Abstract
Negative fiscal externalities produced by apartments and other small housing units are commonly cited as the justification for many local land-use restrictions, such as minimum lot requirements and limits on multifamily developments. Because these laws effectively limit the number of small dwellings that can be built within a community, proponents argue that restrictions of this type help to guarantee that new homes will “pay for themselves” by discouraging free-riding behavior within a system of property tax funded local governments. Critics, however, have maintained that such policies constitute a veiled attempt by suburban communities at restricting entry for low-income families. Focusing on the clear distinction between housing units located in multifamily structures (i.e., apartments) and single-family homes, this paper finds strong evidence that residential per-capita values, measured as value per person and value per child, are actually higher for apartments, not single-family residences. Consequently, communities' effective property tax rates decline as apartments' share of the housing stock rises, holding all else equal. These findings are contrary to the set of assumptions that are often used to justify many of today's land-use restrictions and raise serious questions regarding the efficacy of modern fiscal zoning as a tool for promoting efficient fiscal federalism.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.