Land Development under the Threat of Taking
AbstractThis paper presents a model of the land developer's response to the threat of regulatory taking. It shows that the threat of regulation affects development timing and density differently than the regulation imposed with certainty. Planned development proceeds at a more rapid pace under the taking threat, whereas the development density varies systematically by location in a spatial land market. Further, property on which regulations are actually imposed will be developed later than planned when the demanded density is falling over time. Regulated property, however, may be developed even more quickly than planned when the demanded density is rising over time.
Download InfoTo our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
1. Check below under "Related research" whether another version of this item is available online.
2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Southern Economic Association in its journal Southern Economic Journal.
Volume (Year): 69 (2002)
Issue (Month): 2 (October)
You can help add them by filling out this form.
CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
- Jyh-Bang Jou & Tan (Charlene) Lee, 2009. "How Does a Development Moratorium Affect Development Timing Choices and Land Values?," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 39(3), pages 301-315, October.
- Teemu Lyytikäinen, 2007.
"The Effect of Three-rate Property Taxation on Housing Construction,"
419, Government Institute for Economic Research Finland (VATT).
- Lyytikäinen, Teemu, 2009. "Three-rate property taxation and housing construction," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(3), pages 305-313, May.
- Jou, Jyh-Bang, 2012. "Efficient growth boundaries in the presence of population externalities and stochastic rents," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 52(4), pages 349-357.
- Turnbull, Geoffrey K., 2004. "Development moratoria," Journal of Housing Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 155-169, September.
- Lee, Tan & Jou, Jyh-Bang, 2007. "The regulation of optimal development density," Journal of Housing Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 21-36, March.
- Maria A. Cunha-e-Sa & Sofia F. Franco, 2012. "Urban Containment: An Effective Tool for Environmental Protection?," FEUNL Working Paper Series wp563, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Faculdade de Economia.
- Winfree, Jason A. & McCluskey, Jill J., 2007. "Takings of development rights with asymmetric information and an endogenous probability of an externality," Journal of Housing Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(3-4), pages 320-333, November.
- Noonan, Douglas S. & Krupka, Douglas J., 2008.
"Determinants of Historic and Cultural Landmark Designation: Why We Preserve What We Preserve,"
IZA Discussion Papers
3777, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
- Douglas Noonan & Douglas Krupka, 2010. "Determinants of historic and cultural landmark designation: why we preserve what we preserve," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer, vol. 34(1), pages 1-26, February.
- Geoffrey Turnbull, 2005. "The Investment Incentive Effects of Land Use Regulations," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 31(4), pages 357-395, December.
- Thomas J. Miceli & Kathleen Segerson, 2011. "Regulatory Takings," Working papers 2011-16, University of Connecticut, Department of Economics.
- Turnbull, Geoffrey K., 2010. "Irreversible development and eminent domain: Compensation rules, land use and efficiency," Journal of Housing Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(4), pages 243-254, December.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Laura Razzolini).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.