HUD and PD&R HUD USER - Policy Development and Research's Information Service
 
My Cart   |  HUD Home  |  HUD USER Home
Search   Advanced Search
 
First time visitor
Contact Us
FAQ
 
An animated link to the Map gallery


Firstgov logo



 
Accession Number: 3710
Title: Affordable Housing and Infrastructure: The State Role.
Author(s): Sidor, John
Publication Date: 3/1/1984
Sponsoring Organization(s): U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Washington, DC
Performing Organization(s): Council of State Community Affairs Agencies
Washington, DC
Availability: Available from Council of State Community Affairs Agencies, 444 N. Capital St., Washington, DC 20001.
Notes: CP
Descriptors: Financing methods. Public works. State planning. Intergovernmental relations. Housing costs.
Abstract: The State's role in financing public facilities as a means to reduce housing costs has often been tentative. Planners either view public facilities as a land development problem that local government and home builders have poorly sorted out with little State participation or as requiring significant changes to offset the impending "infrastructure crisis." A review of three States' initiatives in public facilities planning highlights three key issues relevant to increased State involvement in public facilities: financing, intergovernmental relations, and land development policy. States must become more adept at administering financing mechanisms more complex than the traditional loans and grants for public facilities. States will become more involved in complex intergovernmental relations since public facilities planning requires local competency and coordination. Moveover, increased intervention in public facilities will move States to reconsider their responsibilities in land development. Without a coherent land development policy, States will face difficulties setting priorities, effecting intergovernmental coordination, and linking public facilities and affordable housing objectives. Case studies of States' public facilities planning indicates that Florida has been providing a successful program of low - interest loans for land development, especially in rural areas, and has set up special community development districts with significant fiscal, regulatory, and other powers. Utah operates a community impact fund that helps finance the public facility needs of localities affected by rapid growth due to mineral resource exploitation. Oregon mandates local public facilities planning as part of its comprehensive land planning program. Footnotes, reference notes, and a chart are included.