Incentives for Development of Infill

email icon

Incentives for Development of Infill
Dec 12, 2012 Ardyce E Forwarded to PlanPHX Leadership Committee and appropriate city department	22 6 13

View Other Ideas In This Status

Since there aren't nearly enough developers with ready financing in the valley, how can we provide incentives and not start or increase an incentives escalation?

And at the same time, avoid a rash of projects that are not the most needed or desirable?

I've heard that partnerships might help which means that one of the partners is to supply the money. Who could qualify as partner?

13 Comments

by Ardyce E Please consider areas outside of the urban core such as Sunnyslope and Maryvale where the zoning is almost all R3 and C2. The city has been promoting infill in these and other areas for several years now and we can't afford to lose momentum again. I want to make infill viable for all of our older developed areas , not just the urban core.

Dec 17, 2012 at 5:50 PM
by Ardyce E That's why I specified "most needed or desirable". And I agree about adaptive reuse,especially strip malls and big boxes.

Dec 22, 2012 at 2:58 PM
by Patrick B4 One issue we've had in the past is low-quality development chasing redevelopment incentives in some of these targeted redevelopment areas. Therefore, I'd recommend that adaptive reuse play a strong role, as a means to push property improvement over building for building's sake.

Dec 18, 2012 at 11:57 PM
by Thomas T2 One key is to incentivize without "paying" for it from the public coffers. One way to do this to limit any public investment into expansion of public services and utilities outside of existing developed areas. By focusing on investing the limited public funds in areas that provide compounded returns by upgrading our current infrastructure would support infill development.

We can also encourage local developers and local investors to partner with the land owners (land owner compensated as a long term investor or when the project is refinanced or sold). Many options exist outside the normal means of outsiders imposing their ideas of what people with means are wanting in Phoenix.

Dec 13, 2012 at 10:51 PM
by Ardyce E Thanks, Thomas. One thing I worry about is vacant big boxes, which could be used for sports and other recreation until a viable proposal comes along. It seems like your ideas could apply here.

Dec 13, 2012 at 11:14 PM
by Derek H1 One way to encourage infill development is to give property owners more freedom in how they may use their property. Eliminating minimum parking requirements is a good start: http://www.myplanphx.com/shaping-phoenix-s-future/bring-modern-parking-management-technology-to-phoenix

Dec 12, 2012 at 3:39 PM
by Bob D3 That's the problem with loose metaphors - they can be tugged in any direction. If vacant lot property owners have to pay more in taxes to hold their properties - and please remember the majority of them are passive investors - they become willing to engage their property at a price that allows realistic projects that meets today's market to be developed rather than waiting for the maximum zone height to be marketable. I had copied this article in another thread of this website - here it is, please read it: http://www.streets.mn/2012/12/10/tax-land-not-buildings/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Streetsmn+%28streets.mn%29

Dec 16, 2012 at 3:13 AM
by Ardyce E Bob, you don't get much cream from low-fat milk. And if we force the value of a property upward, then even fewer developers could afford to buy it. Due to prop 207 we can't lower a property's value, either. As I see it we need to attract financing.

Dec 15, 2012 at 10:56 PM
by Bob D3 Ardyce, think about it this way - let the cream rise to the top emergently. Tax the heck out of vacant land to create incentives for those landowners to do something productive with their land. That seems to work in cities that tried it - with Pittsburgh circa the late '70s as the poster boy for the concept.

Dec 15, 2012 at 8:07 AM
by Ardyce E Bob, anyone can get a long-term lease with an agreement to build. My question is who has ready financing that other cities aren't strongly competing for? Who is vested in Phoenix?

Dec 14, 2012 at 11:59 PM
by Bob D3 Derek - interesting notion - the developers lease the land and put up the structures - sounds a lot like what I understand thew GPLET program is like - but how would that work with privately owned land?

Dec 14, 2012 at 5:42 PM
by Derek H1 Even though the developer is the one who keeps track of the incentives, it raises the value of the land, and the higher value makes its way back to the property owner.

Dec 14, 2012 at 11:29 AM
by Ardyce E Derek, about 10 years ago Phoenix offered incentives to developers, not property owners, to push infill. There were enough developers with funding then to cause movement in infill.. And the incentives then included leeway in some design criteria.
Most infill property owners don't develop their own properties, so they're indifferent to design incentives. It's whichever developer buys the property who keeps track of incentives, and not many infill developers have it.

Dec 12, 2012 at 7:52 PM

What is your “Big Idea” for the future of Phoenix? Return to the Topic Page	Prev Idea Next Idea
Help spread the word. Encourage other Phoenix residents to participate! Share Tweet email icon