Many local authorities apply public value capture on new developments to cover the costs of additional public services. The development obligations (DO) they apply can be either negotiable (NDO) or non-negotiable (NNDO). This article examines the limits of NDOs by comparing three national case studies according to the basic principles of proportionality, causality, connection, and lack of transparency for developers. Well-developed building land models and a delineation of applicable cost types offer more transparency for the developer and enable the municipal authorities to establish a fairer distribution of burdens based on actual benefit.

Well-established developer-obligation models are embedded in many countries. Policy transfers might seem appropriate for adopting such schemes elsewhere. This study brings in-depth insight into the perceptions of key stakeholders on developer obligations from countries with and without such an instrument and demonstrates the barriers hindering policy transfer. We utilise the currently contemplated policy transfer of the Munich model of developer obligations (Germany) into the Czech institutional context as a case study. Our results show that an instrument successful in one institutional arrangement may be perceived as an unattainable dream elsewhere. Surprisingly, developers, instead of hindering the adoption of developer obligations, support them. They praise them for knowing all liabilities in advance, and for being partners for the public sector instead of enemies. On the other hand, differences in institutional context constitute barriers that might result in having an empty legal shell out of the transplant.

Seeing as how cities nowadays have to face many challenges (such as: urban traffic management, revitalization, and adaptation to climate change.), different kinds of urban policies and actions are undertaken. Many of these actions result in changes that influence real estate, mostly by improving the conditions of public services. However, implementation of such urban policies is connected with significant costs that have to be covered by public funds. Therefore, the question arises how we can analyze the assumed benefits from the increase of real estate value? Which tool could allow stakeholders to search for potential added value? The aim of this paper is to present the methodological approach to improving the communication between stakeholders for the visualization of relations between public actions and potential benefits. The analyses cover benefits that can occur both in public and private budgets. The focal point of this paper is the presentation of causal loop diagrams as a tool that could be incorporated for public value identification on specific investments. The application of the suggested approach is visualized on two examples of urban redevelopment activities. Causal loop diagrams are prepared for the construction of a metro system and implementation of a water retention facility. The results show that both types of urban redevelopment actions have an impact on the creation of value, which can be observed both in public and private benefits. However, not all kinds of activities impact an increase in the market value of real estate and can be measured as incomes in budgets.

This paper describes and critically reviews an important but under-theorized value capture mechanism that we have termed “vertical allocations” (or vertical exactions). This mechanism enables cities to capture value vertically by allocating floor space for public utilities in privately owned, mixed-use, vertical development. As a value capture tool, vertical allocations allow the government to tap value uplift to supply the nearby neighborhood, and the city as a whole, with much needed public services. The owner or developer is required to make in-kind contributions in the form of spaces provided for a range of public facilities such as schools, preschools, community centers, and public medical clinics. While focusing on vertical exactions in Israel we explore how a certain share of land/floorspace can be allocated for public amenities in a given project. There are several legal pathways for securing public floorspace including negotiated agreements, land readjustment and expropriation. The findings show that unclear policies and regulations could create frictions between developers and municipalities, and these raise the nexus question as well as debates about construction costs and financial contributions developers have to make. Specifically, the paper finds that while developers often argue that cities should cover the costs of constructing public floorspace, city officials assert that the costs should be borne by the owners and developers.

No abstract

Public value capture is an essential phenomenon to improve the refinancing of public infrastructure and secure the necessary budget for other important duties like education, health and social care. For this reason, smart tools are needed for a successful implementation. This book provides an overview and discussion of instruments and practices in 29 European countries.