Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T20:16:39.674Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Who Pays, Who Benefits, Who Decides? Urban Infrastructure in Nineteenth-Century Chicago and Twentieth-Century Phoenix

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 October 2015

Carol E. Heim
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article compares the financing of urban infrastructure in nineteenth-century Chicago and twentieth-century Phoenix, highlighting distributional conflicts over the cost of public goods. Using the rich secondary literature on Chicago, particularly Robin Einhorn's book, Property Rules: Political Economy in Chicago, 1833–1872, I explore whether adoption of development impact fees in Phoenix in 1987 represented a transition similar to that in Chicago between 1847 and 1851, when a system of special assessments paid by property owners benefiting from an improvement arose, in contrast to citywide financing of public works for citywide benefit. I examine the history of adoption and implementation of development impact fees, which were intended to “make growth pay for itself” by assessing new development to finance infrastructure it would require, and consider whether the fees resembled Chicago's special assessment system in constituting a privatization of government and in reflecting a view that government should not be used to redistribute. I conclude that models that address the provision of urban infrastructure, such as the Tiebout model, would benefit from greater attention to efforts to shift the cost of public goods over space, time, and social groups or classes in growing communities.

Type
Special Section: Public and Private Provision of Urban Public Goods
Information
Social Science History , Volume 39 , Issue 3 , Fall 2015 , pp. 453 - 482
Copyright
Copyright © Social Science History Association, 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Altheide, David L., and Hall, John S. (1983) “Phoenix: Crime and politics in a new federal city,” in Heinz, Anne, Jacob, Herbert, and Lineberry, Robert L. (eds.) Crime in City Politics. New York: Longman: 193–238.Google Scholar
Arizona State University Research Team (2005) “Phoenix: Dealing with fast growth,” in Pack, Janet Rothenberg (ed.) Sunbelt/Frostbelt: Public Policies and Market Forces in Metropolitan Development. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press: 140–81.Google Scholar
Ash, Michael, Boyce, James K., Chang, Grace, and Scharber, Helen (2013) “Is environmental justice good for white folks? Industrial air toxics exposure in urban America.” Social Science Quarterly 94 (3): 616–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bommersbach, Jana (1987a) “Developers’ blues.” The New Times (Phoenix), April 15–21: 26–27, 32, 36–41.Google Scholar
Bommersbach, Jana (1987b) “Neighborhoods fight back.” The New Times (Phoenix), April 22–28: 22–23, 31–33, 36–39.Google Scholar
Boyce, James K. (2002) The Political Economy of the Environment. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bridges, Amy (1997) Morning Glories: Municipal Reform in the Southwest. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Brunton, Robert L. (1980) “Sanitary sewer capital investment fee.” Phoenix City Council Report from Robert L. Brunton, Development Services Manager, to Marvin A. Andrews, City Manager, November 12.Google Scholar
Burge, Gregory S. (2010) “The effects of development impact fees on local fiscal conditions,” in Ingram, Gregory K. and Hong, Yu-Hung (eds.) Municipal Revenues and Land Policies. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy: 182–212.Google Scholar
Cain, Louis P. (1972) “Raising and watering a city: Ellis Sylvester Chesbrough and Chicago's first sanitation system.” Technology and Culture 13 (3): 353–72.Google Scholar
Cain, Louis P. (1978) Sanitation Strategy for a Lakefront Metropolis: The Case of Chicago. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
Cain, Louis P. (1983) “To annex or not? A tale of two towns: Evanston and Hyde Park.” Explorations in Economic History 20 (1): 58–72.Google Scholar
Chapman, Jeffrey I. (1988) “Land use planning and the local budget: A model of their interrelationships.” Public Administration Review 48 (4): 800–6.Google Scholar
City of Phoenix (1970) Annual Financial Report, Fiscal Year 1969–70.Google Scholar
City of Phoenix (1987) Ordinances of the Council, Ordinance No. G 3040, adopted July 22, 1987. Phoenix: Office of the City Clerk.Google Scholar
City of Phoenix (1988) Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Fiscal Year 1987–88.Google Scholar
City of Phoenix (1989) General Plan for Phoenix, 1985–2000: General Plan Summary and Land Use Map. Adopted by the City Council October 2, 1985; July 1989 revision.Google Scholar
City of Phoenix (1995) Commission on the Economy. Summary Minutes. March 16.Google Scholar
City of Phoenix (2006) City Council Work Study Session. Minutes. October 3.Google Scholar
City of Phoenix (2012) Phoenix Summary Budget 2012–13. https://www.phoenix.gov/budgetsite/Budget%20Books/Summary%20Budget%202012-13.pdf (accessed September 1, 2015).Google Scholar
City of Phoenix Planning and Development Department (2012a) “Impact fee estimates.” Phoenix: City of Phoenix Planning and Development Department.Google Scholar
City of Phoenix Planning and Development Department (2012b) “Development impact fees: Impact fee update process.” Phoenix: City of Phoenix Planning and Development Department.Google Scholar
City of Phoenix Planning and Development Research Team (2012) “Development impact fee service areas, September 14, 2012.” Map created by Max Enterline, Site Planner II. Phoenix: City of Phoenix Planning and Development Department.Google Scholar
City of Phoenix Planning Commission (2008) Minutes. September 10.Google Scholar
City of Phoenix Water Services Department (2015) “Water resources acquisition fees.” https://www.phoenix.gov/waterservices/devinfo/dev-issues/relatedfees/wracqfees (accessed August 30, 2015).Google Scholar
Cronon, William (1991) Nature's Metropolis: Chicago and the Great West. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Counts, Richard F. (1985) “Stipulations in conjunction with Continental Foothills (Rezoning Application No. 237–85) located along both sides of Cave Creek Road, north of Dynamite Road.” Memo from Richard F. Counts, Planning Director, City of Phoenix, to Councilman Bill Parks, December 30.Google Scholar
de Jasay, Anthony (1989) Social Contract, Free Ride: A Study of the Public Goods Problem. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Development Planning and Financing Group (2008) Impact Fee Handbook. Washington, DC: National Association of Home Builders.Google Scholar
Dimas, Pete R. (1999) Progress and a Mexican American Community's Struggle for Existence: Phoenix's Golden Gate Barrio. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Dowding, Keith, John, Peter, and Biggs, Stephen (1994) “Tiebout: A survey of the empirical literature.” Urban Studies 31 (4–5): 767–97.Google Scholar
Duncan Associates (n.d.) ImpactFees.com. http://www.impactfees.com/ (accessed August 29, 2015).Google Scholar
Einhorn, Robin L. (1991) Property Rules: Political Economy in Chicago, 1833–1872. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Epple, Dennis, and Nechyba, Thomas (2004) “Fiscal decentralization,” in Henderson, V. and Thisse, J. F. (eds.) Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics. Vol. 4, Cities and Geography. Amsterdam: North-Holland: 2423–80.Google Scholar
Fairbanks, Robert B. (1998) For the City as a Whole: Planning, Politics, and the Public Interest in Dallas, Texas, 1900–1965. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
Fischel, William A. (2001) The Homevoter Hypothesis: How Home Values Influence Local Government Taxation, School Finance, and Land-Use Policies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Frank, James E., and Downing, Paul B. (1988) “Patterns of impact fee use,” in Nelson, Arthur C. (ed.) Development Impact Fees: Policy Rationale, Practice, Theory, and Issues. Chicago: American Planning Association: 3–21.Google Scholar
Fure-Slocum, Eric (2013) Contesting the Postwar City: Working-Class and Growth Politics in 1940s Milwaukee. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gammage, Grady Jr. (2003) Phoenix in Perspective: Reflections on Developing the Desert. 2nd ed. Tempe: Herberger Center for Design Excellence, Arizona State University.Google Scholar
Gerber, Bruce (1986) “Original development fee calculations.” Memo from Brude Gerber, Capital Improvement Program Coordinator, City of Phoenix, to Kenneth E. Spiker, Assistant Water and Wastewater Director for Water Operation, City of Phoenix, October 20.Google Scholar
Gibson, Campbell, and Jung, Kay (2005) “Historical census statistics on population totals by race, 1790 to 1990, and by Hispanic origin, 1970 to 1990, for large cities and other urban places in the United States,” Population Division, Working Paper No. 76. Washington, DC: US Census Bureau.Google Scholar
Goode, Calvin (2000) Interview by Mary Melcher, March 1, 2000, Arizona Historical Society Oral History Collection, PP-OH1, Box 10, Folder 11, Arizona Historical Society, Tempe, AZ.Google Scholar
Guhathakurta, S., and Wichert, M. L. (1998) “Who pays for growth in the city of Phoenix: An equity-based perspective on suburbanization.” Urban Affairs Review 33 (6): 813–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, John Stuart (1979) The Impact of Federal Aid on the City of Phoenix: A Case Study for the Brookings Institution. Washington, DC: US Department of Labor.Google Scholar
Hall, John Stuart (1986) “Retrenchment in Phoenix, Arizona,” in Peterson, George E. and Lewis, Carol W. (eds.) Reagan and the Cities. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press: 185–207.Google Scholar
Heim, Carol E. (2001) “Leapfrogging, urban sprawl, and growth management in Phoenix, 1950–2000.” American Journal of Economic and Sociology 60 (1): 245–83.Google Scholar
Heim, Carol E. (2007) “Taxes, incentives, and fiscal policy choices,” in Gober, Patricia (ed.) Land Use: Challenges and Choices for the 21st Century. Phoenix: Arizona Town Hall: 87–98, 130–31.Google Scholar
Heim, Carol E. (2012) “Border wars: Tax revenues, annexation, and urban growth in Phoenix.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 36 (4): 831–59.Google Scholar
Horstman, Barry M. (1989) “Phoenix rises as example as S.D. heads for district races.” Los Angeles Times, July 30.Google Scholar
Hoyt, Homer (1933) One Hundred Years of Land Values in Chicago: The Relationship of the Growth of Chicago to the Rise in its Land Values, 1830–1933. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Huffman, Forrest E. Jr., Nelson, Arthur C., Smith, Marc T., and Stegman, Michael A. (1988) “Who bears the burden of development impact fees?,” in Nelson, Arthur C. (ed.) Development Impact Fees: Policy Rationale, Practice, Theory, and Issues. Chicago: American Planning Association: 313–23.Google Scholar
Jacob, Benoy (2008) “Do Local Taxes and ‘Market’ Pressures Shape the Strategic Decisions of Municipalities.” PhD diss., University of Illinois at Chicago.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Charles D., and Tarr, Joel (1995) “Ownership and financing of infrastructure: Historical perspectives.” Policy Research Working Paper 1466. Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
James, Venita Hawthorne (1989) “Voters want say on big projects, deny raises.” Arizona Republic, October 4: A1.Google Scholar
Judd, Dennis R., and Swanstrom, Todd (1998) City Politics: Private Power and Public Policy. 2nd ed. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Keating, Ann Durkin (1985) “From city to metropolis: Infrastructure and residential growth in urban Chicago,” in Keating, Ann Durkin, Moehring, Eugene, and Tarr, Joel (eds.) Infrastructure and Urban Growth in the Nineteenth Century. Chicago: Public Works Historical Society.Google Scholar
Keating, Ann Durkin (1988) Building Chicago: Suburban Developers and the Creation of a Divided Metropolis. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
Keating, Ann Durkin (2005) “Annexations and additions to the City of Chicago,” in the Electronic Encyclopedia of Chicago. Chicago: Chicago Historical Society. http://encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/3716.html (accessed August 29, 2015).Google Scholar
Kelso, Paul (1960) A Decade of Council-Manager Government in Phoenix, Arizona. Phoenix: Authorized for publication by the Council of the City of Phoenix.Google Scholar
Keogh, Kevin (1986) “City of Phoenix capital financing capacity,” Memo from Kevin Keogh, Finance Director, City of Phoenix, to Jerry B. Coffman, Administrative Services Manager, November 25.Google Scholar
Kogan, Vladimir, and McCubbins, Mathew D. (2009) “The problem with being special: Democratic values and special assessments.” Public Works Management and Policy 14 (1): 4–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawhon, Larry L. (2012) “ Local government use of development impact fees: More fallout from a poor economy? ,” in The Municipal Year Book 2012. Washington, DC: The International City/County Management Association: 25–35.Google Scholar
League of Arizona Cities and Towns (n.d.) “Impact fees: Myth vs. fact.” Phoenix. http://www.impactfees.com/publications%20pdf/impact_fee_myths_pf.pdf (accessed August 29, 2015).Google Scholar
Luckingham, Bradford (1989) Phoenix: The History of a Southwestern Metropolis. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
Luckingham, Bradford (1994) Minorities in Phoenix. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
McGuire, Andrew, and Culp, Peter (2011) “Understanding SB 1525: Arizona's assault on municipal impact fees.” Presentation at the 2011 Growth and Infrastructure Consortium Conference, San Diego, October 27.Google Scholar
McKenzie, R. D. (1933) The Metropolitan Community. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Melosi, Martin V. (2000) The Sanitary City: Urban Infrastructure in America from Colonial Times to the Present. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Mettler, Richard E. (1987) Letter from Richard E. Mettler, Executive Vice President, Home Builders Association of Central Arizona, to Councilman Bill Parks, Phoenix City Council, February 2.Google Scholar
Misczynski, Dean J. (1978) “The question of incidence,” in Hagman, Donald G. and Misczynski, Dean J. (eds.) Windfalls for Wipeouts: Land Value Capture and Compensation. Chicago: American Society of Planning Officials: 112–41.Google Scholar
Misczynski, Dean J. (2012) “Special assessments in California: 35 years of expansion and restriction,” in Ingram, Gregory K. and Hong, Yu-Hung (eds.) Value Capture and Land Policies. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy: 97–115.Google Scholar
Monkkonen, Eric (1988) America Becomes Urban: The Development of US Cities and Towns, 1780–1980. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Nelson, Arthur, and Moody, Mitch (2003) “Paying for prosperity: Impact fees and job growth.” Discussion paper prepared for the Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, Washington, DC, June.Google Scholar
Nicholas, James C., Nelson, Arthur C., and Juergensmeyer, Julian Conrad (1991) A Practitioner's Guide to Development Impact Fees. Chicago: American Planning Association.Google Scholar
Novak, William J. (1996) The People's Welfare: Law and Regulation in Nineteenth-Century America. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Oates, Wallace E. (2006) “The many faces of the Tiebout model,” in Fischel, William A. (ed.) The Tiebout Model at Fifty: Essays in Public Economics in Honor of Wallace Oates. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy: 21–45.Google Scholar
Palmer, Max T. (1980) “Sanitary sewer capital investment fee.” Phoenix City Council Report from Max T. Palmer, Water and Sewers Director, to Robert L. Brunton, Development Services Manager, August 13.Google Scholar
Palmer, Max T. (1982) “Water occupational development fee.” Phoenix City Council Report from Max T. Palmer, Water and Wastewater Director, to Robert L. Brunton, Development Services Manager, May 12.Google Scholar
Phoenix Reports . . . 2 ½ Years of Progress: Jan. 1, 1950 to June 30, 1952 (1952) Phoenix: City of Phoenix.Google Scholar
Pierce, Bessie Louise (1937) A History of Chicago. Vol. 1, The Beginning of a City, 1673–1848. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Pierce, Bessie Louise (1940) A History of Chicago. Vol. 2, From Town to City, 1848–1871. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Rex, Tom (1998) “Growth brings uneven benefits for Arizonans,” in Hall, John Stuart, Cayer, N. Joseph, and Welch, Nancy (eds.) Growth in Arizona: The Machine in the Garden. Tempe, AZ: Morrison Institute for Public Policy: 49–58.Google Scholar
Romer, Thomas, and Rosenthal, Howard (1983) “Voting and spending: Some empirical relationships in the political economy of local public finance,” in Zodrow, George R. (ed.) Local Provision of Public Services: The Tiebout Model after Twenty-Five Years. New York: Academic Press: 165–82.Google Scholar
Rosen, Christine (1986) The Limits of Power: Great Fires and the Process of City Growth in America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ross, Andrew (2011) Bird on Fire: Lessons from the World's Least Sustainable City. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ross, Stephen, and Yinger, John (1999) “Sorting and voting: A review of the literature on urban public finance,” in Cheshire, Paul and Mills, Edwin S. (eds.) Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics. Vol. 3, Applied Urban Economics. Amsterdam: North-Holland: 2001–53.Google Scholar
Schultze, Ray (1986) “Goddard urges taxes, cutbacks to bolster city.” Phoenix Gazette, March 27: A1.Google Scholar
Shermer, Elizabeth Tandy (2013) Sunbelt Capitalism: Phoenix and the Transformation of American Politics. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Simon, Roger D. (1978) The City-Building Process: Housing and Services in New Milwaukee Neighborhoods, 1880–1920. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society. Vol. 68, Part 5. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society.Google Scholar
Snyder, Thomas P., and Stegman, Michael A. (1986) Paying for Growth: Using Development Fees to Finance Infrastructure. Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute.Google Scholar
Storrar, Ian (2004) “Phoenix municipal services, 1950–1980.” Unpublished paper, Tempe, AZ.Google Scholar
Teaford, Jon C. (1984) The Unheralded Triumph: City Government in America, 1870–1900. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Thomason, Art. 1986. “2% cutback ordered in Phoenix spending of operations funds.” Arizona Republic, February 1: B1.Google Scholar
Tiebout, Charles M. (1956) “A pure theory of local expenditures.” Journal of Political Economy 64 (5): 416–24.Google Scholar
Troesken, Werner (2004) Water, Race, and Disease. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Trounstine, Jessica (2008) Political Monopolies in American Cities: The Rise and Fall of Bosses and Reformers. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
US Census Bureau (n.d.) American FactFinder, Community Facts, Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF1) 100-Percent Data. Phoenix City, Arizona. http://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/DEC/00_SF1/DP1/1600000US0455000 (accessed August 30, 2015).Google Scholar
US Census Bureau (1907) Wealth, Debt, and Taxation. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
US Census Bureau (1981) City Government Finances in 1980–81. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
US Census Bureau (1983) City Government Finances in 1981–82. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
US Census Bureau (1984) City Government Finances in 1982–83. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
US Census Bureau (1985) City Government Finances in 1983–84. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
US Census Bureau (1986) City Government Finances in 1984–85. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
US Census Bureau (1988) City Government Finances in 1985–86. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
US Census Bureau (2015a) State and County QuickFacts, Chicago. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/17/1714000.html (accessed August 29, 2015).Google Scholar
US Census Bureau (2015b) State and County QuickFacts, Phoenix. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/04/0455000.html (accessed August 29, 2015).Google Scholar
US Census Bureau (2015c) American Community Survey. “Comparing 2010 American Community Survey Data,” http://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/guidance/comparing-acs-data/2010.html (accessed August 29, 2015).Google Scholar
US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (n.d.) CPI-U-RS All Items, 1978–2010. http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpiursai1978_2010.pdf (accessed August 29, 2015).Google Scholar
VanderMeer, Philip (2002) Phoenix Rising: The Making of a Desert Metropolis. Carlsbad, CA: Heritage Media.Google Scholar
VanderMeer, Philip (2010) Desert Visions and the Making of Phoenix, 1860–2009. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.Google Scholar
Wallin, Bruce A. (2008) From Revenue Sharing to Deficit Sharing: General Revenue Sharing and Cities. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Whitaker, Matthew C. (2005) Race Work: The Rise of Civil Rights in the Urban West. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
White, Michelle J. (1975) “Fiscal zoning in fragmented metropolitan areas,” in Mills, Edwin S. and Oates, Wallace E. (eds.) Fiscal Zoning and Land Use Controls: The Economic Issues. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath and Company (Lexington Books): 31–100.Google Scholar
Yinger, John (1998) “The incidence of development fees and special assessments.” National Tax Journal 51 (1): 23–42.Google Scholar
Zodrow, George R., ed. (1983) Local Provision of Public Services: The Tiebout Model after Twenty-Five Years. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Zunz, Olivier (1982) The Changing Face of Inequality: Urbanization, Industrial Development, and Immigrants in Detroit, 1880–1920. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar