Public Infrastructure Private Finance

<p>Traditionally, the public sector has been responsible for the provision of all public goods necessary to support sustainable urban development, including public infrastructure such as roads, parks, social facilities, climate mitigation and adaptation, and affordable housing. With the shift in recent years towards public infrastructure being financed by private stakeholders, the demand for transparent guidance to ensure accountability for the responsibilities held by developers has risen. </p><p>Within planning practice and urban development, the shift towards private financing of public infrastructure has translated into new tools being implemented to provide joint responsibility for upholding requirements. Developer obligations are contributions made by property developers and landowners towards public infrastructure in exchange for decisions on land-use regulations which increase the economic value of their land. This book presents insight into the design and practical results of these obligations in different countries and their effects on municipal financial health, demonstrating the increasing importance of efficient bargaining processes and the institutional design of developer obligations in modern urban planning.</p><p>Primarily written for academics in land-use planning, real estate, urban development, law, and economics, it will additionally be useful to policy makers and practitioners pursuing the improvement of public infrastructure financing.</p> <p>Introduction <strong>1 </strong>Development obligations in Canada: the experience in four provinces<strong> </strong><strong>2 </strong>Developer obligations in the US <strong>3 </strong>Developers’ obligations as a land value capture tool: practice and lessons from Colombia <strong> </strong><strong>4 </strong>Charging building rights as non-negotiable developer obligations: the case of Brazil <strong>5 </strong>The progressive acceptance of developer obligations in Chile, 1990–2017 <strong>6 </strong>Poland: ban on conditioning the land-use plan to developer obligations diminishes their effectiveness<strong> </strong><strong>7 </strong>The Netherlands: developer obligations towards cost recovery<strong> </strong><strong>8 </strong>The influence of politicization on the implementation of developer obligations in a federalist country: evidence from Switzerland <strong>9 </strong>Developer obligations for public services: the Italian mix <strong>10 </strong>Spain: developer obligations and land readjustment<strong> </strong><strong>11 </strong>Developers’ obligations in Portugal: the imperfect equation for value capture<strong> </strong><strong>12 </strong>Use of Negotiable Developer Obligations (NDOs) in urban planning and land development systems in Turkey <strong>13 </strong>Infrastructure contributions and negotiable developer obligations in China <strong>14 </strong>A proposed framework of developer obligations to unleash land supply in Hong Kong: land readjustment <strong>15 </strong>Value capture from development gains towards public utility: the case of Seoul, Republic of Korea<strong> </strong><strong>16 </strong>Developer obligations in relation to land value capture in Taiwan <strong>17</strong> Indonesian experience with non-negotiable and negotiable developer obligations: case study of Surabaya City <strong>18 </strong>Developer obligations under the New South Wales, Australia, planning system Conclusions <i>Index </i><i>Institutions </i><i>Cases </i></p>