This essay analyzes the role of new developments in shaping local economies across the United States, with particular focus on development impact fees (DIFs) as a tool for financing public infrastructure. The paper explains how DIFs are structured, legally justified, and applied across states such as Florida, California, Colorado, and Texas. It also examines the housing bubble of the early 2000s, the role of universities in local economic development, and the environmental consequences of new construction — including carbon emissions, water consumption, indoor air quality, and the adoption of green building strategies.
The economic growth of the United States greatly increased due to the major housing boom that occurred between 2003 and 2008. The U.S. government received revenues from development impact fees, and research has shown that new developments greatly support local economies across the country. The government also plays an important role in providing the resources and solutions required by these new developments.
This essay analyzes the impacts of new developments on the environment and examines how development impact fees function in the market. New developments include the construction of buildings, highways, dams, and related infrastructure — each with positive and negative consequences for both the economy and the environment. The following sections explore the nature of development impact fees, how they are applied across different U.S. states, the dynamics of the housing market, and the environmental costs and mitigation strategies associated with new construction.
Development Impact Fees (DIFs) are used to finance public facilities required to service new growth, and their use has gained acceptance and importance in recent years. However, the widespread practice of using development impact fees is uneven across the United States, and many developers, public officials, and members of the general public remain unaware of their requirements and implications.
As defined in the literature, "Development Impact Fees are one-time charges applied to new developments. Their goal is to raise revenue for the construction or expansion of capital facilities located outside the boundaries of the new development that benefit the contributing development" (Carrion & Libby, 2008). Impact fees are principally assessed for the provision of sewer systems and additional water supply, libraries, parks, roads, and recreational facilities — all of which are necessary for new residents.
In simple terms, a development impact fee is a financial exaction. The terminology varies from place to place: it may also be called an impact fee, connection charge, benefit assessment, or user fee. It is a financial tool that reduces the gap between needed resources and those that have already been provided. Impact fees became popular in the U.S. when voters began resisting property tax increases, leading to a decline in federal revenues. As a result, the government was compelled to move away from traditional financing methods for public services and infrastructure.
The use of development impact fees follows important policy considerations that affect infrastructure costs and total services. Local communities must decide whether only new residents will be charged or whether costs should be distributed equally among all residents. If only new residents are charged, existing residents benefit from new facilities without contributing to their cost — a significant equity concern.
The financing method for infrastructure directly affects patterns of urban development. Consider a densely populated residential area located at a distance from a sewer or water treatment plant: residents must pay the costs of those services. Two approaches can be used to determine the cost structure of new development. The first is marginal-cost pricing, which takes a three-part tariff form: one part pays for the sewer and water facility itself, a second covers the cost of extending or connecting services, and a third covers the short-run costs of actual production. The second approach is average-cost pricing, which spreads costs more broadly across users.
Public officials should determine the location of all central facilities and price them according to use, allowing the market to dictate efficient land use patterns. Any new development must pay its full marginal cost so that all facilities are adequately funded. Adopting impact fees can ease the burden of incremental infrastructure provision and shift the costs of future infrastructure onto new residents. A comprehensive plan for using development impact fees allows local governments to finance improvements in construction effectively.
Eighteen U.S. states have passed legislation authorizing local governments to adopt development fees. Florida, for example, has been using development fees for many years without requiring specific enabling legislation — the government exercised its power to charge development fees before any formal state law was enacted. For large cities, there is generally no fixed schedule; local governments must analyze total infrastructure costs and then determine the appropriate fee percentage to recover those costs.
The three states that were earliest to adopt development impact fees were Florida, California, and Colorado. Environmental concerns and property tax limitations contributed to fiscal stress in these states, which forced local governments to seek new funding sources. Impact fees are adopted by ordinance in compliance with applicable enabling legislation. Two types of exactions are recognized: on-site exactions, which are paid per unit of development, and off-site exactions, which are assessed on a case-by-case basis when a developer's project creates additional demand on city systems — such as increased demand for water sewage treatment that requires investment in new equipment or plant capacity.
When cities have unused capacity that developers wish to utilize, a fee is charged for access. Under Texas law, consistency is required so that each builder or developer pays an equal share of the impact fee. Texas cities maintain separate districts, each with its own fee schedule aligned with the state's development plan. Larger U.S. cities tend to collect more in impact fees than smaller cities; however, smaller cities have used those fees to recover up to 90% of infrastructure costs, while large cities recover only about 55%.
A standard known as the Rational Nexus standard has been developed by the courts. It requires a logical and demonstrable link between the infrastructure provided and the fee charged. Cities must ensure that the impact fee charged to each development project is proportional to the demand that project creates. All planned facilities must be constructed in a timely manner, and occupants are expected to pay either property taxes or the impact fee — not both.
The structure of the impact fee should be understandable to both laypersons and practitioners. Because economic conditions change over time, the fee structure should be elastic. Both administrators — including city employees and officials — and the developers and builders who pay the fees should be satisfied with the outcomes in terms of adequacy and equity. The revenue generated through impact fees allows cities to extend and maintain the facilities required to serve new developments, including transportation, utility, and recreational infrastructure.
"Housing bubble dynamics and university contributions to local economies"
Local economic development is also supported by universities. Universities now contribute to the innovation processes of local industries by focusing on technology transfer — licensing and patenting intellectual property to local firms. However, as Lester (2005) argues, "the 'one-size-fits-all' approach to economic development pursued by so many universities, with its focus on patenting, licensing, and new business formation, should be replaced with a more comprehensive, more differentiated view of the university role."
Statistical analysis by Clarke and Evans (1999) illustrates the impact fee exemptions associated with new developments. Their data indicate that new residents in any local area require a range of facilities, including security, education, parking, and affordable housing. The development impact fees paid by residents generate considerable government revenue, yet gaps remain in the provision of services, quality education, and affordable housing despite high property taxes. The government must take effective steps to close these service gaps, or alternatively reduce the impact fee burden on new residents.
New developments leave significant impacts on the environment. As noted by Roubini (2009), "buildings and development provide countless benefits to society; they also have significant environmental and health impacts. Buildings in the United States contribute 38.9% of the nation's total carbon dioxide emissions, including 20% from the residential sector and 18% from the commercial sector." Every day, building occupants consume 13% of total water use in the U.S. — commercial building occupants account for 25.6% and homeowners for 74.4% of that share.
The population of the United States doubled over roughly twelve years, causing water demand to increase threefold. On average, Americans use 150 gallons of water per day, and more than 25% of U.S. energy consumption goes toward pumping, treating, and heating water — equivalent to powering approximately 6 million homes for one year.
New developments also affect environmental quality through construction materials. Several materials emit dangerous compounds, bacteria, and fungi. Carpeting, adhesives, wood products, and upholstery emit harmful volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Processes involving wall covering, flooring, and carpeting release PVC (polyvinyl chloride) products. Approximately 40% of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere is attributable to building-related activities, which intensifies global warming and depletes the ozone layer. New building development accounts for more than 75% of PVC product use. Other construction materials — including steel, sand, stone, and gravel — consume more than 20% of energy resources and 16% of water supplies. These harmful outputs directly affect human health by increasing air pollution.
The quality of air inside buildings is also a serious concern. Construction materials produce harmful emissions that directly affect residents' health. As Tietenberg and Lewis (2009) observe, "the environment provides the economy with raw materials, which are transformed into consumer products by the production process, and energy, which fuels this transformation; ultimately these raw materials and energy return to the environment as waste products." Poor indoor air quality has been linked to cancer, asthma, and reproductive health effects. In the United States, property taxes on facilities represent a primary source of funding for the public service base, with assessed value determined by market value or professional estimation — and the development potential of land is reflected in that tax assessment.
"AIA green guidelines and indoor air quality improvements"
Indoor air quality can be improved by establishing robust ventilation standards and maintaining high standards in the selection of building products and materials. Both source elimination and improved ventilation rates are essential to achieving good indoor air quality. Wood, upholstery, and adhesives are common contributors to indoor air pollution and should be selected and applied with care.
To minimize the environmental effects of new developments, it is essential to redefine how buildings are designed and constructed. Adopting the principles of green building is the most effective approach. These principles should be reflected in the building portfolios of healthcare professionals and property developers alike. Indoor air quality should be monitored to raise health standards for building occupants. Measurements of waste generation, greenhouse gas emissions, water consumption, and energy use should be incorporated into the lifecycle management of any new development.
New developments such as houses, commercial buildings, dams, and highways bring positive change to cities. Local governments generate high revenues through development impact fees paid by residents and developers, using those revenues to recover the cost of the city's overall infrastructure. Despite receiving impact fees from developers and builders, however, governments often remain unable to fulfill all required service obligations, and the issues of service provision and fee equity have not been fully resolved.
The purpose of this essay was to analyze the utilization of impact fees in various U.S. cities, examining the design and implementation of fee schedules and the legal frameworks that govern them. New developments in the housing sector significantly affect both the housing market and the natural environment. Green housing strategies have been introduced and are increasingly being adopted to address environmental concerns. The U.S. has a vast housing market, but moving into a new home requires careful consideration of many factors. Ultimately, local governments bear responsibility for providing essential facilities — including parking, sewer and water systems, roads, street lighting, and recreational parks — while balancing the fiscal and environmental demands of continued development.
Carrion, C., & Libby, L. W. (2008). Development impact fees: A primer. Retrieved August 10, 2012, from http://www.impactfees.com/publications%20pdf/dif.pdf
Clarke, W., & Evans, J. (1999). Development impact fees and the acquisition of infrastructure. Journal of Urban Affairs, 21, 281–288.
Lester, R. K. (2005). IPC Industrial Performance Centre. MIT Press. Retrieved August 10, 2012, from http://web.mit.edu/ipc/publications/pdf/05-010.pdf
McKibbin, W., & Stoeckel, A. (2006). Bursting of the U.S. housing bubble. Economic Scenarios.com Pty Ltd., 14.
Roubini, N. (2009). Buildings and their impact on the environment: A statistical summary. Journal of Environmental Statistics, 20, 113–119.
Tietenberg, T., & Lewis, L. (2009). Environmental and natural resource economics (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Addison-Wesley.
You’re 89% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.