report recommends
that consideration be given
to a number of policy changes to level the playing field between the City
of Atlanta and its suburbs
and, thus, to curb sprawl and improve the quality of life in the entire
metro Atlanta region:
þ Augment tax incentives for enterprise zone development in the City
of Atlanta, paying
particular attention to attracting middle class housing to the downtown
area. Accompany this
with stronger brownfield development incentives and indemnities.
þ Streamline the zoning and development approval processes in the
city of Atlanta to reduce
delays that add to developers costs, while maintaining adequate public
input.
þ Examine current city specifications for developer-provided infrastructure
and make changes to
lower developers costs while still meeting public needs. Pay particular
attention to
requirements for parking spaces, which are much more costly to provide
downtown than in
the suburbs.
þ Consider a tax surcharge on downtown parking lots to encourage
their development and
lower overall city land costs. Study a two-tier property tax system
like the one that has
contributed to the revitalization of downtown Pittsburgh by encourging
development of
vacant land.
þ Recapture a portion of the windfall increase in suburban land values
that has resulted from
construction of highways and other infrastructure. Without this,
the chances of revitalizing
downtown and curbing the effects of sprawl on everyone on the region may
be futile.
Possibilities for windfall recapture include regional revenue-sharing like
that adopted by
Minneapolis-St. Paul, and a regional impact fee on new development that
reflects the impact
that sprawl has on the core of Atlanta and, hence, the entire metro region.
Reinvest the
proceeds in downtown Atlanta and perhaps older suburbs that may suffer
the same
competitive disadvantage because of public policy decisions.
þ Ask suburban development to pay more of its full marginal cost
for public services. Begin by
changing the rules on impact fees to allow one jurisdiction to recover
costs caused by
development in another.
þ Adopt a more regional approach to land-use planning and decision
making. A promising
opportunity for starting this may be the pending proposal to harness state
transportation
funding as an incentive.
All of these proposals are offered, not as a definitive policy agenda,
but as a starting point for more
urgent and focused discussion off the future of land use trends and the
quality of life in metropolitan
Atlanta.
For more information, contact: Edward Thompson, Jr., Senior Vice President,
American Farmland Trust, at (202) 331-7300 or ethompson@farmland.org.