VACANT LAND AND ABANDONED STRUCTURES by fuw70346

VIEWS: 23 PAGES: 31

									    TERRA INCOGNITA:
Vacant Land and Urban Policy

                 27 August 2008
                 Cleveland Federal Reserve
                 Columbus, Ohio

                 Michael A. Pagano
                 Dean, College of Urban
                 Planning and Public Affairs
                 University of Illinois at
                 Chicago
                 MAPagano@UIC.edu
Vacant Land/Abandoned Structures
Motivation to undertake the study some 10
years ago:
– Few comprehensive analyses of vacant land.
– Vacant land inventories are not state mandated and
  therefore only exist on an ad hoc basis.
– Little contemporary empirical evidence to inform our
  understanding of vacant land.
– No agreed upon definitions of “vacant land”:
   • “good” and “bad” vacant land
          Study Methodology
• Survey mailed to planning directors in all
  198 U.S. cities with 1990 populations of
  >100,000.
  – Response rate: 50.3%
• Site visits to three metropolitan areas with
  different concerns about vacant land
         Quantity of Vacant Land:

Vacant land survey (1963) of 48 cities: 20.7%
          1998 Survey, 71 cities: 18.1%

Cities with fixed boundaries (1963), 12 cities: 12.9%
             1998 Survey, 20 cities: 13.1%

Cities > 250,000 population (1968), 40 cities: 12.5%
           1998 Survey, 20 cities: 15.4%
Vacant Land Conditions                                Number 
                                                      of Cities
Vacant parcels not large enough                              97

Odd shaped parcels of vacant land                            75

Vacant land in “wrong” location                              72

Other conditionsa                                            60

Vacant land is in undersupply                                58

Parcels have been vacant too long                            45

Vacant land is in oversupply                                 43

  a Other  conditions include land that is vacant due to real estate
  speculation, perceived (or real) contamination, steep slopes,
  infrastructure problems, or wetlands.
                     Di                             Number of Cities
                        si
                           nv




                                            0
                                                5
                                                         10
                                                                    15
                                                                              20
                                                                                   25
                              es
                  Su             tm
                     bu             en
                       rb              t
                                                                                   25
            De             an
               in             iz
                 du              at
                    st              io
         Co            ri              n
                                                                                   24


           nt             al
              am             iz
                 in             at
                    at             io
                       io             n
                          n
                                                                              18



                             of
                     Ou           La
                        t-           nd
                                                                         15




                           mi
               Ac             gr
                  ce             at
                    ss              io
                         to            n
                                                                        14




                             ca
                                 pi
        La                         ta
          nd              An          l
                                                                   12




              as             ne
                 se             xa
                    mb             ti
                      ly              on
                                                              10




                            pr
                               ob
        Ci                        le
          ty                         ms
                                                              10




Ci
  ty          la               "O
                                                                                        Figure 1.2: Causes of Increased




     re          nd               th
       al           -u               er
                      se                "
                                                      7




           es              po
              ta               li
                                                                                        Vacant Land During the Past Decade




      Tr        te                ci
         an          ta             es
                                                      7




            sp          x
              or           po
                 ta           li
                    ti           ci
                       on           es
                                                     6




                            pr
                               ob
                                  le
                                     ms
                                                3
                                           Gr
                                             ow                                                             Number of Cities
                                                  in
                                                     g
                                                            lo
                                                                 ca
                                                                    l
                                                                          ec




                                                                                               0
                                                                                                       10
                                                                                                                 20
                                                                                                                      30
                                                                                                                                40
                                                                                                                                           50
                                                                                                                                                60
                                                                               on
                   Pr                                                             o   my
                        iv
Ci                         a
   t   y
                               te
                                                                                                                                                55



                                                              In
           po                       de                              -m
             li                        v   el                          i   gr
                  cy                          o   pm                          a   ti
                       to                            e                               o
                            en
                                                         nt                              n
                               c                              in
                                                                                                                                      42




                                    ou                              it
                                       r   ag                          i   at
                                              e                               i
                                                  la                              ve
                                                       nd                            s
                                                              re
                                                                   us
                                                                                                                                     40




                                                                      e
                                      Ci                                   (i
                                        ty                                      ..
                                                  la                               .
                                                    nd
                                                              us
                                                                                                                           31




                                                                   e
                                                                       po
                                                                         li
                                                                                ci
                                                                                   e   s
                                                                                                                      26




                                                                           "O
                                                                              t   he
                                                   Mi
                                                     cr                              r     "
                                                             o-
                                                                e
                                                                                                            11




                                    Re                              nt
                                                                                                                                                     Figure 1.3: Causes of Decreased




                                      al                               e   rp
                                             es                               r   is
                                                  ta
                                                     t                               e   s
                                                         e
                                                                                                                                                     Vacant Land During the Past Decade




                                                              ta
                                                                                                   4




                                                                x
                                                                        po
                                                                           l   ic
                                                                                  i   es
                                                                                                   2
Table 2.2: Vacant Land in Cities with Growing Populations


                  # Cities   Average      Average % of     Median % of
 Census Region     >50%      % Change Vacant Land to Vacant Land to
                 Change in      in       Total Land Area   Total Land
                 Population Population                        Area
                             , 1980-95
West                10         115.4          24.4            24.7
South                8         101.9          20.2            19.7
Midwest              1         181.7          13.0            13.0
Northeast            0           -              -               -
Cities >50%         19         113.2          22.0            17.4
Change in Pop.
            Table 2.3: Vacant Land in Cities with
            Declining Populations

                      # Cities With       Average %         Average % of
                     Population Loss      Change in        Vacant Land to
                                       Population, 1980-   Total Land Area
                                              95
Midwest                    4                 -5.3                8.2
Northeast                  2                 -5.6                4.2
South                      2                 -7.1                4.4
West                       0                   -                  -
Cities W/                  8                 -6.0                6.6
Population Loss
Total Survey               70                43.6               15.4
            Table 2.4: Vacant Land in Expanding Cities
                        # Cities >25% Average %   Average %     Median % of
    Census Region        Change in    Change in   of Vacant Vacant Land to
                         Land Area   Land Area, Land to Total   Total Land
                                      1980-95     Land Area        Area

West                         6          45.4         24.9          28.3
South                        8          74.3         23.1          21.0
Midwest)                     2          33.7         19.0          19.0
Northeast                    0            -           -              -
Cities With >25%
Increase in Land Area       16          58.4         23.3          23.0
Total Survey                70          18.0         15.4          12.7
    Table 2.5: Vacant Land in Cities with Fixed
    Boundaries
                   # Cities With    Average %   Average % Median % of
   Census Region   Negligible or Change in City of Vacant Vacant Land
                   No Change in       Land        Land to     to Total
                    Land Area      Area,1980-95 Total Land   Land Area
                                                   Area
West                    8             +.35         11.5         5.8
Northeast               4             +.21          8.3         7.5
South                   5             +.39          7.5         3.4
Midwest                 3              -.41         4.4         6.0
Cities W/ Fixed         20             .22          8.8         5.7
Boundaries
Total Survey            70            18.0         15.4        12.7
  Policies for City‐Owned Vacant Land 
       and Abandoned Structures

* 16 cities allow the disposition of city-owned
  land or buildings below fair-market value.
* 31 cities offer other subsidies or inducements
  as an incentive to private individuals to
  purchase city-owned vacant land.
* 17 cities have an “infill” policy.
* 11 cities have policies specifically designed
  for the reuse of abandoned structures.
Hypothesized Causal Factors of Vacant 
  Land and Abandoned Structures

      4Change in Economic growth
      4Fiscal condition
      4Regional location
      4Change in Land Area
      4Change in Population
      4Elasticity (the Rusk index)
                Findings
1 The more elastic cities have higher
  proportions of vacant land vis-à-vis the
  total land area. The more elastic the city,
  the more vacant land it has.
2 The slower a city’s population growth
  from 1980 to 1995, the higher its number
  of abandoned buildings per 1,000
  population.
Cities’ strategic behavior to maximize
individual and community well-being
derives from three principal imperatives
of municipalities in a federal system:

       First, because cities must pursue
       policies that augment or, at a
       minimum, maintain the economic
       vitality of the community, policy
       officials are induced to use land
       to its highest and best use.
Second, because cities must pursue
policies that minimize social disruption
and protect property values, policy
officials are encouraged to assemble,
zone, and dedicate land for the purpose
of simulating natural barriers and
protecting property values.
Third, because cities must pursue
policies that enhance their fiscal
condition, policy officials are
motivated to consider development
options that either maximize
revenues or minimize costs.
A 3‐Dimensional 
Model of Strategic 
    Behavior
Vacant Land and Cities’ General Taxing Authority 

                      General Tax Authority   N     Mean
  Vacant Land as a    Diversified (Sales or
  Percentage of Total Income or Sales and
  Land Area           Income)                 106   0.175

                     Property Tax Only        38    0.142
  Number of          Diversified (Sales or
  Abandoned          income or Sales and
  Structures per     Income)                  98    2.227
  1000 Population
                     Property Tax Only        32    0.895
  Spatialization of Revenue Structures

Why promote development or a certain type of
development at a particular location?

Given a choice, parcels will be identified for
development that maximize revenues or
minimize costs. The ‘mini-max incentive’
embedded within the context of a city’s revenue
structure manifests itself spatially in the design,
land-use designations and development patterns
of the city, or the spatialization of revenue
structure.
        Figure 1: Idealized Urban Form of Property Tax Cities




      STRATEGIC BEHAVIOR OF PROPERTY-TAX CITIES
Property-tax cities think strategically about development based on the market value of the
development and on the possibility of shifting service-delivery costs to other jurisdictions
                                    (fiscal externalities).
      Figure 2a: Idealized Urban Form of Sales Tax Cities




          STRATEGIC BEHAVIOR OF SALES-TAX CITIES
Sales-tax cities think strategically about development based on their mental constructs of
             “shopping sheds” and on which market transactions are taxable.
Figure 2b: Idealized Urban Form of Sales Tax Cities
          (with expansion capacity)
        Figure 3: Idealized Urban Form of Income Tax Cities




       STRATEGIC BEHAVIOR OF INCOME-TAX CITIES
Income-tax cities think strategically about development based on their assessment of the
                    income growth potential of the individual or firm.
                Figure 4: Idealized Urban Form of Site-Value Tax Cities
             City A


                                Commercial


    STRATEGIC BEHAVIOR OF SITE-VALUE TAX CITIES
Site-value-tax cities think strategically about development based on the possibility of
      shifting service-delivery costs to other jurisdictions (fiscal externalities).


                                     Density determined by market
                                                 forces




                            High Density                     Industrial




               City B
                                                                          City C
      Policy Questions?

. Sprawl and transportation.
             transportation


ow density growth is caused by numerous 
factors (e.g., transportation and land 
costs), but might sprawl also be 
encouraged because of cities’ pursuit of 
revenues. For example, if sprawl is an 
outgrowth of sales‐tax cities’ demand for 
resources, would a different revenue mix 
2. Regional cooperation.
            cooperation

   Do revenue structures influence 
   cooperative behavior among local 
   governments? What immediate gains to 
   a municipality with undeveloped land 
   near it would cooperation with a 
   neighboring municipality generate? 
   Unless forced by the state to adopt a 
   cooperative face, the revenue logic of 
   cities, especially sales‐tax cities, might 
   discourage cooperation. 
3.   Revenue Structures and Land Use.

     If land use/zoning follows the logic of 
     spatialization of revenue structures, how 
     could zoning and land use change with 
     the introduction of a different revenue 
     system?
    TERRA INCOGNITA:
Vacant Land and Urban Policy

                 27 August 2008
                 Cleveland Federal Reserve
                 Columbus, Ohio

                 Michael A. Pagano
                 Dean, College of Urban
                 Planning and Public Affairs
                 University of Illinois at
                 Chicago
                 MAPagano@UIC.edu

								
To top