Assessing the impact of infrastructure charges on land values and land supply in SEQ

This is a preliminary scoping presentation. It outlines some of the very early issues identified this research topic.

The impact of infrastructure charges on new housing costs : an international comparison

Sourcing funding for the provision of new urban infrastructure has been a policy dilemma for governments around the world for decades. This is particularly relevant in high growth areas where new services are required to support swelling populations. Existing communities resist the introduction of new taxes to fund such infrastructure, hence the introduction of charges to the developer has flourished. The Australian infrastructure funding policy dilemmas are reflective of similar matters to some extent in the United Kingdom, and to a greater extent the United States of America. In these countries, infrastructure cost recovery policies have been in place since the 1940’s and 1970’s respectively. There is an extensive body of theoretical and empirical literature that discusses the passing on (to home buyers) or passing back (to the englobo land seller) of these increased infrastructure charges, and the corresponding impact on housing cost and supply. The purpose of this research is to examine the international evidence that suggests infrastructure charges contribute to increased house prices as well as reduced land supply. The paper concludes that whilst the theoretical work is largely consistent, the empirical research to date is inconclusive and further research is required into these impacts in Australia.

Infrastructure charges and increases to new house prices : a preliminary analysis of the US empirical models

Sourcing appropriate funding for the provision of new urban infrastructure has been a policy dilemma for governments around the world for decades. This is particularly relevant in high growth areas where new services are required to support swelling populations. The Australian infrastructure funding policy dilemmas are reflective of similar matters in many countries, particularly the United States of America, where infrastructure cost recovery policies have been in place since the 1970’s. There is an extensive body of both theoretical and empirical literature from these countries that discusses the passing on (to home buyers) of these infrastructure charges, and the corresponding impact on housing prices. The theoretical evidence is consistent in its findings that infrastructure charges are passed on to home buyers by way of higher house prices. The empirical evidence is also consistent in its findings, with “overshifting” of these charges evident in all models since the 1980’s, i.e. $1 infrastructure charge results in greater than $1 increase in house prices. However, despite over a dozen separate studies over two decades in the US on this topic, no empirical works have been carried out in Australia to test if similar shifting or overshifting occurs here. The purpose of this research is to conduct a preliminary analysis of the more recent models used in these US empirical studies in order to identify the key study area selection criteria and success factors. The paper concludes that many of the study area selection criteria are implicit rather than explicit. By collecting data across the models, some implicit criteria become apparent, whilst others remain elusive. This data will inform future research on whether an existing model can be adopted or adapted for use in Australia.

Data requirements of hedonic models in determining the impact of infrastructure charges on new housing costs

The use of hedonic models to estimate the effects of various factors on house prices is well established. This paper examines a number of international hedonic house price models that seek to quantify the effect of infrastructure charges on new house prices. This work is an important factor in the housing affordability debate, with many governments in high growth areas having user-pays infrastructure charging policies operating in tandem with housing affordability objectives, with no empirical evidence on the impact of one on the other. This research finds there is little consistency between existing models and the data sets utilised. Specification appears dependent upon data availability rather than sound theoretical grounding. This may lead to a lack of external validity with model specification dependent upon data availability rather than sound theoretical grounding.

The link between infrastructure charges and housing affordability in Australia: Where is the empirical evidence?

Developer paid charges or contributions are a commonly used infrastructure funding mechanism for local governments. However, developers claim that these costs are merely passed on to home buyers, with adverse effects to housing affordability. Despite a plethora of government reports and industry advocacy, there remains no empirical evidence in Australia to confirm or quantify this passing on effect to home buyers and hence no data for which governments to base policy decision upon. This paper examines the question of who really pays for urban infrastructure and the impact of infrastructure charges on housing affordability. It presents the findings of a number of international empirical studies that provide evidence that infrastructure charges do increase house prices. Based on international findings, and in the absence of any Australian research, then these findings suggest that if the international findings are transferable, then there is empirical evidence to support the proposition that developer paid infrastructure charges are a significant contributor to increasing house prices.

The impact of infrastructure charges on house prices in Australia

Developer paid fees or charges are a commonly used mechanism for local governments to pay for new infrastructure. However, property developers claim that these costs are merely passed on to home buyers, with adverse effects to housing affordability. Despite numerous government reports and many years of industry advocacy, there remains no empirical evidence in Australia to confirm or quantify this passing on effect to home buyers. Hence there remains no data from which governments can base policy decision on, and the debate continues. This paper examines the question of the impact of infrastructure charges on housing affordability in Australia. It presents the findings of a hedonic house price model that provides the first empirical evidence that infrastructure charges do increase house prices in Australia. This research is consistent with international findings, that support the proposition that developer paid infrastructure charges are passed on to home buyers and are a significant contributor to increasing house prices and reduced housing affordability.

Who really pays for urban infrastructure? : the impact of developer infrastructure charges on housing affordability in Brisbane, Australia

This thesis advances the understanding of the impact of developer infrastructure charges on housing affordability in Brisbane, Australia through the development of an econometric model and empirical analysis. The results indicate substantial on-passing of these government charges to purchasers of both new and existing homes, thus negatively impacting housing affordability across the whole community. The results of this thesis will inform policy makers and assist in the development of evidence based policy related to housing affordability and funding of urban infrastructure. Being generic, the econometric model is expected to be a tool that is suitable for estimating similar house price effects in other housing markets.

Infrastructure charges and residential land prices in Brisbane, Australia

This paper examines the question of whether the imposition of developer infrastructure charges on housing developers affects the price of residential land. Developer paid fees or charges are a commonly used mechanism for local governments to fund new infrastructure as a “user pays” method of funding new urban infrastructure. Some argue these costs are passed back to the original land owner by way of lower land prices. However, property developers claim these charges are added on to new land prices, with flow on negative impact to housing affordability. This paper presents the findings of a hedonic land price model that provides the first empirical evidence that infrastructure charges do increase residential land prices in Brisbane, Australia. This research is consistent with international findings and supports the proposition that developer paid infrastructure charges are over-passed to home buyers and are a significant contributor to reduced housing affordability.

Infrastructure charges: Creating incentives to improve environmental performance

This FAL Bulletin analyses the potential contribution of differentiated infrastructure charges to the promotion of more environmentally sound behaviour, such as energy efficiency and technological change.

Constraints to cost effective land supply

The ready availability of suitably zoned and serviced land is one of the key factors in the timely and cost effective provision of new land for development. Unfortunately, in many high population growth areas, land that may be available does not have ready access to infrastructure, or the appropriate designation/s (zoning) in place. The corresponding lag in supply frequently bears the blame for the resultant disequilibrium in the market and affordability pressures on the end product. Government has the capacity to respond to the issue of land supply in a number of ways. Proactive measures define longer term goals and set the ground rules moving forwards. Reactive policy decisions are made in an often hostile environment where stakeholder interests conflict. With a trend to increased regulation, government risks further constraining the viability of land development in high growth areas, without full consideration of all the supply side variables. This preliminary paper will identify a number of the variables which may be constraining the supply of land for residential development in South East Queensland given the current regulatory environment. It will examine the interrelationship between these supply side constraints, a full understanding of which is required by government in order for its policies to stimulate, rather than restrict the supply of land in this high growth region.

Land buyers likely to foot reform costs

Article in Courier Mail. Friday July 22, 2011.

Impact fees and new housing cost: A comparative analysis of the empirical models

Developers and policy makers are consistently at odds over the debate as to whether impact fees increase house prices. This debate continues despite the extensive body of theoretical and empirical international literature that discusses the passing on to home buyers of impact fees, and the corresponding increase to housing prices. In attempting to quantify this impact, over a dozen empirical studies have been carried out in the US and Canada since the 1980’s. However the methodologies used vary greatly, as do the results. Despite similar infrastructure funding policies in numerous developed countries, no such empirical works exist outside of the US/Canada. The purpose of this research is to analyse the existing econometric models in order to identify, compare and contrast the theoretical bases, methodologies, key assumptions and findings of each. This research will assist in identifying if further model development is required and/or whether any of these models have external validity and are readily transferable outside of the US. The findings conclude that there is very little explicit rationale behind the various model selections and that significant model deficiencies appear still to exist.

Sustainable and affordable housing : a myth or reality

The Australian government has released a draft National Building Framework that will likely tighten the building standard for new houses to meet higher sustainability requirements. There are uncertainties about the impact this could have on the cost of housing and the supply of affordable housing. This paper aims to provide evidence-based conclusions on the possibility of delivering sustainable and affordable housing for low income people. The case studies are gathered from Brisbane and Gold Coast. Case studies are analysed by unpacking the features that were included to meet sustainability and affordability goals for housing. This paper outlines the key factors for their success and also challenges for replication of the projects. The study shows that the key success drivers for delivering sustainable and affordable housing are providing planning incentives, subsidies for increased energy efficiency, supportive regulatory frameworks and appropriate allocation of infrastructure charges. It shows that government can prioritise their resources to support affordable and sustainable housing for low income people.

Inefficient tax slugs all homebuyers

Housing affordability is more than just house prices. It also includes ready access to public transport, schools, good road networks, and of course access to all the basic utilities. However, local governments don’t have the money to build all the infrastructure new housing estates need. So developer charges were introduced as a “user pays” method of funding new urban infrastructure. These charges are levied on property developers by local authorities at the time of planning approval. Some think these costs are passed back to the original land owner by way of lower land prices. But property developers claim these charges are instead added on to new house prices, with a negative impact to housing affordability. When new house prices increase, existing house prices are also dragged up, extending the housing affordability issue throughout the community. However, new research by QUT has uncovered evidence that these costs are not merely passed on to homebuyers, but are passed on at significantly over-inflated rates. In an Australian first, the study empirically examines the impact of developer charges on housing affordability, providing evidence that developer charges are passed on to all homebuyers in the community. So while policy makers think they are charging developers for the provision of infrastructure in new communities, the cost is really being borne by all homebuyers.