Gregory S. Burge
Associate Professor of Economics, University of Oklahoma
308 Cate Center Drive
Norman, OK 73072
Areas of Expertise & Civic InvolvementsBurge’s research focuses on better understanding the causes and consequences of local revenue raising mechanisms. Most of his studies have focused on development impact fees, including work that investigated their effects on home prices, land prices, local employment, and urban density. He has also published work related to property tax administration and has served as a consultant for public (Florida Department of Revenue) and private (Rosenfeld & Maidenbaum LLP, Schroder & Strom LLP) organizations conducting Level of Assessment Ratio studies.
SSN Key Findings, September 2013
"Sales Tax Analysis: Economic and Revenue Impacts," (with Cynthia L. Rogers), City of Los Angeles, November 8, 2012.
Analyzes the potential impacts to city revenues and local sales as a result of increasing the sales tax rate in the City of Los Angeles. Indicates a negative effect of higher local sales taxes on overall sales in a municipality.
"Promoting Sustainable Land Development Patterns through Impact Fee Programs" (with Keith Ihlanfeldt). Cityscape 15, no. 1 (2013).
Highlights five systematic types of market failure commonly associated with new construction, and explains how impact fee programs could be more appropriately used to address each problem. Also identifies the most significant obstacles to using impact fee programs in an expanded capacity.
"Strategic Fiscal Interdependence: County and Municipal Adoptions of Local Option Sales Taxes" (with Brian Piper). National Tax Journal 65, no. 2 (2012).
Examines the determinants of county and municipal local option sales tax programs (LOSTs). Controlling for fiscal stress and jurisdictions ability to export the tax to outsiders, we find that horizontal and vertical tax competition influences adoptions decisions of both cities and counties.
"Do Tenants Capture the Benefits from the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program?" Real Estate Economics 39, no. 1 (2011).
Uses a hedonic regression approach to compare the rent savings accrued by recipient households over the life cycle of Low-Income Housing Tax Credit projects to the size of their allocated tax credits, finding that only one-third to one-half of the programs costs are actually passed on to renters.
"Development Impact Fees and Employment" (with Keith Ihlanfeldt). Regional Science and Urban Economics 39, no. 1 (2009).
Looks at one of the many contentious issues surrounding the implementation of impact fee programs: whether or not they will stifle local economic development and job growth. This paper shows how commercial and school impact fees have countervailing effects on local job growth, with the former repelling jobs and the later attracting them. On net, the adoption of an impact fee program with both components would have no significant effects on employment levels.
"Impact Fees and Single-Family Home Construction" (with Keith Ihlanfeldt). Journal of Urban Economics 60, no. 2 (2006): 284-306.
Builds a theoretical model that predicts impact fees may expand residential home construction within suburban areas, by reducing unobservable barriers associated with land use regulation and by increasing the percentage of proposed projects receiving approval. Using longitudinal data we empirically demonstrate this occurs, but that the effects of fees on construction rates are asymmetric across categories of fees and across central city vs. suburban/rural areas.
"The Effects of Impact Fees on Multifamily Housing Construction" (with Keith Ihlanfeldt). Journal of Regional Science 46, no. 1 (2006).
Shows how, since they are often assessed uniformly for different types of units, impact fees have been criticized for disproportionately burdening low income households. We argue an offsetting effect is that they could stimulate the supply of apartments in places where pre-existing exclusionary land use regulations and resident obstructionism are strong. We find impact fees earmarked for property-tax funded public services increase the stock of multifamily housing in inner suburban areas, whereas water/sewer fees reduce construction throughout the entire metropolitan area.