IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/rffdps/10741.html

Tax Rules, Land Development, and Open Space

Author

Listed:
  • Simpson, R. David

Abstract

Concern about "open space" is growing. Conservation advocates worry that private land use decision-makers preserve too little open space. Yet private land developers are deciding on their own to preserve open space in new developments because it provides amenities to purchasers of lots. Moreover, tax provisions provide incentives for preserving more open space than would be privately optimal. Many jurisdictions have adopted "use-value assessment" standards granting favorable tax treatment to lands maintained in open space. Also, donations of open space can be deducted from income in computing tax liabilities. Both factors may be empirically important, although tax deductibility may have larger conservation effects than does use-value assessment. These conclusions raise several unanswered questions: How important are tax incentives in practice? Do they motivate enough conservation of open space? Do tax incentives target the right conservation priorities?

Suggested Citation

  • Simpson, R. David, 2002. "Tax Rules, Land Development, and Open Space," Discussion Papers 10741, Resources for the Future.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:rffdps:10741
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.10741
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/10741/files/dp020061.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.10741?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anderson, John E. & Griffing, Marlon F., 2000. "Use-Value Assessment Tax Expenditures in Urban Areas," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 443-452, November.
    2. John E. Anderson, 1993. "Use-Value Property Tax Assessment: Effects on Land Development," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 69(3), pages 263-269.
    3. T. Nicolaus Tideman, 1990. "Integrating Land-Value Taxation with the Internalization of Spatial Externalities," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 66(3), pages 341-355.
    4. Richard Cornes & Charles F. Mason & Todd Sandler, 1986. "The Commons and the Optimal Number of Firms," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 101(3), pages 641-646.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kashian, Russell, 2004. "State Farmland Preferential Assessment: A Comparative Study," Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy, Mid-Continent Regional Science Association, vol. 34(01), pages 1-12.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Simpson, R. David, 2002. "Tax Rules, Land Development, and Open Space," RFF Working Paper Series dp-02-61, Resources for the Future.
    2. Bigelow, Daniel P. & Kuethe, Todd, 2023. "The impact of preferential farmland taxation on local public finances," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    3. John Anderson, 2005. "Taxes and Fees as Forms of Land Use Regulation," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 31(4), pages 413-427, December.
    4. Aggarwal, Rimjhim & Narayan, Tulika A., 2000. "Does Inequality Lead To Greater Efficiency In The Use Of Local Commons? The Role Of Strategic Investments In Capacity," Working Papers 28572, University of Maryland, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    5. Lori Bennear & Robert Stavins, 2007. "Second-best theory and the use of multiple policy instruments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(1), pages 111-129, May.
    6. Benchekroun, Hassan & Ray Chaudhuri, Amrita, 2011. "Environmental policy and stable collusion: The case of a dynamic polluting oligopoly," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 479-490, April.
    7. Ignace Adant & Pierre Fleckinger, 2005. "Controling externalities with asymmetric information : Ferrous Scrap Recycling and the Gold Rush Problem," Working Papers hal-00243017, HAL.
    8. Kalinin, Alexey V. & Sims, Katharine R.E. & Meyer, Spencer R. & Thompson, Jonathan R., 2023. "Does land conservation raise property taxes? Evidence from New England cities and towns," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    9. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:3:y:2007:i:59:p:1-9 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Dragone Davide & Lambertini Luca & Palestini Arsen & Tampieri Alessandro, 2013. "On the Optimal Number of Firms in the Commons: Cournot vs Bertrand," Mathematical Economics Letters, De Gruyter, vol. 1(1), pages 25-34, October.
    11. John Deskins & William Fox, 2008. "Measuring Behavioral Responses to the Property Tax," International Center for Public Policy Working Paper Series, at AYSPS, GSU paper0816, International Center for Public Policy, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
    12. Aggarwal, Rimjhim M. & Narayan, Tulika A., 2004. "Does inequality lead to greater efficiency in the use of local commons? The role of strategic investments in capacity," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 163-182, January.
    13. Syed Shurid Khan & Shawn Arita & Richard Howitt & PingSun Leung, 2022. "Evaluating change in property tax regime on noncommercial food production using a modified positive mathematical programming model," SN Business & Economics, Springer, vol. 2(9), pages 1-20, September.
    14. Croutzet, Alexandre & Lasserre, Pierre, 2017. "Optimal completeness of property rights on renewable resources in the presence of market power," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 16-32.
    15. Ok, Efe A. & Sethi, Rajiv & Kockesen, Levent, 1997. "Interdependent Preference Formation," Working Papers 97-18, C.V. Starr Center for Applied Economics, New York University.
    16. Johnston, Robert J., 2003. "Farmland Preservation and Differential Taxation: Evaluating Optimal Policy Under Conditions of Uncertainty," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 32(2), pages 198-208, October.
    17. О. A. Antoncheva & Т. Е. Apanasenko, 2019. "A Socialized Land Rent as Alternative to Taxation and the Change of Social Structure," Administrative Consulting, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration. North-West Institute of Management., issue 12.
    18. Baland, Jean-Marie & Platteau, Jean-Philippe, 2003. "Economics of common property management regimes," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 4, pages 127-190, Elsevier.
    19. Stobbe, Tracy & Eagle, Alison J. & van Kooten, G. Cornelis, 2008. "Hobby Farms and Protection of Farmland in British Columbia," Working Papers 37048, University of Victoria, Resource Economics and Policy.
    20. Alauddin, Mohammad & Tisdell, Clem, 1989. "Rural Poverty and Resource Distribution in Bangladesh: Green Revolution and Beyond," 1989 Occasional Paper Series No. 5 197711, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    21. Tsoodle, Leah J. & Featherstone, Allen M. & Golden, Bill B., 2005. "Estimating the Market Value of Agricultural Land in Kansas Using a Combination of Hedonic and Negative Exponential Techniques," 2005 Agricultural and Rural Finance Markets in Transition, October 3-4, 2005, Minneapolis, Minnesota 132763, Regional Research Committee NC-1014: Agricultural and Rural Finance Markets in Transition.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:rffdps:10741. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rffffus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.