Regulatory Barriers Database

Search Criteria

1.  Regulation and the Rise of Housing Prices in Greater Boston

Location(s):	Massachusetts
	Massachusetts	Boston

Highlights

			Existing land use regulations can restrict new construction and keep prices high.
			The state can replace existing regulatory barriers with an impact fee system that promotes new construction by overriding restrictive regulations.

2.  Bay State Set to Reimburse Communities for Cost of Schooling Children That Move Into Designated Smart Growth Districts

Location(s):	Massachusetts

Highlights

			Local communities may not have incentives to create higher-density smart growth districts and may charge impact fees.
			Massachusetts covers school costs for new students in moderate-income smart growth districts.

3.  Development Impact Fees: Best Practices Paper

Location(s):	Arizona	Maricopa County

Highlights

			The authors of this article say that impact fees in some Maricopa County jurisdictions are going to have a negative effect on housing affordability.
			The authors suggest that local governments pay fees from other funding sources or create community facility districts to mitigate the cost to any one development.

4.  Overcoming Barriers to Housing Development in Massachusetts

Location(s):	Massachusetts

Highlights

			Many Massachusetts municipalities feel that additional residential development will place an undue burden on local budgets.
			It has been proposed to give communities that allow more low- and moderate-income residential development priority for state discretionary grants and other funds.

5.  City of Bend, Affordable Housing Task Force Report to the Community

Location(s):	Oregon	Bend

Highlights

			The Bend, Oregon task force recognizes that development fees increase the cost of producing affordable housing.
			The task force recommends that the City undertake a demonstration program and defer development fees in exchange for a developer’s agreement to establish rent caps in a development.

6.  2003 Legislative Changes to Oregon’s SDC Statutes

Location(s):	Oregon

Highlights

			The author observes that Oregon's impact fee statute may prevent use of impact fees to fund improvements because some infrastructure improvements are local upgrades as opposed to the development of new infrastructure.

7.  Financing Infrastructure Improvements Through Impact Fees

Location(s):	Maine

Highlights

			There was implicit recognition that some local governments did not understand how to enact and implement impact fee ordinances.
			Maine has created a document that describes how fees can be charged, for what they can be spent, and how the ordinance can be structured.

8.  Using Impact Fees to Finance Schools and Other Public Construction Occasioned by New Development

Location(s):	NATIONAL
	Nebraska
	Nebraska	Lincoln
	Nebraska	Omaha

Highlights

			The author acknowledges that impact fees can be a barrier to housing development, especially affordable housing.
			The author provides multiple recommendations for an equitable impact fee regime, including exemptions for low-income housing and tailoring fees to actual costs incurred by a new development.

9.  Affordable Housing: Barriers and Solutions for Maine

Location(s):	Maine

Highlights

			Maine has identified development and impact fees as practices that increase housing costs.
			The committee suggests that the state prevent utility districts from charging impact fees for existing facilities and that if other funding is available, municipalities be prohibited from charging impact fees.

10.  Impact Fees - Bad Public Policy

Location(s):	North Carolina	Rock Hill

Highlights

			The authors list 15 arguments against impact fees.
			The authors argue that broad based taxes are a more equitable way to pay for infrastructure needs.