Gregory S. Burge

Analyzes the potential impacts to city revenues and local sales as a result of increasing the sales tax rate in the City of Los Angeles. Indicates a negative effect of higher local sales taxes on overall sales in a municipality. 

Highlights five systematic types of market failure commonly associated with new construction, and explains how impact fee programs could be more appropriately used to address each problem. Also identifies the most significant obstacles to using impact fee programs in an expanded capacity.

Examines the determinants of county and municipal local option sales tax programs (LOSTs). Controlling for fiscal stress and jurisdictions ability to export the tax to outsiders, we find that horizontal and vertical tax competition influences adoptions decisions of both cities and counties.

Uses a hedonic regression approach to compare the rent savings accrued by recipient households over the life cycle of Low-Income Housing Tax Credit projects to the size of their allocated tax credits, finding that only one-third to one-half of the programs costs are actually passed on to renters.

Looks at one of the many contentious issues surrounding the implementation of impact fee programs: whether or not they will stifle local economic development and job growth. This paper shows how commercial and school impact fees have countervailing effects on local job growth, with the former repelling jobs and the later attracting them. On net, the adoption of an impact fee program with both components would have no significant effects on employment levels.

Builds a theoretical model that predicts impact fees may expand residential home construction within suburban areas, by reducing unobservable barriers associated with land use regulation and by increasing the percentage of proposed projects receiving approval. Using longitudinal data we empirically demonstrate this occurs, but that the effects of fees on construction rates are asymmetric across categories of fees and across central city vs. suburban/rural areas.

 Shows how, since they are often assessed uniformly for different types of units, impact fees have been criticized for disproportionately burdening low income households. We argue an offsetting effect is that they could stimulate the supply of apartments in places where pre-existing exclusionary land use regulations and resident obstructionism are strong. We find impact fees earmarked for property-tax funded public services increase the stock of multifamily housing in inner suburban areas, whereas water/sewer fees reduce construction throughout the entire metropolitan area.