Italian planning and fiscal tools for land value recapture: a historical review

Journal title ARCHIVIO DI STUDI URBANI E REGIONALI
Author/s Enzo Falco, Alessandro Boca
Publishing Year 2017 Issue 2017/120
Language Italian Pages 22 P. 99-120 File size 119 KB
DOI 10.3280/ASUR2017-120005
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

The paper offers a historical review of planning and fiscal measures introduced in Italy regarding the question of betterment value. Every spatial intervention causes an impact on the land and on its value, and the ability of public authorities to regulate the matter becomes therefore important for both planning practice and civil society. By means of betterment value recapture, in fact, local authorities can make private actors contribute to the realization and maintenance of the urban public space.

Keywords: Land value recapture; urban planning; tax system; equalisation; betterment value

  1. Alterman R. (2009). Can the “unearned increment” in land values be harnessed to supply affordable housing? Paper Presented at UN Habitat Warsaw Conferen-ce”. Testo disponibile al sito: http://alterman2.technion.ac.il/files/conference_papers/UN_HABITAT.pdf (ultimo accesso: 24 gennaio 2015).
  2. Bernoulli H. (1946). Die Stadt und her Boden. Towns and the Land. Erlenbach-Zürich: Verlag für Architektur.
  3. Bowers J. (1992). The Economics of Planning Gain: a re-appraisal. Urban Studies, 8: 1329-1339.
  4. Camagni R. (2011). L’uso improprio della perequazione urbanistica: il caso del PGT di Milano. EyesREG. Giornale di Scienze Regionali, 1(1).
  5. Camagni R. (2015). Perequazione urbanistica estesa: riflessioni e valutazioni due anni dopo. Archivio di Studi Urbani e Regionali, 114: 164-165.
  6. Camarda D. (1999). Public Consensus and Planners’ Expertise. A twofold problem for Italian planning law. Town Planning Review, 70(1): 25-39. DOI: 10.1177/153851321561528
  7. Campos Venuti G. (1967). Amministrare l’urbanistica. Torino: Einaudi.
  8. Casini L. (2011). Equalisation and Compensation Mechanisms in the new Rome Urban Development Plan. Italian Journal of Planning Practice, 1(1): 33-45.
  9. Chiodelli F. (2016). Equal treatment in land use planning: investigating the ethics of the transfer of development rights. Scienze Regionali, 1: 121-138. DOI: 10.3280/SCRE2016-00100
  10. Chiodelli F. and Moroni, S. (2016). Zoning-integrative and zoning-alternative transferable development rights: Compensation, equity, efficiency. Land Use Policy, 52: 422-429.
  11. Codecasa G. e Garda E. (2011). Il “ciclo di vita” dei diritti edificatori: strumenti e dispositivi per il governo delle densità urbane. Paper presentato al Workshop: Il trasferimento dei diritti edificatori: potenzialità, problemi, prospettive, DiAP-Politecnico di Milano, Milano, 8 giugno.
  12. De Lucia V., Salzano E. e Strobbe F. (1973). Riforma urbanistica 73. Roma: Edizioni delle autonomie.
  13. Dowdall H.C. (1910). The Growth of Legal Control over Town Development In England. The Town Planning Review, 1(3):212-220. DOI: 10.1177/153851321561528
  14. Eyrand L. (2014). Reforming Capital Taxation in Italy. IMF Working Paper 14/6. Testo disponibile al sito: https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2014/wp1406.pdf (ultimo accesso: 26 luglio 2015).
  15. Fried R.C. (1973). Planning the Eternal City: Roman Politics and Planning since World War II. Yale: Yale University Press.
  16. George H. (1879). Progress and poverty: An inquiry into the cause of industrial depressions and of increase of want with increase of wealth; The remedy. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Testo disponibile al sito: https://mises.org/sites/default/files/Progress%20and%20Poverty_3.pdf (ultimo accesso: 17 marzo 2015).
  17. Healey P., Purdue M. and Ennis F. (1995). Negotiating Development: Rationales and Practice for Development Obligations and Planning Gain. London: E & FN Spon.
  18. Johnston R.A. and Madison M.E. (1997). From Landmarks to Landscapes. A Re-view of Current Practice in the Transfer of Development Rights. Journal of the American Planning Association, 63(3): 365-378.
  19. Magnani I. e Muraro G. (1978). Edilizia e sviluppo urbano. Bologna: il Mulino.
  20. Marongiu G. (2001). Storia dei tributi degli Enti Locali 1861-2000. Padova: Cedam.
  21. Micelli E. (2012). La gestione dei piani urbanistici: Perequazione, accordi, incentivi. Venezia: Marsilio Editori.
  22. Micelli E. (2015). La cattura dei plusvalori esito delle scelte urbanistiche: tassazione vs strumenti di partenariato. Archivio di Studi Urbani e Regionali, 114: 166-173.
  23. Micelli E. (2016). I diritti edificatori per il governo del territorio: strumento generalizzato o tecnica di nicchia? Scienze Regionali, 15(1), 127-133.
  24. Mill J.S. (1848). The Principles of Political Economy. Kitchener: Batoche Books. Testo disponibile al sito: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/30107/30107-pdf.pdf (ultimo accesso: 25 luglio 2015).
  25. Moroni S. (2015) Perequazione e trasferibilità dei diritti edificatori: due prospettive differenti. Archivio di Studi Urbani e Regionali, 114: 174-181.
  26. Oliva F. (2010). Città senza cultura. Intervista sull’urbanistica. Bari: Laterza.
  27. Peterson G.E. (2009). Unlocking Land Value to Finance Urban Infrastructure. Washington: The World Bank – PPIAF.
  28. Piccinato G. (2010), A brief history of Italian town planning after 1945. Town Planning Review, 81 (3): 237-259.
  29. Pittori P. e Stella Richter P. (1996). Codice dell’Urbanistica. Roma: Edizioni Kappa.
  30. Pizor J.P. (1986). Making TDR Work: A Study of Program Implementation. Journal of the American Planning Association, 52(2): 203-211.
  31. Pompei S. (1998). Il Piano regolatore perequativo. Aspetti strutturali, strategici e operativi. Milano: Hoepli.
  32. Pruetz R. and Standridge N. (2009). What Makes Transfer of Development Rights Work?: Success Factors From Research and Practice. Journal of the American Planning Association, 75(1): 78-87.
  33. Putnam R.D., Leonardi R., Nanetti R.Y. and Pavoncello F. (1983). Explaining Institutional Success: The Case of Italian Regional Government. The American Political Science Review, 77(1).
  34. Renard V. (2007). Property rights and the transfer of development rights. Question of efficiency and equity. Town Planning Review, 78(1): 41-60.
  35. Ricardo D. (1817). On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation. Kitchener: Batoche Books. Testo disponibile al sito: http://socserv.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/ricardo/Principles.pdf (ultimo accesso: 25 luglio 2015).
  36. Roscani B. (1972). La rendita edilizia in Italia. In: Indovina F., a cura di, Lo spreco edilizio. Venezia: Marsilio.
  37. Salzano E. (2007). Fondamenti di Urbanistica. Roma-Bari: Laterza.
  38. Scattoni P. (1987). Processes of Planning and Land Development in Italy. The case study of Chiusi. PhD Thesis, Newcastle upon Tyne: University of Newcastle.
  39. Scattoni P. (2004). L’urbanistica dell’Italia contemporanea. Roma: Newton & Compton.
  40. Scattoni P. and Falco E. (2012). The hidden factor in planning and local politics in Italy: the case of Tuscany. Town Planning Review, 83(1):47-67.
  41. Scattoni P. and Williams R.W. (1978). Planning and Regional Devolution: The Italian Case. The Planner, 64: 38-40.
  42. Sica P. (1978). Storia dell’urbanistica. L’Ottocento. Roma-Bari: Laterza.
  43. Stella Richter P. (2010). “Intervento” al Workshop “L’urbanistica Italiana dopo le sentenze del Tar sul PRGC di Roma”. Facoltà di architettura “L. Quaroni”, 22 marzo.
  44. Sullo F. (1964). Lo scandalo urbanistico. Firenze: Vallecchi.
  45. Testa V. (1933). La nuova legge urbanistica inglese. Testo disponibile al sito: http://eddyburg.it/article/articleview/3021/0/44/ (ultimo accesso: 18 gennaio 2015).
  46. Vadelorge L. (2005) (sous la direction de), Gouverner les villes nouvelles: le rôle de l’Etat et des collectivités locales, Paris: Editions Le Manuscrit.
  47. Zhu J. (2004). From Land Use Right to Land Development Right: Institutional Change in China’s Urban Development. Urban Studies, 41(7): 1249-1267.

  • Landscape transformation and territorial marketing. The Noi Techpark restoration project in Bolzano: a remarkable case of territorial branding Mariella Annese, Antonio Labalestra, Marco Pietrosante, in Valori e Valutazioni /2022 pp.135
    DOI: 10.48264/VVSIEV-20223009
  • Urban planning variants: a model for the division of the activated “plusvalue” between public and private subjects [Interventi in variante urbanistica: un modello per la ripartizione tra pubblico e privato del “plusvalore” conseguibile] Pierluigi Morano, Francesco Tajani, Debora Anelli, in Valori e Valutazioni /2021 pp.31
    DOI: 10.48264/VVSIEV-20212804
  • Appraisal and Valuation Ezio Micelli, Agostino Valier, pp.19 (ISBN:978-3-030-49578-7)

Enzo Falco, Alessandro Boca, Strumenti urbanistici e fiscali per il recupero degli incrementi di valore immobiliare: una lettura storica del caso italiano in "ARCHIVIO DI STUDI URBANI E REGIONALI" 120/2017, pp 99-120, DOI: 10.3280/ASUR2017-120005