对假定房地产价值上升和价值捕获的反向观察

IF 0.8 Q3 Economics, Econometrics and Finance
J. Sheehan, Andrew Kelly, Pi-Ying Lai, K. Rayner
{"title":"对假定房地产价值上升和价值捕获的反向观察","authors":"J. Sheehan, Andrew Kelly, Pi-Ying Lai, K. Rayner","doi":"10.1080/14445921.2022.2122292","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The assessment of rising property values and the resultant urge to capture some, if not most, of the presumed unearned increment in values has always exposed land use planners and legislators to an arguably flawed but longstanding premise. After reviewing key salient literary and legal aspects, the paper provides empirical material from Australia derived from British common law, and Taiwan derived from civil law. The underlying flaw is revealed in the premise that increased development potential through zoning necessarily directly or indirectly results in rising property values. The authors also posit there is an absence of methodological discourse between property rights holders, land use planners and legislators on value capture. Furthermore, there are the justifiable expectations of the community regarding rising property values and subsequent value capture to fund the provision of major infrastructure such as roads and railways. While commentators on both sides of the debate seek a transparent set of value capture outcomes to establish precedents for the future, the likelihood of such attempts being questionable. To attempt a solution without dealing with all of these intertwining issues is to risk perpetuating the disconnect between good and well understood planning law and professional practice.","PeriodicalId":44302,"journal":{"name":"Pacific Rim Property Research Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A contrariant observation on assumed rising property values and value capture\",\"authors\":\"J. Sheehan, Andrew Kelly, Pi-Ying Lai, K. Rayner\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/14445921.2022.2122292\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT The assessment of rising property values and the resultant urge to capture some, if not most, of the presumed unearned increment in values has always exposed land use planners and legislators to an arguably flawed but longstanding premise. After reviewing key salient literary and legal aspects, the paper provides empirical material from Australia derived from British common law, and Taiwan derived from civil law. The underlying flaw is revealed in the premise that increased development potential through zoning necessarily directly or indirectly results in rising property values. The authors also posit there is an absence of methodological discourse between property rights holders, land use planners and legislators on value capture. Furthermore, there are the justifiable expectations of the community regarding rising property values and subsequent value capture to fund the provision of major infrastructure such as roads and railways. While commentators on both sides of the debate seek a transparent set of value capture outcomes to establish precedents for the future, the likelihood of such attempts being questionable. To attempt a solution without dealing with all of these intertwining issues is to risk perpetuating the disconnect between good and well understood planning law and professional practice.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44302,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pacific Rim Property Research Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-09-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pacific Rim Property Research Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/14445921.2022.2122292\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Economics, Econometrics and Finance\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pacific Rim Property Research Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14445921.2022.2122292","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要对不断上涨的房地产价值的评估,以及由此产生的捕捉部分(如果不是大部分的话)假定的非劳动价值增量的冲动,总是让土地利用规划者和立法者暴露在一个可以说有缺陷但长期存在的前提下。在回顾了重要的文学和法律方面之后,本文提供了来自澳大利亚的英国普通法和台湾大陆法的经验材料。通过分区增加发展潜力必然直接或间接导致房地产价值上升,这一前提揭示了潜在的缺陷。作者还认为,产权持有人、土地使用规划者和立法者之间缺乏关于价值捕获的方法论讨论。此外,社会对不断上涨的房地产价值和随后的价值捕获抱有合理的期望,以资助提供公路和铁路等主要基础设施。尽管辩论双方的评论员都在寻求一套透明的价值捕获结果,为未来树立先例,但这种尝试的可能性值得怀疑。试图在不处理所有这些相互交织的问题的情况下找到解决方案,就有可能使良好且广为人知的规划法与专业实践之间的脱节永久化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A contrariant observation on assumed rising property values and value capture
ABSTRACT The assessment of rising property values and the resultant urge to capture some, if not most, of the presumed unearned increment in values has always exposed land use planners and legislators to an arguably flawed but longstanding premise. After reviewing key salient literary and legal aspects, the paper provides empirical material from Australia derived from British common law, and Taiwan derived from civil law. The underlying flaw is revealed in the premise that increased development potential through zoning necessarily directly or indirectly results in rising property values. The authors also posit there is an absence of methodological discourse between property rights holders, land use planners and legislators on value capture. Furthermore, there are the justifiable expectations of the community regarding rising property values and subsequent value capture to fund the provision of major infrastructure such as roads and railways. While commentators on both sides of the debate seek a transparent set of value capture outcomes to establish precedents for the future, the likelihood of such attempts being questionable. To attempt a solution without dealing with all of these intertwining issues is to risk perpetuating the disconnect between good and well understood planning law and professional practice.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
6
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信