Many local governments seek to extract public benefits, such as open space and low-income housing units, from new development. These benefits are often negotiated during the project approval process, or they may be tied to local zoning changes that allow for taller or denser development. How best should cities go about this process of “value capture”? Should they do it at all? Dr. Minjee Kim of Florida State University joins us to talk about Seattle and Boston’s very different approaches to value capture and “public benefit exactions,” and what lessons they hold for planners and advocates in other cities.

Show notes:

• Kim, M. (2020). Negotiation or schedule-based? Examining the strengths and weaknesses of the public benefit exaction strategies of Boston and Seattle. Journal of the American Planning Association, 86(2), 208-221.
• Kim, M. (2020). Upzoning and value capture: How US local governments use land use regulation power to create and capture value from real estate developments. Land Use Policy, 95, 104624.
• Manville, M. (2021). Value Capture Reconsidered: What if L.A. was Actually Building Too Little? UCLA Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies.
• Nasar, J. L., & Grannis, P. (1999). Design review reviewed: Administrative versus discretionary methods. Journal of the American Planning Association, 65(4), 424-433.
• Explainer: Residual land value, how it can be changed by rezoning, and the rationale for tying value capture to zoning changes. (See especially the first 3 pages.)