Transcript Transferable Development Rights and Suburban Land Use

Transferable Development Rights
Margaret Walls
RFF First Wednesday Seminar
Regulation, Markets, and Choice in
Metropolitan Land Use
March 1, 2006
What I’ll do in 10 minutes





Explain how TDRs work
Describe strengths and weaknesses
Examine problems in existing programs
Give some examples (if time)
Provide concluding remarks
How TDRs Work




TDRs separate ownership of development
rights from ownership of the land itself
Rights can be bought and sold
Land from which rights are sold is
preserved from development
Land on which rights are used is developed
more intensively than allowed by baseline
zoning
TDR Example
S
Baseline zoning:
2 du/ac
R
Baseline zoning: 1 du/5 ac
TDR allocation: 1 TDR/5 ac
Zoning w/TDRs:
4 dus/ac (100% density
bonus)
2 TDRs needed/
addl du
Other issues to consider
Is TDR density bonus in receiving areas
permitted by right?
Can density bonus be achieved any other
way besides TDRs?
Downzoning of either sending or receiving
areas?
In environmental programs, what are
compatible uses on preserved lands?
TDR Strengths and Weaknesses
Weaknesses
Strengths



Compensation for
downzoning
No govt $$ required
Growth is
accommodated


Cannot ensure
particular parcels are
preserved
Potentially more
development than
otherwise would
have been
Strength or Weakness?


Flexible, voluntary
Still private ownership
A Sampling of Problems
in Existing Programs

Biggest problem: very few or no transfers

No demand for additional density in receiving
areas
Areas very restricted
 Baseline density acceptable



Additional density can be obtained in other
ways
Too many administrative hurdles/additional
requirements to use TDRs
Conclusions about TDRs


TDRs have great potential
Design of programs is critical to their
success


In particular, a good understanding of
underlying market fundamentals is needed
Even best designed programs are not the
answer to every problem

Public vs private ownership
EXTRAS below
Some Findings

Montgomery County, MD (started in 1980)
43,000 acres preserved
 86 TDR subdivisions




out of 206 built in receiving areas
mostly in relatively low density residential zones (base zoning:
1/2-acre min lots)
Calvert County, MD (started in 1978)
13,000 acres preserved
 91 TDR subdivisions



Out of 250 built in receiving areas
All but 5 in low density rural receiving zones (base zoning: 5acre min lots)
Contrasting Montgomery and Calvert
Montgomery:



91,000 acres downzoned (1:5
1:25)
Could sell TDRs at 1:5 allocation rate
Proximity to DC: strong demand for
development/higher density
Calvert:


No downzoning – 1:5
Rural receiving areas – 1:5 baseline; 1:2 w/TDRs
Some Findings (cont.)

St. Mary’s County (started in 1990)


438 acres preserved
Charles County (started in 1992)

2,028 acres preserved
Problems in St. Mary’s and Charles
St. Mary’s:

Increased density allowed w/PUDs (no TDRs
required)
Charles:


No rural receiving areas
Relatively high baseline density in residential
areas