Knowledge graph centered on Fiscal Impacts of Land Development: A Critique of with 63 nodes and 182 connections. Top connected: Aedes communis, Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), U.S. Census Bureau, Boulder, state government.
Stakeholders (10)
Agencies, organizations, and groups mentioned as actors in this document.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)U.S. Census Bureaustate governmentUrban InstituteMontgomery County government (Maryland)Howard County, Marylandregional associationsFairfax County government (Virginia)
Show 2 more
Census of GovernmentsReal Estate Research Corporation
and Dawson, Grace, Impact of Annex- ation on City Finances: A Case Study in Rich- mond, Virginia (1975) — Regional Science Association, February
Scott, Claudia D., Forecasting Local Govern- ment Spending, Washington, D.C., The Urban Institute, 1972 (1974) — Changes in expenditures for public services Bibliography in two cities, examining impact of growth pat- terns on these changes. “School Census in Fairfax Protested,” Washing- ton Post, August 5
49, Bradford, P (1973) — Economic Review, June
Collection of fourteen fiscal impact studies, in- cluding residential and nonresidential develop- ment (1973) — Urban Growth—The California Experience
General Social and Economic Char- acteristics, United States Summary, Washington, D.C., June 1972 (1973) — Washington, D.C., March
Show 16 more other
Sponsored by Na- tional Science Foundation (1973) — Rand Corporation, May
Fiscal and other impact of growth in city (1973) — Ann Arbor Growth Study, February
Com- puter-assisted procedure to examine revenue and cost data (1973) — General computer simulation model with fiscal submodel. Sponsored by HUD. Gale, Dennis E., The Municipal Impact Evalua- tion System, American Society of Planning Of- ficials, Report No. 294, September
Fiscal impact of alternative development patterns for large tracts of land in semirural area (1973) — The Greater Hartford Process, Options for Fu- ture Development of East Farms
Related Works
Items connected by shared entities, co-authorship, citations, or semantic similarity.
Part of com- puter simulation system for Michigan State Hous- ing Development Authority (1972) — Community Impact Model
General text on PUDs, including retrospective case study (1972) — Rutgers University
Cri- tique of the Palo Alto Study (see 40 above), stating limitations of approach (1972) — Home Builders of Greater Eastbay
Dis- cussion of factors which influence fiscal impact of residential and nonresidential development (1971) — Outline of a general methodology, with fiscal data for Northern Virginia, for use by local governments. Stuart, Darwin G., and Teska, Robert B., “Who Pays for What?” Urban Land, March
Fiscal characteristics of county by type of land use, case study (1970) — Use Analysis of Prince George’s County
Changes in public outlays as a result of rapid suburbani- zation New Jersey County and Local Government Study Commission, Multifamily Housing and Municipal Services, Trenton, 1973 (1969) — State University of New York
Breese, Gerald, et al., The Impact of Large In- stallations on Nearby Areas—Accelerated Urban Growth, Beverly Hills, Sage Publications, 1965 (1969) — Kentucky Press
Review of earlier work on alternative development patterns (1967) — Harvard University
Review of earlier work on the subject (1967) — Harvard University
U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1972 Census of Governments, Vol (1965) — John Hopkins Press
Extensive bibliography of cost-benefit, cost- revenue analysis (1963) — Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina
Cost differentials if location or pattern of residential development is varied (1955) — Wheaton, William L., and Schussheim, Morton J., The Cost of Municipal Services in Residential Areas, Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of Commerce