This article has two purposes. The first is to build a theoretical framework to demonstrate the link between the financial base of a local government and its land-use decisions and the practical consequence of that connection-that a jurisdiction's financial and planning operations need to work in harmony. The second purpose is to use the theoretical model to explain why direct jurisdictional intervention into the land-use market is sometimes necessary. Although local governments commonly include landuse control among the many services that they provide, historically planners and finance officers have often not interacted effectively in their official roles. Planners until recent years have been traditionally interested mostly in zoning to minimize negative externalities that may attend unchanneled growth, or they have dealt with such problems as urban blight. Finance officers have been most concerned about raising or lowering tax rates, the total revenue flow to the city, and how much money the various city departments get in annual budget allocations. For example, in two International City Management Association (ICMA) books, one on financial administration and one on planning, potential overlaps are barely mentioned. Only recently have articles appeared that subtly note actual interdependencies. I In many cases, city managers and councils have been left to reconcile and solve problems created by the independent actions of these staff departments. For example, the planning department affects city revenue flows and expenditure patterns when it zones land as residential rather than commercial or industrial. Likewise, the finance department can affect the type of development that occurs when it sets exactions and fees for permits. Evidence also indicates that business taxes may influence business location. Further, a city manager might well intervene to require new developments to be either fiscally neutral or to contribute positively to the city's coffers.2