<%BANNER%>

Research on Sinicized Transferrable Development Right(TDR) Inspired by TDR Programs in the United States

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0043801/00001

Material Information

Title: Research on Sinicized Transferrable Development Right(TDR) Inspired by TDR Programs in the United States
Physical Description: 1 online resource (67 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Huang, Tingting
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2011

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: development -- sinisized -- tdr -- transfer
Architecture -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Architecture thesis, M.S.A.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The United States is a step ahead of the most of the world in the field of Transferable Development Rights (TDRs). TDRs are the outcome of urbanism. Its history stretches 40 years, beginning with the 1968 special zoning case in New York City to nearly two hundred TDR programs all over the county in 2011. TDR had made great progress as a regulatory tool. The aim of TDRs is to preserve natural resources and intensify urban development. Sinicization (Sinicisation or Sinification) is the linguistic and cultural assimilation of terms and concepts into the language and culture of China. In linguistics, the term is used narrowly to refer to transcription into Chinese characters. "Sinicized" here refers more broadly to foreign phenomena assimilated through the matrix of Chinese culture. China is just starting to seek solutions for the problems caused by urbanism. The nation is growing disproportionally and almost every day there are thousands of new lands developed in cities. Development is a beneficial thing for the prosperity of cities. However, it ushers in some intractable issues such as the ruin of historical districts and the loss of prime farmlands at the rural-urban fringes, and urban sprawl. To control the negative effects of development, protect the resource-rich areas, and maximize the utility of urban lands, the Chinese government has to find an effective way to develop earth sensitivity. TDR is a good way to solve those existing problems, including the protection of arable land that produces important commodities like grain. The concept of TDR was introduced to China in the 1990s. Since then, several cases have been applied in different provinces. Although social and cultural systems and land ownership are different in China, we do have the market-oriented policy that helps us apply TDR. There are two factors that affect the effective implementation of TDR programs: housing market and regulatory policies. Some crucial determinants relevant to these two factors are sending and receiving area, allocated rates, and bonus density. Good regulations and a positive market will lead to significant accomplishments, however time is needed to test whether they are effective or not. After many years of exploration, the United States must have many experiences that can be learned from former cases. This study will evaluate Chinese cases according to the lessons of American cases. Those merits will guide a bright future for TDR programs in China.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Tingting Huang.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.A.S.)--University of Florida, 2011.
Local: Adviser: Tilson, William L.
Local: Co-adviser: Jourdan, Dawn.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2011
System ID: UFE0043801:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0043801/00001

Material Information

Title: Research on Sinicized Transferrable Development Right(TDR) Inspired by TDR Programs in the United States
Physical Description: 1 online resource (67 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Huang, Tingting
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2011

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: development -- sinisized -- tdr -- transfer
Architecture -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Architecture thesis, M.S.A.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The United States is a step ahead of the most of the world in the field of Transferable Development Rights (TDRs). TDRs are the outcome of urbanism. Its history stretches 40 years, beginning with the 1968 special zoning case in New York City to nearly two hundred TDR programs all over the county in 2011. TDR had made great progress as a regulatory tool. The aim of TDRs is to preserve natural resources and intensify urban development. Sinicization (Sinicisation or Sinification) is the linguistic and cultural assimilation of terms and concepts into the language and culture of China. In linguistics, the term is used narrowly to refer to transcription into Chinese characters. "Sinicized" here refers more broadly to foreign phenomena assimilated through the matrix of Chinese culture. China is just starting to seek solutions for the problems caused by urbanism. The nation is growing disproportionally and almost every day there are thousands of new lands developed in cities. Development is a beneficial thing for the prosperity of cities. However, it ushers in some intractable issues such as the ruin of historical districts and the loss of prime farmlands at the rural-urban fringes, and urban sprawl. To control the negative effects of development, protect the resource-rich areas, and maximize the utility of urban lands, the Chinese government has to find an effective way to develop earth sensitivity. TDR is a good way to solve those existing problems, including the protection of arable land that produces important commodities like grain. The concept of TDR was introduced to China in the 1990s. Since then, several cases have been applied in different provinces. Although social and cultural systems and land ownership are different in China, we do have the market-oriented policy that helps us apply TDR. There are two factors that affect the effective implementation of TDR programs: housing market and regulatory policies. Some crucial determinants relevant to these two factors are sending and receiving area, allocated rates, and bonus density. Good regulations and a positive market will lead to significant accomplishments, however time is needed to test whether they are effective or not. After many years of exploration, the United States must have many experiences that can be learned from former cases. This study will evaluate Chinese cases according to the lessons of American cases. Those merits will guide a bright future for TDR programs in China.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Tingting Huang.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.A.S.)--University of Florida, 2011.
Local: Adviser: Tilson, William L.
Local: Co-adviser: Jourdan, Dawn.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2011
System ID: UFE0043801:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 RESEARCH ON SINICIZED TRANSFERRABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHT(TDR) INSPIRED BY TDR PROGRAMS IN THE UNITED STATES By TINGTING HUANG A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF TH E REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN ARCHITECTURAL STUDIES UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2011

PAGE 2

2 2011 Tingting Huang

PAGE 3

3 To my family and friends

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank my chair committee, Dr. Dawn Jourdan, and my co chair, Dr. Peggy C arr for tutoring me with my thesis writing and also for their patience on guidance throughout my time in the Department of Urban and Regional Planning. Since English is not my first language and I made many syntax error s as well as other mistakes, so I rea lly appreciate the revision from Dr. Jourdan that she corrected all the mistakes word by word. Dr. Carr also offered good suggestions on my framework of the thesis. Their efforts greatly enhanced my graduate student experience. I also thank my family and f riends for their love and support Without the encouragement from my parents I would not finish the work. My friends also helped and inspired me a lot no matter where they are.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 7 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 8 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 9 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 11 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ................................ .......................... 14 The Influence of Different Layers o f Governments in Two Countries; ..................... 14 Law System ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 15 Planning System ................................ ................................ .............................. 16 Land Ownership in the United States and China ................................ .................... 16 Land Ownership in the United States ................................ ............................... 16 Land Ownership in China ................................ ................................ ................. 17 TDR in China ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 18 History of Zoning and TDR ................................ ................................ ..................... 19 The Interworking of TDR prog rams ................................ ................................ ......... 21 Defining Sending and Receiving Areas ................................ ............................ 22 Baseline Zoning on Sending and Receiving Lands ................................ .......... 23 TDR Allocation Rate ................................ ................................ ......................... 23 Density Bonus ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 24 Mechanism ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 24 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 25 3 METHODOLOGY ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 26 Policy Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 26 Market Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 27 Research Design ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 27 4 CASE STUDY AND COMPARISON ................................ ................................ ....... 31 Rural Urban Fringe TDR program Collier County, Florida ................................ .... 31 Background ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 31 TDR Programs ................................ ................................ ................................ 32 Motivation ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 36 Result ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 37 Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 38 Rural to Urban TDR Program King County, Washington ................................ ...... 39

PAGE 6

6 Background ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 39 ................................ ................................ ............ 40 Motivation ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 41 Result ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 43 Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 44 Urban to Urban TDR program Cambridge, Massachusetts ................................ 44 Background ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 44 TDR Program in Eastern Cambridge ................................ ................................ 45 Motivation ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 47 Result ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 47 Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 48 Rural to Rural (Agriculture Lands to Residential Area) Zhejiang Province, China ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 49 Background: ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 49 TDR Program: ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 50 Motivation ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 51 Result: ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 52 Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 52 Comparison ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 53 5 CONCLUSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 57 General Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ 57 ................................ ................................ .... 58 The Feasible Sinicized TDR Program ................................ ................................ ..... 60 LIST O F REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................... 64 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ ............................ 67

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 4 1 Basic information of the sending areas in Rural Fringe TDR program ................ 35 4 2 Basic information of the receiving areas in Rural Fringe TDR program .............. 36 4 3 Sending sites in King County (Data from Walls & McConnell, 2007) .................. 41 4 4 Receiving sites in King County (Data from Walls & McConnell, 2007) ............... 41 4 5 Comparison of cases between the United States and China .............................. 53

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2 1 Sending and receiving areas in a hypothetical TDR program ............................. 22 3 1 The flowing chart of the template ................................ ................................ ........ 28 4 1 TDR program process ................................ ................................ ........................ 33 4 2 Rural Fringe Mixed Use District ................................ ................................ .......... 34 4 3 Donating District and Receiving District in Eastern Cambridge .......................... 46

PAGE 9

9 Abstract Of T he s is Presented To The Gradu ate School Of The University Of Florida In Partial Fulfillment Of The Requirements For The Degree Of Master Of Science In Architectural Studies RESEARCH ON SINICIZED TRANSFERRABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHT(TDR) INSPIRED BY TDR PROGRAMS IN THE UNIT ED STATES By Tingting Huang December 201 1 Chair: William L Tilson Cochair: Dawn Jourdan Major: Architecture The United States is a step ahead of the most of the world in the field of Transferable Development Rights (TDRs). TDRs are the outcome of urbanis m. Its history stretches 40 years, beginning with the 1968 special zoning case in New York City to nearly two hundred TDR programs all over the county in 2011. TDR had made great progress as a regulatory tool. The aim of TDRs is to preserve natural resourc es and intensify urban development. Sinicization (Sinicisation or Sinification) is the linguistic and cultural assimilation of terms and concepts into the language and culture of China. In linguistics, the term is used narrowly to refer to transcription in to Chinese characters. "Sinicized" here refers more broadly to foreign phenomena assimilated through the matrix of Chinese culture. China is just starting to seek solutions for the problems caused by urbanism. The nation is growing disproportionally and al most every day there are thousands of new lands developed in cities. Development is a beneficial thing for the prosperity of cities. However, it ushers in some intractable issues such as the ruin of historical districts and the loss of prime farmlands at t he rural urban fringes, and urban sprawl. To control the

PAGE 10

10 negative effects of development, protect the resource rich areas, and maximize the utility of urban lands, the Chinese government has to find an effective way to develop earth sensitivity. TDR is a g ood way to solve those existing problems, including the protection of arable land that produces important commodities like grain. The concept of TDR was introduced to China in the 1990s. Since then, several cases have been applied in different provinces. A lthough social and cultural systems and land ownership are different in China, we do have the market oriented policy that helps us apply TDR. There are two factors that affect the effective implementation of TDR programs: housing market and regulatory pol icies. Some crucial determinants relevant to these two factors are sending and receiving area, allocated rates, and bonus density. Good regulations and a positive market will lead to significant accomplishments, however time is needed to test whether they are effective or not. After many years of exploration, the United States must have many experiences that can be learned from former cases. This study will evaluate Chinese cases according to the lessons of American cases. Those merits will guide a bright f uture for TDR programs in China.

PAGE 11

11 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION How can a city or a country accurately be termed sustainable? The key point to get access to sustainability is compactness and biophilia that Douglas Farr mentioned in his book Sustainable Urbanis m: The Grand Unification (Wiley, 2008). This book defines compactness as high density development and biophilia; basically, nature accessible to humans. High density development and Natural environment are all related to ecological, economical and equal la nd use management. Transferable Development Rights Program offers one tool to effectuate these purposes since it rebalances land use promotes ecological environmental preservation and motivates intensive and high density construction in cities. Biophilia seems irrelevant, but actually are components of some kinds of TDRs. For instance, preservation programs, like keeping public open space in urban area, offer more opportunities for human beings to access natural resources. Beginning in the 1920s, American cities began to use zoning to control construction and land use in cities. As zoning evolved, certain tools emerged to promote more attractive land use patterns like TDR. According to Karkkainen Bradley (1994), early advocates also suggested that zoning wo uld enhance property values. Research by Margaret Walls & Virginia McConnell (2007) mentioned that private ownership of land in the United States comes with a bundle of rights and responsibilities. This not only includes the right to use and occupy the la nd, transfer it, sell it and bequeath it, but also subdivide and develop it, which means the development right of the land can be divided from these rights as a single and independent right.

PAGE 12

12 In the 1970s, the idea of transferring development rights between different properties was first introduced to zoning ordinance in New York City. It transferred rights from historical buildings to the parcel need higher density aimed to protect historical dmarks Preservation Ordiance allowed private landowners to sell their unused development rights to adjacent lots, so that development in the receiving area could exceed the original height and setback requirements. Beyond historic preservations TDR has be en used as a tool to preserve land from development without taking away the rights of private landowners. TDRs allow private landowners to separate and transfer development rights from the parcel to another one in other location. By transferring developmen t rights, the landowner is restricted from developing his land, which is usually a conservation area or a property with a restrictive covenant. Margaret Walls & Virginia McConnell (2007) also argue that TDRs can redistribute the land uses to preserve valua ble land from development in some place while others still have potential growth. TDR is often used to protect wildlife habitat, ecologically sensitive wetlands and stream buffers, forested areas, properties of historical significance, and farmland threate ned by development (Walls & McConnell, 2007). These places are always considered the most vulnerable and valuable lands significant to the urbanism process. Urban and rural lands in China are presently being transformed by development. To control the negat ive effects of development, protect sensitive areas and limited agricultural lands, and maximize the utility of urban lands, the government has to

PAGE 13

13 explore an effective way to promote urbanization. TDR is one tool that may be useful in this effort. In Chapt er 2, TDR is defined and examined with special consideration for two tools: allocation rates and density bonuses. A compositional Chinese and American property ownership is also drawn. Chapter 3 outlines the methodology employed in this study. Chapter 4 employs a case study approach to examine the best practices involving the use of TDR in the States to propose a model for use in China. The case studies describe four different types of TDR schemes: rural urban fringe to urban, rural to urban, urban to ur ban, rural agriculture lands to rural residential area. In Chapter 5, conclusions are drawn on the potential uses, as well as the barriers to implementation in China.

PAGE 14

14 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW C hapter 2 reviews current scholarship on Transferable Develo pment Rights with respect to the following topics: political systems and land ownership in United States and China, the history of zoning, the elements of TDR programs, and the implementation, as well as barriers to implementation, of TDR programs. The I n fluence of D ifferent L ayers of G overnments in T wo C ountries; States separates the powers of the federal government, while China practices centralism. The states and local gove rnments are mandated to establish laws and regulations such as planning and zoning. In the United States, certain powers and decisions of governance were left to the states, with the federal authority at the top (Marc Chase, eHow Contributor, States Rights Vs. Federal Authority.) The states and local governments have the right to regulate the laws and planning. In China, the State Department is the highest authority and administration. It features 6 kinds of administrative authorities: formulating adminis trative regulations and establishing decisions and commands rights, propose right, plan right, administrative lead and management right, superintendence, and other rights mandated by National l of Public Management, Northwest University, 2004). The provincial and local governments HAVE the right of execution, establishing rules and commands, administrate and management, superintendence, and other routines mandated by superiors (Northwest Univer sity, 2004).

PAGE 15

15 Law S ystem Take taxation for example; every state in the United States has its own tax state level taxes but not most local taxes. State tax returns are filed separately with tax administrations, not with the federal tax administrations (Hellerstein, Jerome R., and Hel lerstein, Walter, 1999 ). So in the United States it is reasonable for state or local governments to manage the taxation, and they can employ the money to drive the development and improvement of living condition. Chinese provincial governments have the right to enforce all jurisdictional taxes, but have to turn 60% of the revenue over to national government since 2003 (Rui Gao, 2008). The rest of the revenue can be used as the basis for infrastructures and fundamental facilities improvement. Compared with America, local governments get less liberty in collecting revenue; at the same time, large amounts of it have to be submitted to superior adm inistrations. To get more finances to support fundamental development, local governments have to explore another way to increase revenue; sell land rights to developers to get profit no matter the land is valuable for agriculture or wildlife habitat. Ther e are two ways under the present circumstances for the government to get extra land for developers; unfortunately, these harm the environment and society. First, is the spread urban boundary to suburban area owned by public and governed by relative adminis tration that accelerate the urban sprawl. Second, is levying the agriculture land from collectives with little compensation, which causes the loss of farmland and the dispossession of peasants.

PAGE 16

16 Planning S ystem In regards to the planning system; the federa l and state governments have delegated the right to plan to local governments in the United States. China has different circumstances. The comprehensive plan of most important cities (capital or population over 1 million or designated cities) in each prov ince cannot and Resources, 1999). The plan of other cities must be reported to superior governments to get approval. And comprehensive land use planning is adjusted because o f big energy facilities, transportation infrastructure and irrigation works; the Department (The document from Ministry of Land and Resources, 1999). At the same time, the infra structure advocated by the province and municipality should be from Ministry of Land and Resources, 1999) Regulatory planning as a statutory regulation with the similar to zoni ng follows the same procedure as comprehensive plan. Land O wnership in the United States and China Land O wnership in the United States According to the Economic Research f rom USDA (2002), over 60% of the land in the United States is privately owned. The F ederal Government is the next largest owner with more than 28 % of the nation's land, mostly in the West. State and local governments own nearly 9 % and Native trust land accounts for over 2 %. These proportions change only gradually over time, except in Alas ka, where large areas of Federal land have been transferred to State and Native (private) ownership. Land rights include mineral rights, air rights, buildings, fixtures items in buildings personal, property

PAGE 17

17 and no water (US Real Estate Market 2009 & Americ an Land Law 2009). When you buy water (riparian) rights, and those things attached to it such as improvements. (Real Estate Basics http://www.internetcrusade.com/article s/basics.htm) The Fifth Amendment (Amendment V) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, protects against abuse of government authority in a legal l form of property; rights related to land are also parts of a whole and should be protected by the constitution. Land O wnership in China The law of land administration socialist public ownership i.e. an ownership by the whole people and ownerships by collectives, of land. In ownership by the whole people, the State Council is empowered to act on behalf of the State to administer the land owned by the State. No unit or individual occupancy, trade and illegal transfer of land are allowed, but land use right may be transferred legally. Th e State may levy and requisition land owned by collectives according to law on public interest with compensation. The land in urban areas is owned by the State, while peasants collectively own rural and suburban areas. Units or individuals according to law s and those who shall be responsible for the protection, management and a rational use of the land, use the land owned by the State,

PAGE 18

18 Article 13 mentioned, the ownership and use right of land according to law is protected by law and no unit or individual is eligible to infringe upon it. (2007) has a supplementary explanation of the rights. The Article 143 formulates the right of the holder who has the right to alienate, exchange, use as equity contributions, endow or mortgage the right to use construction land. However, Article 146 req uires that when the land must be disposed of at the same time and vice versa. In other words, the rights of alienating, exchanging, endowing and mortgaging the con struction lands are bundled with estate sales as well as development rights. TDR in China Development rights which can be sold individually in United States. In China, scholars also consider the development right as an individual right that is equally auth entic with the land ownership (To Establish the Land Development Rights in China, Yaling Jia, 2006). In contemporary China, although there is no development right in state laws, the development right may come with the right of alienating, exchanging, endow ing and mortgaging lands, and those rights cannot sell individually. However we get the chance to innovate and explore an effective way to manage land with development rights by utilizing the experience of the United States, which has a long history on TDR programs. Although the rights of land ownership are different, TDR is still a viable option for land procedure in the United States and China. There is no definite introduction on development rights in current laws in China. However most scholars admit th at

PAGE 19

19 development rights exist and should come with other land rights (To Establish the Land Development Rights in China, Yaling Jia, 2006). History of Z oning and TDR In the early 1900s, skyscrapers were built like a spate that makes the environment in cities continually worse. Some properties were blocked from natural resources, like as sunlight and air, by neighboring skyscrapers. In response, according to information the natio n's first comprehensive zoning ordinance called NYC 1916 Zoning Resolution, was which adopted primarily to stop massive buildings, such as the Equitable Building from preventing light and air from reaching the streets below. This was established though a r elatively simple document, which established height and setback controls and designated residential districts that excluded incompatible uses. Zoning laws establish the uses of the land permitted by right industrial, residential, commercial, and so forth a s well as any conditional uses, such as special uses like golf courses, nursing homes, mining, and myriad other activities, which may be allowed in certain zones under certain conditions (Walls & McConnell, 2007). Zoning laws also dictate the intensity of land use. For example, in residential zones, the laws prescribe a maximum density at which a given parcel of land can be developed, usually expressed in the number of dwelling units per acre (Walls & McConnell, 2007). At the same time, warehouses and facto ries were encroaching on fashionable retail areas of Fifth Avenue. Therefore, the City of New York Department of Planning ( Burden, Amanda M. 2002) regulated the new zoning ordinance, which set both height and setback requirements and separated incompatible uses, such as factories and residences.

PAGE 20

20 As described by New York Legislature §261 a(2) (Consol.): The purpose of providing for transfer of development rights shall be to protect the natural, scenic or agricultural qualities of open lands, like glades and farmlands, to enhance sites and areas of special character or special historical, cultural, aesthetic or economic interest or value such as an old church or castle. At the same time, TDR programs enable and encourage flexibility of design and careful manag ement in recognition of land as a basic and valuable natural resource, which means that they can transfer the extra development rights from the most valuable natural habitat to a place with demands on constructions. (Haar, C. M., & Wolf, M. A., 2010) Accor ding to Robert A. & Madison (1997), in 1968, the Planning Commission changed the rules to allow transfers between lots several blocks apart. In other words, to preserve landmarks in New York City, according to Haar, C. M., & Wolf, M. A. (2010), the 1968 or dinance gave the owners of landmark sites additional opportunities to transfer development rights to other parcels, which means that the floor area of the transferee lot may not be increased by more than 20% above its authorized level; the ordinance permit ted transfers from a landmark parcel to property across the street or across a street intersection. This ordinance was amended several times to expand the range of transferable sites. In the case of Grand Central Terminal, the landowner takes the additiona l development rights from the terminal to develop the other properties as compensation. Transferable development rights (TDR) can be considered an effective, innovative, and experimental way of development management. It offers landowner's financial incen tives or bonuses for the conservation and maintenance of the environmental,

PAGE 21

21 heritage or agricultural values of their land. As it mentioned in American Farmland Trust private ownership of land comes with a bundle of rights such as the right to use, sell and transfer it. This kind of land based development right can be transferred or used within certain limits by the landowner. Margaret Walls & Virginia McConnell (2007) also ar gue that the person to whom the rights are transferred in most cases a real estate developer uses the rights to develop another piece of property more intensively than allowed by the baseline zoning on that parcel. The I nterworking of TDR programs TDR prog rams involve two key components The parcel of land from which development is transferred intensively than all owed by the baseline zoning. In order to establish a TDR program, local governments provide some important factors (1) the sending and receiving areas: defining which lands are allowed to sell development rights and which are allowed to receive those right s to be developed more densely; (2) the baseline zoning for both sending and receiving lands, and the changes when the program is introduced; (3) the TDR allocation rate that is, how many TDRs a landowner is permitted to sell, generally expressed per acre of land; (4) the density bonus, defined as the additional density allowed on receiving parcels relative to the baseline density on those parcels; and (5) how many TDRs are necessary to build an additional dwelling unit on a receiving parcel.(Walls & McConn ell, 2007)

PAGE 22

22 Defining Sending and Receiving Areas All TDR programs currently operate in concert with zoning in which they specify exactly which areas are allowed to sell TDRs (sending areas) and which are allowed to use TDRs (receiving areas) to obtain the b onus density exceeding the baseline zoning limits. D ata from Walls & McConnell, 2007 : Figure 2 1 S ending and receiving areas in a hypothetical TDR program Figure 2 1 provides an illustration of a hypothetical TDR program. The area labeled S (sending) would be the area for conservation, such as the prime farmland, sensitive wetlands, wildlife habitats, or historical preservation district. In this example, some baseline zoning exists on the land in area S, 1 house on 10 acres is allowed. The area S has 1 0 development rights and can sell 9 to others. The area labeled R (receiving) is the area needing more dense development. If the TDRs from area S are transferred to R, then the properties on area R can be developed more densely than the baseline zoning lim its. In this example, density can increase from 1 du/ ac up to 4 du/ ac

PAGE 23

23 if TDRs are used (Walls & McConnell, 2007). The direction of the arrow shows the direction of the transfer of development, from S to R. Baseline Zoning on Sending and Receiving Lands A determing factor of whether a TDR program succeeds or fails is the baseline zoning governing the sending and receiving areas. Take the Figure 2 1 for example, the sending area has 1 du/ 10 ac baseline density limits, which means that the landowner can cho ose to sell TDRs or sell to a developer, who only allowed to have an average of 1 du/ 10 ac, which is less lucrative than other parcels (Walls & McConnell, 2007). Therefore, the more restrictive the zoning, the more likely are the landowner of sending area s to try to sell TDRs and conserve their lands. On the other hand is the baseline zoning on receiving areas. Figure 2 1 show that the area R gets a baseline density limit of 1 du/ ac. After the TDRs are used in R the density rises up to 4 du/ ac (Walls & M cConnell, 2007). To promote the TDR program, there must be sufficient demand for additional density. One way to solve this problem is to downzone receiving areas; this means reducing baseline density limits in the hope that developers desire to purchase mo re TDRs so as to get high density. However it backfires sometimes, which causes more development outside these areas and lower baseline limits inflicted on the housing market. The American Farmland Trust (2001) mentioned that planners always consider the u se of TDRs as a means of compensation. TDR Allocation Rate Another crucial question is how many development rights are landowners in sending areas allowed to sell. To preserve or to develop sending areas depends on the number of rights that they can sell, which determine the value of lands. (Walls & McConnell, 2007)

PAGE 24

24 For example, in Figure 2 1 the sending area density limits are 1 du/10 ac. This means that a 100 acres property could accommodate no more than 10 houses. If the government gives the landowner i n the sending area 5 TDR/ ac, then owner of 100 acre may get 20 TDRs, which encourages him to sell TDRs rather than developing (Walls & McConnell, 2007). Theoretically, the higher the allocation rate is, the more effective the TDR program works. Density B onus Developers can use TDRs that they purchased to build higher density in receiving areas than is allowed by baseline zo ning. The additional densities are determined by the density bonus in the TDR program. In the example of Figure 2 1 the developer of receiving area can only get 1 du/ ac originally. But after the use of TDR, it can reach to 4 du/ ac, which means that the density bonus is as high as 400% (Walls & McConnell, 2007) Although the TDR program will show greater incentive if the bonus density is higher, the housing market can affect the demand for additional density that may retard the program. Mechanism TDR programs sound relatively simple on paper density is transferred from one property to another. However the regulation is not as widely use d as anticipated because the command and control nature is considered inefficient. Policy makers searched for ways to govern by running the market (Jeffrey, 1989 90), such as regulating the procedure of the transaction, the price of estate and launching TD R Banks. During the first half of the 1990s, a system of tradable pollution credits in the U.S. cut emissions of sulfur dioxide (which causes acid rain) in half (Walls & McConnell, 2007). Such cap and trade system is similar to TDR transaction, because bot h of them

PAGE 25

25 have specific factors set by the government that can be traded across landowners. With these successful cases, market advocates finally confirm the right direction to implement the regulation. Market oriented approaches can solve some of societal questions with economics by adjusting the balance between supply and demand; all the merchandise complies with this discipline and there is no exception for land uses. In fact, the control can be quite complicated. Walls & McConnell (2007) describe TDR pr ograms as a market for development rights, and many things can affect the profitability of buying and selling those rights. For example, local government must determine which areas of the community are allowed to sell TDRs, which are allowed to use TDRs to developed, how trades occurs in the marketplace, and the mechanism by which transfers are approved (Walls & McConnell, 2007). S ummary TDR appears to provide an innovative way to encourage more sustainable land development practices. The tool is potentially useful in shifting new development away from rural or protected areas to those that can accommodate additional intensity. Through a careful study of the best practices, this research seeks to understand how TDR, as utilized in cities in the U.S., may be modified to promote sustainable development in Chinese cities.

PAGE 26

26 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY This study seeks to compare TDR programs in United States and China to understand the differences in approa ches as well as the determinants of success for such programs... Two crucial determinants of a TDR program success highlighted in this study are regulatory standards and land markets. Policy Analysis Policy analysis will be used to explore the regulatory s tandards that may serve as barriers to the implementation of successful TDR programs. There are some general policies tha t are applied to every TDR case, such as (1) s ending areas and receiving are as are designated in downzoning; (2) s ending sites must be in a place with a high potential for preservation, such as farmlands, agricultural areas, wildlife habitats, histor ical districts, and open spaces; (3) r eceiving sites have to be in a place that needs high density development like a city ce nter or resident ial communities; and (4) a llocation rates are decided by the government. The TDRs for transfer in sending sites are lower than similar parcels that without conservation. The development s allowed in receiving sites are much higher than other places that att ract developers to purchase additional TDRs. This policy analysis will evaluate the regulatory standards and ordinances that were applied to TDR in the case studies chronicled in Chapter 4. This analysis will examine the relevant state, local, and regiona l regulations pertaining to property rights and environmental protection.

PAGE 27

27 Market Analysis A goal of this research is to get an understanding of how a TDR program works. All of the elements in TDR programs and some government regulations work in concert wit h housing and land market, especially the demand and supply of land, as well as the demand for residential density. When governments establish receiving areas they must be aware of existing housing market conditions to control the demand for TDRs. The prop er TDR allocation rate and suitable density bonus set by the government are determined by the current housing and landing market in most American TDRs cases. Market is not only a tool for adjusting the balance in real estate but an effective method to coo rdinate the unbalance between different areas with various resources. Compensation and obtainment are the crucial points for a successful TDRs program. In a word, a TDR program is a land use management based on market mechanism. Research Design C hapter 4 a nalyzes four cases from the United States and China to get a profound grasp of Transferable Development Rights Programs. Without analysis of related cases, there is no way to find out how the program works in real life. To apply the method to this thesis, we choose several comparable factors in American and Chinese cases. By analyzing the regulatory standards and land markets in different cases, comparing the distinctions and pointing out the advantages and disadvantages, we finally arrive at the conclusion are now operating in the United States, while China has relatively few. As we know, there are some famous hallmark events in the history of TDR, but in China it is just in its infan cy.

PAGE 28

28 Template The four cases in C hapter 4 represent different types of TDR programs. The primary difference is the location of sites. The location of sending areas ranges from rural, rural urban fringe to urban area, while the receiving areas are seated in rural residential areas and urban areas. First t hree cases come from United States; rural urban fringe case in Collier County, Florida, rural to urban case in King County, Washington, urban to urban case in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The last case is from China; in Zhejiang Province there is a case about TDR transaction between rural agricultural lands and rural residential lands. Chapter 4 compares 4 different cases with different ranges. However all of them utilize the same template to study. The temp late of the case study analysis is formulated like this: Figure 3 1. The flowing chart of the template Each case study has five parts; first is the background, which discusses when, where and why TDR happened in this specific place. Second section explains the key factors in TDR program, such as sending area and receiving area. Third section indicates two crucial points that motivate TDR program, the policy and market; they both promote the process of TDR program but have different functions and ef fects. The Sending Area Receiving Area Background TDR program factors Analysis Result Motivation Disadvantages Advantages Policy Market Sending Area Receiving Area Background TDR program factors Analysis Result Mo tivation Disadvantag es Advantages Policy Market

PAGE 29

29 fourth section is the result that forms the accomplishment of the TDR program. The last part is to analyze the advantages and disadvantages to the TDR program; whether it succeeds or not and the most worthy experiences and lessons. The four sele cted cases with unique characters are valuable for thorough academic research. The first case from Collier County, Florida represents one sort of TDRs program, which is located along the rural and urban fringe; this features a powerful policy support and a thought provoking result. The second case is similar, but makes some improvements on the implementation; for example, the location of both the sending and receiving areas and some motivation in market management. The third case is not as normal as the for mer two because it happens in an urban area, which leads to a new reform to the TDR program. Although it has been only a short time since it was established, it explores a new way of urban development. The Chinese case, the last one, has special features. There are few pilot TDRs programs implemented in China. Zhejiang Province becomes the leader of the program and made noteworthy progress. It is one variety of a Sinicized TDR program with Chinese characters, but still has some faults. The final part is the comparison between the factors of the TDR programs in two countries. My country, China, as a late comer has an excellent chance to learn and revise the TDR program to make it more effective and Sinicized. Since studying the cases in the United States, a question emerges: can these successful cases with such motivated policies and market be used in the cities of China.

PAGE 30

30 If so, how can we use it and can it be modified to accommodate the Chinese model? And if it not, why?

PAGE 31

31 CHAPTER 4 CASE STUDY AND COMPA RISO N Rural Urban Fringe TDR program Collier County Florida The case in Collier County, Florida is an innovated and iconic one in United States. It is the first time that the receiving areas are placed on the fringe rather than the more urbanized centers. B ackground In terms of land area, Collier County is the largest county in Florida with 1.3 million acres of land. The County reaches from the Gulf of Mexico to the Everglades, and includes the city of Naples and the highly developed Marco Island resort comm unity. The population in Collier County was 307,242 in 2005 (Walls & McConnell, 2007). Because Florida is famous for its warm weather and resorts, every winter the county residents who reside in the state during th e cooler months (Walls & McConnell, 2007). Collier County adopted its first TDR program in 1974 as a part of a new zoning ordinance that emphasized growth control and the preservation of coastal islands and marshes (Walls & McConnell, 2007). The range of transfer has changed from contiguous properties to noncontiguous. The TDR program was modified in 1996, when the county conducted an evaluation and appraisal of its comprehensive plan as required by state law. The county subsequently amended its comprehe nsive plan in 1997. These amendments were required as a result of changes to state law, which focused attention on three goals: (1) curtailing urban sprawl, (2) protecting prime agricultural lands, and (3) protecting natural resources, including groundwate r and wildlife habitat. (Walls & McConnell, 2007)

PAGE 32

32 There are two TDR regulations in Collier County, the rural fringe area and the eastern rural lands area. Since the rural fringe area is uniquely affect ed by mankind and nature, C hapter 4 focus es on this kin d of TDR program. The Rural Fringe Growth Management Plan Amendments were adopted in June 2002 but did not become fully effective until July 2003 due to the property owners' opposition. The focus of this amendment was broader than the TDR program and conta ins a plan for "rural fringe mixed use zoning". TDR P rograms Four percent of the rural fringe area had been urbanized, 14% covered by agricultural lands, and the 75% of the rural urban fringe area consists of natural lands that include wetlands (59%) and f orests (>=14%). (Collier County Planning Department. N.d. 1994 1995) Although the proportion of rural fringe mixed use district is not as vast as other kinds of land, it was considered the most vulnerable to growth pressure and the most valuable from the p erspective of natural conservation. Due to high speed urban sprawl, the county wants to preserve those natural areas in emergency. When the Rural Fringe Growth Management Plan Amendments were established in 2002, the lands in the rural fringe mixed use zon e were divided into sending lands, receiving lands, or neural lands, just like other TDR programs. Development rights can be transferred only to receiving lands in the zone. The total acreage in the receiving zone is 73,222 (Walls & McConnell, 2007). The a creage of sending lands is almost twice that of the receiving areas. The goal of this TDR program is preserving wildlife habitat and environmentally sensitive lands and controlling residential sprawl on the rural fringe.

PAGE 33

33 There are also some program. For instance, the retention of 1 TDR allows the development of sending parcel at 1 du/40 ac density limit and neutral lands have a baseline of 1 du/5 ac (Walls & McConnell, 2007). The follow TDR program applied TDR designation to final use. Figure 4 1 TDR program process The map shows Rural Urban Fringe Mixed Use District in Collier County, Florida. The sending and receiving sites are all located in the rural urban fringe area and are adjacent to each other. Sending area can be designated to transfer all or some of the residential density to another property, interests

PAGE 34

34 Figure 4 2 Rural Fringe Mixed Use District and strict rules (Sec. 23.08. Transferable Development Rights, Florida Law). The baseline density for sending lands in the rural fringe mixed use zone is 1 du/40 ac for parcels over 40 acres or 1 du/parcel for parcels less than 40 acres. (Walls & McConnell, 2007) TDRs can be sold from these sending lands at the rate of 1 TDR/5 ac. In other

PAGE 35

35 words, the owner of a 40 acre property has the option of building a single dwelling unit or selling up to 8 de velopment rights; by doing so, the sending lands can be preserved from development permanently (Walls & McConnell, 2007). As long as 1 development right has remained for 1 unit of dwelling, 7 rights can be sold out. This allocation rate and base zoning den sity together imply a TDR transfer ratio of 5:1(Walls & McConnell, 2007). Table 4 1 B asic information of the sending areas in Rural Fringe TDR program Sending areas Rural fringe mixed use zone designated sending areas Land area 41,535 acres Baseline density limits 1 du/40 ac TDR allocation rates Baseline 1 TDR/5 ac Early entry bonus 1 1 TDR/5 ac Environmental restoration and maintenance bonus 2 1 TDR/5 ac Conveyance to government agency 3 1 TDR/5 ac Native vegetation requirement 80% of land a rea Receivi ng a rea The receiving area is described as a non accept transferred development rights with a certain permit. Baseline density for receiving areas in the rural fringe mixed use zone is 1 du/5 ac. With the help of TDRs, densi ty bonus can reach as high as 500 % that is 1 du/ac (Walls & McConnell, 2007). On the other hand, another bonus is also issued if more native vegetation is conserved. A TDR receiving lands must reach a minimum of 40 acres. Use of the TDRs in the receiving a reas must be subject to the normal permits according to sending properties (Walls & McConnell, 2007) 1 Landowners receive these bonus TDRs if they sever development rights before September 27, 2008. 2 Landowners receive these bon us TDRs if they agree to an environmental restoration and maintenance plan on their property 3 Landowners receive these bonus TDRs if they donate their land to a government agency.

PAGE 36

36 Table 4 2 B asic information of the receiving areas in Rural Fringe TDR program Receiving areas Rural fringe mixed use zone designated receiving areas Land area 22,020 acres Baseline density limit 1 du/5 ac Density limit with TDRs 4 1 du/ac Urban residential fringe 5 Baseline density limit 1.5 du/ac Density limit with TDRs 2.5 du/ac Urban areas Density increase allowed with TDRs 6 3 du/ac Motiv ation Policies while it has some common ordinances. To promote the process of TDRs in Collier County, the government established some policies to manage right transferring. 1. Only conser vation uses and some agriculture, along with residential uses according to the prescribed density limits, were permitted to be sending lands. Other previous uses, such as churches, golf courses, childcare centers, some mining operations, and others, were d ropped in the new ordinance. 2. If the landowner of a sending land engages in environmental maintenance and restoration activities, he receives an extra 1 TDR/5 ac. To get the bonus, the landowner must have some management plan on his land, such as regular maintenance approved by the government. 3. If a landowner gives up his ownership after selling TDRs and transfers the property right to a government agency, he will get an additional 1 TDR/5 ac. 4. For the receiving lands in the urban residential fringe s ubdistrict, the baseline density is 1.5 du/ ac, but is permitted to increase to 2.5 du/ ac if it joins the TDR program. 4 use development; w ith TDRs, minimum density is 2 du/ac and maximum density is 3 du/ac. See text for more discussion of rural villages. 5 To transfer development to this area, TDRs must come from sending lands located within one mile of the urban subdistrict boundary. The pu 6 Baseline density varies by zone but increase with TDR use across zones; this is for infill development in urbanized areas. Minimum parcel size is 20 acres.

PAGE 37

37 5. For the entry period of this program, the TDR that transferred before September 27, 2008, another bonus of 1 TDR/ 5 ac is given to la nd owner. Market The housing market is another factor that affect TDR program besides policies. Housing prices have increased sharply in recent years. A study on housing affordability in southwestern Florida found that in Collier in 2002, the median sales price of single family homes and condominiums was $250,000 and $171,000, respectively. Naples and Marco Island prices are substantially above the median for the county as a whole. According to the report of Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council (200 5), the median single family home price was $635,000 in Naples and $425,000 on Marco Island in 2002. The county also sets a floor price for TDR. In 2007, developers were required to pay $25,000 to purchase each TDR from private property owners. The floor p rice was formulated at the same time that the bonus TDR provisions were set. (Walls & McConnell, 2007) In early 2007, a decrease in the housing market of Collier County affected the TDR program. Some proposals in the receiving area were pulled back, while landowners in the sending area decided to postpone some of the TDR severance applications; for example, the proposal to build the first rural village was abeyant due to the rising floor price. (Thompson, Joseph, 2007). Result At the beginning of 2007, the Rural Fringe TDR program has placed approximately 2,200 acres of sending lands in the rural fringe mixed use district under conservation easement, with an additional 1,400 acres pending approval (Thompson, Joseph 2007). About 1,000 TDR credits have been i ssued, including all bonus credits.

PAGE 38

38 The Collier program is different from many other TDR programs. Individual landowners instead of developers, or some subsidiary of a development company sells the lands in the sending area of Collier County, to companies that plan on other ambitious projects. It is hard to know about the influence of the price floor affected in Collier County. However, the price floor may reduce the demand for the TDRs, as it is a barrier for developers and is not as flexible as the marke t price. Thus, some development companies hold their development rights in a receiving area subdivision following the purchase. Analysis Advantages The TDR program in Collier County has promoted mixed use development in the rural fringe and balanced the d ensity of development in more appropriate locations in the county. In this program, instead of allowing the entire rural urban fringe to be developed at relatively low densities, the county has been able to protect some lands that need preservation, while developing the rest intensively. Disadvantages Although the price floor the Collier government set is a guarantee for the transferee, it creates some unbalance in the market. In other words, the artificially floor price makes the landowners of sending lan ds want to sell more TDRs, but developers want to buy fewer for receiving lands. The supply of TDR is exceeding the demand. It is not an effective way to regulate the fixed floor price, but without any control, the housing market would lose its equilibrium which would hurt the rights of vulnerable groups. If the county wants to promote more TDRs transferred to receiving properties in a long term plan, they need to modify the price according to the inflation and deflation of the land and housing market.

PAGE 39

39 Th e Collier Rural Fringe TDR program may be dropped because the landowners of sending areas have few viable alternatives, and most of the properties in the sending areas are unoccupied and lacking agricultural or other activities. That is to say, people alwa ys pay too much attention to receiving areas with intensive development, while they ignore the downzoning occurring in sending areas. Both transferee and transferor are crucial to a successful TDR program. Rural to Urban TDR P rogram King County, Washingt on King County is in the western part of Washington State, and the city of Seattle is located in the western side of the county. A pilot TDR program has been implemented since 1998. In 2001, the government defined the TDR program as a permanent county code (K.C.C. 21A.37). Since then, 141,392 acres of rural and resource lands (more than program, which relocated subdivisions for 2,467 potential dwelling units from the ural landscape and into its urban areas. Details cab is found in this government report (http://www.kingcounty.gov/environment/stewardship/sustainable building/transfer development rights/overview.aspx). Background King County is the largest county in Wash ington and also the 12th largest in the United States. The most famous city here is Seattle, which has the largest population, approximately 600,000 (2005), and forms 1/3 of the county. King County is 1.36 million acres, with Seattle accounting for only 53 ,760 acres. Seattle has the highest density in the county with 6,717 people per square mile, while other unincorporated areas only have 817 people per square mile. This means that urban areas in King County are densely developed, while vast rural areas are undeveloped.

PAGE 40

40 developed a comprehensive plan in 1994, which established the infamous urban growth boundary, identified rural and resource land, and included growth policies for unincorpo rated areas in the county. This plan was adopted to constrain city expansion and restrict population growth and development in rural and resource areas. As Walls & McCon nell (2004) noted, less than 20 % of new housing units were built in un incorporated area s o and only 4 % of new units were in rural areas. Simultaneously, infill development inside cities increased over that decade. In 200 3, the county estimates that 44 % of new development was, in fact redevelopment that is, building on land that had a preexis ting use. Agriculture is not a pillar industry in King County; there are still over 40,000 acres of farmland and nearly 871,000 acres of forest, which need to be preserved. The TDR program in King County was adopted to curtail urb an sprawl by designating a special area between the more developed western urban area of the density zones within the urban growth area that are co most vulnerable and sensitive places for wildlife. Preservation of these areas protects wildlife and offers parks and trails for human use. Urban separators are designate d as greenbelts and conservation areas. Upon designation, they are annexed by cities because of their abundant natural resources. The residential density limits in these areas are kept no more than 1du/ac.

PAGE 41

41 The TDR program in King County focuses on protect Sending sites be located within urban separator areas zoned R 1 (1 du/ac), as well as rural or resource lands, such as agricultural and forest production district. The qualification of a sending site must meet some cr iteria like it shows in Table 4 3. Table 4 3 Sending s ites in King County (Data from Walls & McConnell, 2007) Sending Sites Rural resource a nd urban separator areas Baseline density limit TDR allocation rate Rural Agricultural production district A 10 1 du/10 ac 1 du/5 ac A 35 1 du/35 ac 1 du/5 ac Rural area RA 2.5 and RA 5 1 du/5 ac 1 du/5 ac RA 10 1 du/10 ac 1 du/5 ac Forest production district 1 du/80 ac 1 du/80 ac Urban separator R 1 1 d u/ac 4 du/ac Receiving s ites King County restricts the use of rural land, while encourages the use of TDRs in urban areas. The following T able 4 4 shows the qualified receiving areas, which includes various incorporated areas in King County, residential zones form R 4 to R 48, NB, CB, RB or O (see T able 4 4 ) in unincorporated urban sites, and rural areas zoned RA 2.5. Motivation Policy Pursuant to K.C.C. 21A.37.010, the purpose of the TDR program is to transfer residential density from eligible sending s ites to eligible receiving sites through a voluntary process that permanently preserves rural, resource and urban separator lands

PAGE 42

42 that provide a public benefit, while encouraging increased residential development density, or increased commercial square footage, especially inside cities. Table 4 4 Receiving s ites in King County (Data from Walls & McConnell, 2007) Receiving Sites Baseline density limit Density bonus w/TDRs Incorporated cities Varies To be negotiated Unincorporated urban sites R 4 to R 48, "neighborhood business," "community business," "regional business," and "office" zones 4 du/ac 48 du/ac 50% Rural areas RA 2.5 1 du/5 ac 100% Once development rights are sold from sending area, it becomes permanent conservation land, where further development will be not allowed. However, the sending areas still have the right to develop according to the baseline density limits if the development rights are not sold. The use of TDR in rural areas must meet some requirements, including elig ibility to be served by domestic Group A public water service and a location within 1/4 mile of an existing predominant pattern of rural lots smaller than five acres; it must not adversely impact and encroach on new pattern of smaller lots. Market Like ot her commodities, the TDR market is also driven by supply and demand. The landowners of sending areas create the supplies of development rights when they decide to place a conservation easement on their property. Developers who want high density on receivin g lands make the demands of development rights. According to the King County Government report, since 2000 TDR, prices have ranged from $4,000 to $30,000, depending on the type of TDR TDRs sell for differing amounts because they are worth different amounts of

PAGE 43

43 development capacity (urban TDRs = 1 additional receiving site dwelling unit, while rural TDRs = 2 additional dwelling units). The current market price for the rural area is $15,000 per TDR and for the urban area is $ 7,000 p er TDR (http://www.kingcounty.gov/environment/stewardship/sustainable building/transfer development rights/market info/market charts.aspx ). But the allocation rate and price of TDRs fluctuates frequently, as is set by four main factors: how much individua l developers are willing to purchase, the price individual rural landowners are willing to sell, the amount of available TDRs, and the interest in these transactions. Some TDR programs are transacted through private parties, while some may be purchased fr om the TDR Bank. The TDR Bank of King County was established in 1999. TDR program six purchases and two sales. The purpose of the TDR Bank is to facilitate the market by buying, holding, selling and bridging the time gap between willing sellers and buyers of TDRs. The TDR Banks also offers a revenue share with cities. With the help of amenity funds, the governments will promote TDR programs when infrastructure improveme nts accommodated to meet the demand of extra density. Result Prior to February 2007, 455 TDRs were traded in 48 private market transactions. More than half of the TDR transactions in the private market were from the urban separator (R 1) zone that were use d on receiving lands in urban unincorporated areas. Most TDR transactions from rural areas were also used in urban unincorporated receiving areas, which are located in unincorporated areas and require additional density.

PAGE 44

44 Very few transactions happened fro m rural sending sites to urban incorporated areas. The TDR Bank also played an important role during the decades. It preserved over 90,000 acres of lands. Analysis Advantage As can be seen, the King County TDR program is planned to conserve of agriculture lands and rural resource, as well as curtail urban sprawl. This program encourages development inside urban service areas. It utilized edge impact to protect urban separator lands. The use of TDR Bank is another key point in King only the transactions held by TDR Bank mitigate the estate shared with the cities to improve the infrastructure and living conditions. Disadvantage TDR programs transfer rural or urban separator lands to urban areas. That is the way in which King County protect rural areas. However, the interlocal connection is not significant enough consequentially, TDR in urban incorporated areas do not succeed as well as in unincorporated ar eas. Urban to Urban TDR program Cambridge, Massachusetts B ackground The city of Cambridge is located in eastern Massachusetts and separated from Boston by the Charles River. The population in the city is 101,355(2000), with a college population of over 3 2,000, mainly concentrated in such venerable institutions as Harvard, Radcliffe and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (Pruetz, 2006) As Rick Pruetz mentioned in his website, the city adopted Citywide Growth Management policies and zoning recommend ations in 2001 designed to reduce traffic and other growth related impacts. TDR programs were implemented in three specific

PAGE 45

45 neighborhoods: Eastern Cambridge, Cambridgeport and Concord Alewife to achieve ge uses TDR to encourage the concentration of development near public transportation (Pruetz, 2006). This section will take Eastern Cambridge neighborhoods as example. TDR P rogram in Eastern Cambridge The TDR program in Cambridge is not like other places. The lands encompassed by this program are called Donating District and Receiving District, both of which are located in urban areas and descr ibed in the Code of City Plan. The Gross floor area (GFA) can be transferred from the lot in the Donating District to that in the Receiving District. Donating d istrict ( s ending sites) The Donating District is divided into two types; one is non residential and the other is residential. The Non residential Donation District must be used for parks or for residential pur poses at a floor area ratio (FAR) of at least 0.75, after transference and other non residential developments are prohibited (Pruetz, 2006). The greater one is chosen after comparing the potential non residential floor area and the existing floor area prop osed for demolition as the available GFA for transfer. Residential Donation District can also transfer development right to other places since FAR 0.75 already existed or will be set on the District. The Donating District is located in the north of Binney Street and is adjacent to the residential neighborhoods (Pruetz, 2006). Receiving d istrict GFA transferred from non residential sites can be applied to any use in Receiving District while the residential GFA can only be applied in residential areas. Cambridge planned specific Lots as the Development Rights Transfer Receiving District. The Receiving District is located between Binney Stre et and Main Street; an

PAGE 46

46 place designated to be a largely commercial area. (Eastern Cambridge Rezoning Petition Part V, 2010) Figure 4 3 Donating District and Receiving District in Eastern Cambridge Area bounded by the centerlines of Binney Street to the north, First Street to the east, Main Street to the south, and on the we st a line parallel to, and east of, 150 distant from the east sideline of Portland Street and Cardinal Medeiros Avenue, and That portion of the Industry B zone located south of Main Street and bounded by the centerlines of Albany Street; Massachusetts Avenue; Windsor Street; a line southerly of, parallel to, and 150 distant from the southerly sideline of Main Street; a line easterly of, parallel to and one hundred and fifty feet distant from the southwesterly extension of the centerline of Portland Str eet north of Main Street; and then Main Street to the point of beginning. (Eastern Cambridge Rezoning Petition Part V, 2010)

PAGE 47

47 Motivation Policy The lot in the Donating District must be used for public parks without residential development or use at a floor area ratio (FAR) of at least 0.75 (Pruetz, 2006). The purpose of the TDR program is to reduce commercial density near existing residential neighborhood while encouraging high density in commercial and mixed use development close to transit (Eastern Cambri dge Rezoning Petition Part V, 2010). The Donating District shall be that area from which Gross Floor Area (GFA) is moved or removed for use on a lot in the Receiving District. The Receiving District shall be that area where the GFA from a Donating Lot is u sed for development. A Receiving Lot shall be a lot in the Receiving District to which GFA is moved. Every change happened on Donating District, such as demolition of existing buildings, or the construction of new buildings and parks should follow the guid e of Eastern Cambridge Plan and Design Guidelines assured by the Planning Board. Market As the program is relatively new, there are no relevant sources to show the effective market approaches that create an incentive for the Eastern Cambridge TDRs. Result The Eastern Cambridge Rezoning Petition expired after it was applied. And then it was re filed with the Concord Alewife Rezoning Petition, but without any changes. After the Council Meeting in 2005, it re filed again. The next year it was finally passed a s Amended 7 1 1. From the Committee Report #9 of Cambridge City Council Meeting, the most concerned issues were indicated for the councilors. As the Cambridge unique probl ems that other places not face. (1) The scale and location of TDR programs;

PAGE 48

48 how it would be affected by separation, in consideration of the proposed zoning areas into three separate parts. (2) As the parcels are close to each other in urban areas, TDR will affect areas outside the individual area. (3) What happens if supply exceeds demand? The councilors raised many tough questions (Cambridge City Council Meeting, 2005). The Community Development Department responded to every query and finally passed the pr oposition. But there is no further data indicating how it fared after it application. Analy s is Since no further data and survey is available on the TDR program, it can only be judged based on the petition and the response from the Community Development Dep artment in Council Meeting. Advantage is divide the Donating Lots into two types and allow the owner of lands to retain some buildings or offer the chance to build new structures which remedy the defects of downzoning. Unlike other cities, the TDR progr am in Cambridge, Massachusetts is applied in a specific urban area. They focus on urban environments rather than rural areas, which great l y abets community improvement. Disadvantage As we look at the map of the Eastern Cambridge TDR program, we notice that the Donating District and adjacent Receiving District are located in a particular area. Every change should be guided in those districts designated by the Planning Board. The flexibility of TD R program has failed.

PAGE 49

49 Rural to Rural ( A griculture L ands to Residential A rea) Zhejiang Province, China Background Most TDR programs in China occur in rural areas where it is utilized to transfer development from agricultural land to concentrated resident ial area. According to documents from the Ministry of Land and Resources (1999) No. 385, certain areas must encourage rural residents to converge in a central villages and towns, so as to transfer a rural industry to an industry community; if there are ext ra farmlands demanded, they can be transferred with the farmland after reclamation. In 2005 the Ministry of Land and Resources issued another document Opinions on the increase of urban development land and the reduction of the rural development land pil ot program. It indicates the re arrangement of land use layout by balancing the quantity farmland and development land without degrading the quantity and quality of agricultural areas. This is a revolution for local governance; formerly, when the governmen t decided to develop rural areas, they would always take away farmlands with little compensation and the areas then declined in agricultural yield. sites and transfer the d evelopment right to suburban areas, which have a high always located besides the agricultural lands. And if farmers want to move to cities, they must relinquish owner ship of collective lands and buy the land use right from urban government. After the transfer development rights, the residential sites can be assimilated into one large community and the amount of farmlands can be preserved and upgrade.

PAGE 50

50 TDR Program As d esigned in Land Use Comprehensive Planning in Zhejiang Province (1997 2010), cities need more construction area for urban sprawl in 2010 than 13 years prior. To extend urban edge to rural area, a great deal of farmland will be destroyed by human activities stimulated by urbanism. In 2000, the Zhejiang Province government authorized local governments to fulfill the plan. To address this problem, local This program reallocates the land i residential sites are always located besides the agricultural lands. In the Chinese traditional view, the house is the primary estate for a family. When children grow up and get married in rural areas, they will b uild a new house adjacent to their previous one. After the government advocated a concentrated residential policy throughout the country, many local governments tried to move all the residents to new sites in suburban areas. Zhejiang Province is seeking program. To provide more lands for urban construction and protect agricultural areas, farmland protection. The local governm ents switch the former rural residential area into farmlands and transfer development rights to concentrated residential areas planned later, while they continuously levy the land in suburban and urban fringe areas. But this program faces opposition from t he national government that made this program postponed in 2004. Because the national government refuses to transfer different types

PAGE 51

51 i Wang, Ran Tao, Chen Shi, 2011) described a similar pilot program also applied in Zhejiang Province; in Jiaxing city, the ng residential lands from contracted trading rural residential sites for urban housing estates and land contracted rights for social security. (Hui Wang, Ran Tao, Chen S hi, 2011) Motivation P olicy Housing subsidy: for those who voluntarily transfer rural residential houses or non residential houses and construction s, the governmen t will offer 50 % extra subsidies after appraisement (Hui Wang, Ran Tao, Chen Shi, 2011). Temporary allocated subsidy: for someone who has no house when waiting for the new one will get 200 RMB per month, per family, and also 100 PMB per month, per person. (Hui Wang, Ran Tao, Chen Shi, 2011) Concentration bonus: 10,000 RMB bonuses per person granted to farmers who choose standard apartments with an extra 200 RMB per square meters after transferring to the new legal house. According to different types of apa rtment, there are different additional bonuses. (Hui Wang, Ran Tao, Chen Shi, 2011) Other kinds of bonus: for each village there are various bonuses, for example, Yaozhuang Village offers building installation bonuses, which average 170,000 RMB per family (Hui Wang, Ran Tao, Chen Shi, 2011). Market No market incentive involve in.

PAGE 52

52 Result After implementing TDR pilot programs, 13 villages and towns save more than 50% of lands, amounting to 1.153 acres. This is one of the most successful transferring program s in China (Hui Wang, Ran Tao, Chen Shi, 2011). Analysis Advantage The situation in China is not like that of the United States. For a country with a similar amount of land area as the United S tates, but 10 times population, the most crucial point is how to use land effectively. Take Yaozhuang Village for instance, the average land area of rural residential sites are 0,19 acres per family, but after reallocating, every family can purchase a house of 0.08 acres, or an apartment of 0.05 acres, which means re allocated rural residential sites can save vast amounts of the lands (Hui Wang, Ran Tao, Chen Shi, 2011). In a long period due to the poverty and disperse housing allocation, Chinese rural areas cannot access some basic facilities commonplace in cities. Moving to concentrated resident ial areas provide convenient facilities that former rural are as lack. Disadvantage The most unreasonable feature in the Chinese case is that development rights must be transferred with real estate. The peasants have to move to other places, regardless of whether they are far removed or nearby their original homes. The traditional plant style determines that peasants cannot be far from their land. If the peasants are not ready to adapt to an urban lifestyle, it is cruel to for ce them to relocate. The government guides the TDRs programs in China, but only rural residents are involved. Residents can only get subsidies from the government that will be used on their new house. Unlike landowners in the United States, no extra profit can be produced in this kind of transfer because no second stakeholder makes it a sustainable.

PAGE 53

53 The allocation rate and bonuses in concentrated residential areas have no regular standard, which means inequity happens because of different environmental and social backgrounds. The floor price in the transaction decided by the local government may especially hurt the rights of farmers. Comparison T able 4 5 shows some differences between the United States and Chinese that cause the vary results. Those are the key factors in TDRs program. Table 4 5 Comparison of cases between the United States and China United States China Stakeholders involved Landowners Developer Land user Land user Type of Land Use Sending Area Farmland, wildlife habitat, open space, historical district Farmland Receiving Area Residential area, non residential area (commercial, office, ext.) Residential area Allocation rate Market influence with Government's guide Government's decision Bonus Extra development opportunities (additi onal density), tax exemption Subsidies for new house and temporary allocation Regulations & Guide principle Comprehensive planning, zoning, downzoning, rezoning Comprehensive planning, Regulatory planning 7 7 Instead of zoning China has its own regulations called regulatory plan which guide site plan and urban planning management similar to zoning in United States. T he regulation of planning activities was codified as an independent law in 1991 which called R egulatory Plan Approval Procedures. Since then the idea of zoning has become the mainstream in Chinese planning.

PAGE 54

54 First factor is different stakeholders participa tion th at make it a transaction or aid Most TDR programs in American cases have two parties involved landowners and developers. A majority of landowners represent private property. In China, there are no private landowners, but land users. And developm ent rights are bundled with other rights, like land use rights and transferred from farmland to residential parcel under the name of same land users. No other stakeholders participate in the Chinese TDR program, which is similar to the first case in New Yo rk City. Although the land users receive subsidies, they may not get the fair compensation and extra interests to spark the incentive for TDR transferring. Second the scale and location of sending and receiving areas deter mine the range of TDRs covering T DR in United States has a history of 40 years in Transferable Development Rights, from the very beginning of special historical zoning case in 1968 New York City to nearly 200 TDR programs in various types all over the county today. Farmlands, wildlife hab itats, open spaces, and historical districts are designated as the sending areas that protect the largest portion of valuable resources. To meet these urges, China only applies particular parcels farmlands. This really fulfills the target of the plan, ho wever, other kinds of lands can also be included in this program so as to encourage the invol vement of more lands and make a bigger impact. Receiving area is another factor motivating the TDR process. With the guarantee of the demand of TDRs, the landowner of a sending area is willing to sell TDRs. In United States, TDR programs always happen in a place with large development demands, such as urban areas or new community projects in rural lands. Chinese TDR programs happen with a single demand on a small sc ale that is the demand for new

PAGE 55

55 reallocation houses for former peasants. Most places in need of development opportunities do not have chance to take part in the transactions. Third thing is market and policy incentives that affect both the allocation rate a nd bonus. The proportion of ea ch incentive tool is different In the United States, the market is the primary motivation for TDRs. In three American cases, the market decided the allocation rate to a large extent. The state and local administrations may st ate the bottom line of floor price, but the allocation rate fluctuates annually, influenced by land and housing markets. No compulsive regulations are established to control the TDRs price. Sometimes, TDR banks get involved to coordinate temporary shortage or inflation of TDRs. China has a very unique situation. Since the public owns land, only the government has the right to sell land; hence, individuals and institutions are authorized to trade use rights. But government mandates that relevant administrati ons regulate the subsidies. Land and housing market cannot affect the standard allocation subsidy. No allocation rates are referred to in Chinese TDR programs on account of no transactions occurring. The amount of transaction depends on the balance between obtainment and compensation, as well as between investment and interests. The more compensation landowner can receive from the transaction, the larger amount of TDRs they would sell. At the same time, the more interests developers gain, the more TDRs they would purchase. As TDR programs are applied frequently, the demand and supply can motivate each other. Money is one way to compensate and tax exemption is also a good approach to create incentives for TDRs trade. The United States has many

PAGE 56

56 successful case s by utilizing these bonuses. China has only an allocation subsidy, which is given o by the government and no other transaction exists in this kind of program. Unlike the virtuous cycle in American TDR programs, Chinese TDR programs engage in one time tra ding because no extra bonus can stimulate land users trading TDR. The last point is policy framework like some regulations and principles are similar but China is a step behind without downzoning To apply TDR programs, the first step in each case in Unite d States is downzoning. Only downzoning can restrict further construction on sending lands and enlarge the desire for development on receiving lands. China has a very short history of TDR programs, and some principles and regulations do not match up to the pilot programs. Without principal guides, such as d ownzoning the impetus for TDR, China is not as competitive as the United States.

PAGE 57

57 CH APTER 5 CONCLUSION General Conclusion The American TDR cases I choose in C hapter 4 are selected by many books as the bes t practices, which mean they are very successful in their fields. TDR programs preserved massive amounts of natural areas, regardless of rural area or urban area. In rural areas, farmlands and wildlife habitats are the crucial valuable sites that need to b e protected. In urban areas, the residential lots related to significant places, such as historical areas and public open spaces, are also conserved by these programs. The programs a pplied in rural areas are much more successful than those in urban areas. The first TDR came from an urban case, however it was enhanced and disseminated faster in rural area preservations than urban sites. TDR programs have many merits. First, TDR program s can protect the agricultural lands, which help unloading the burden of farmland decrease. Second, TDR programs may compensate the loss in downzoning, especially for the landowners who have no further construction allowed on their lands. Third, cities can get more of a chance to develop in highly developed areas that will curtail urban sprawl. The Collier County case showed us that the rural urban fringes of TDR preserve the abuse of land use in urban sprawl, while protects natural resources in fringe area s. The unbalance between landowners and developers influence the TDR program process. The regulated floor price with less flexibility affects the demand and supply of the TDR market and also the inequity in the compensation of downzoning.

PAGE 58

58 The King County T DR program, unlike the case in Collier County, makes new progress in that the sending sites are located beyond the cities, while the receiving sites are in an urban district. It also designates another particular area, called urban separator lands, that co nserves more natural resources, thereby enlarging the edge effect. The other highlight in the program is the TDR Bank. The TDR Bank can mitigate the timing gap between development rights selling and buying. The amount of TDR programs inside urban areas is relatively low. This explained how TDR transferred among urban lots. The accomplishment of urban TDR is to preserve the environment of communities. The owner of sending sites in other places may not have opportunities to continue building on preservation l and, but the landowner of donating areas can retain and build new constructions under certain permissions. However, this kind of program is only applied in specific districts with strict limitations, meaning not all districts in Cambridge have the chance t o be involved in TDR transaction. The Chinese case is unlike the United States, although it focuses on farmland preservation. The aim of the TDR program is to utilize land compactly. Lots of place implement TDR programs to fill the vacancy of construction land demand in cities. So the government transferred the development rights from agricultural lands to residential areas. However, the transferable development rights do not exist in Chinese law, which means it should be transferred with other rights and r eal estate so that land users cannot sell the rights individually. It has been over 30 years since TDRs began in the United States. However, it is not effective as expected and the programs face reductions yearly. By re searching

PAGE 59

59 American TDRs cases, there are some barriers that cannot be crossed. The land and housing markets in the United States are not as vibrant as 30 years ago. The communities that adopt TDR programs have to be involved in continuously active develo pment circumstances to stimulate the development right transference. All the developed countries are in the post industrial era, and the economic crisis in recent years caused a market recession. So, the United States does not need lar ge amounts of constru ction, and that shortened the demand for development rights. Thanks to the abundant land resources needing protection and the correspondingly less population, the cities in the United States have sufficient space to allocate new development without occup ying resource rich areas and arable land. There are other alternative ways of expanding development activities and protecting natural resource. The largest land ownership in the United States is in the private sphere. Downzoning cannot always be implemen ted successfully due to the counterviews of private landowners. The TDRs program can be postponed if the public is against it. These barriers do not exist in present day China. China is on her own path of development and the growth of the economy is increa sing day after day. The urge for development opportunities is very precious. For decades, China has explored new approaches to promote urbanism, without occupying limited and poor arable land and resource rich areas. Although the people and collectives own most Chinese land, the government in different layers obtains the right to govern the lands regardless of laws or other regulations, like planning and zoning. With the strong support of new development policies like TDRs, progressive steps can be taken th roughout whole countries.

PAGE 60

60 The Feasible Sinicized TDR Program As we know, land ownership is the foundation policy in China and any individual cannot change it. But the development right can be considered as a right equal to land ownership. Right now there are more developments happening everyday, and urban areas have sprawled prodigiously. The 257 million acres of basic farmlands have to sustain the world's largest population: more than 1.5 billion. So the basic farmlands are very precious to the nation. Th e waste of land in urban areas in some cities also exists. To preserve natural resources and promote high density in urban areas, the TDR program is eagerly embraced for China. Step 1 s eparating the development right from other rights The main fault of t he Zhejiang program is that peasants cannot access their farmlands and are forced to move somewhere far away from their agricultural lands. national government is master of most of the land, and citizens only get the right of use; and no unit or individual is allowed to occupy, trade or illegally transfer land by other means. Land use right may be transferred by law. There are no development rights that can be transferred to get compensation or bonus density for individuals. Since 2000, many scholars and experts have proposed land development rights, which must be distinguished from the concept of private property rights as commonly referred to in the U.S.( Shen Zilong, 2009) If development rights can be used as an individual right, then peasants can retain the farmland, while selling the d evelopment right to others and profiting from this transaction. After that, they have the opportunity to decide whether to move out to con centrated residential area or not.

PAGE 61

61 Step 2 d ownzoning After comprehensive planning and regulatory planning, downzoning must be issued by relevant administration. To control the further construction and land use, downzoning plays an important role in the T DR program. On the one hand, it suppresses the intention of more development on sending lands, and, on the other hand, it encourages the purchase of extra density on receiving lands. Step 3 l imited time limited development rights As we know in China, ind ividuals and institutions do not have permanent land use rights, such as residential land that can be used for 70 years, while the commercial land is used for 50 years. But the government allows land users to continue use of current land and their estates with certain permits. It is extremely complicated, and the easiest way is to make the transaction permanent, with additional compensation or charges if it reaches the limit. For example, if the time limit is reached for the sending areas, the landowner can purchase to continually own the preserved lands with an additional bonus, like tax exemption. When the receiving area reaches the limit, the developer may pay extra charges if he wants to maintain it. Step 4 e nlarge the types of land that can be transfer red The primary land for the TDRs program is farmland that is urgent at current period. But many other kinds of land can be designated as sending lands, such as wildlife habitats, historical districts and open spaces. Although most of the lands are owned by the public and individuals do not have right to sell it, the national or local governments can trade the development rights for extra profits to enlarge local revenue and promote intensive development and public facilities in cities, instead of selling especially in suburban areas.

PAGE 62

62 Step 5 a ll individuals and institutions participate The two parties of the TDR transaction might be two individuals or institutions without any relevance. Different stakeholders e nlarge the trading platform and provide more opportunities for both land users in sending area and developer in receiving area. China is on her own path of development and urbanism, and the demand for development rights is urgent. Developers in urban area will purchase the extra density if the government provides some bonus while restrict the baseline of density and plot ratio. TDR Banks as a conditioning tool can also be introduced to China. As the market may be affected by some unpredictable reasons, an d the supply and demand inflate and deflate frequently, to guarantee the order of transaction and facilitate its blossoming, TDR banks can modulate the cycle of the program and provide the strong financial support. Step 6 m arket involved China has a mar ket oriented policy. Most of the merchandise is traded f ree and national governments get involved with macro control. Development rights should be market motivated and fluctuate in line with housing and land market conditions. Governments need to regulate the baseline but without mandatory provisions. Enforcement is not a long term way for any type of development. A sustainable system must be based on freewill. Market incentives must be involved in this kind of program to provide strong motivation for land owners and developers to purchase development rights. Step 7 c oordinate socioeconomic balances Socioeconomic management tools are needed to modulate the imbalance between urban residents and rural peasants. In

PAGE 63

63 China, the land can be divided into two kind s of ownership: public owned or collective owned. The residents in urban areas do not have the right to own land, even if they have a more convenient life, while as a collective member, peasants can own lands that seems more useful for rural residents. But in reality, this is unjust. The provincial and local government can purchase the land from collective with certain permits, such as the development demand with the agreement from superior administration. However, compensation is not as fair as it seems. T he peasants can get compensation based on their farmland. It is relatively low according to the standard. Farmers lose not only their homes and land, but also their most familiar means of survival. If the TDR program is implemented according to above step s, it will greatly abet progress in China.

PAGE 64

64 LIST OF REFERENCES Administration Science School of Public Management. (2004 ). Northwest University Translate d by Huang, Tingting. American Farmland Trust. ( 2001 ) Farmland Protection Fact She et: Transfer of Development Rights, Washington, D.C.: AFT. January. Retrieved from http://www.farmland.org/news/media/facts.asp ( 11/ 201 1 ) Brown, Larissa. Eastern Cambridge Rezoning Petition Part V The Planning Board ( 2010 ) Retrieved from http://www2.cambridgema.gov/CDD/cp/zng/ecaps/petition/ecaps_pet_textandmap s.pdf (11/2011) Burden, Amanda M. City of New York Department of Planning. ( 2002 ) New York City Government Retrieved from http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/h tml/zone/zonehis.html (11/2011) Chase Marc States Rights Vs. Federal Authority ( 1 999 2011 ) Retrieved from http://www.ehow.com/about_5335670_states rights vs federal authority.html (11/2011) Collier County Planning Department. N.d. Scope of Services (1994 1995). Retrieved from http://www.colliergov.net/modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=548 (11/2011) Farr, Douglas ( 2008 ) Sustainable Urbanism: The Grand Unification. Farr A ssociates Gao, Rui. Translate d by Huang, Tingting. (2008). ChinaNewsweek. Retrieved from http://www.chinanews.com/cj/kong/news/2008/06 03/1270904.shtml (11/2011) Haar, C. M., & Wolf, M. A. (2010). Land use planning and the e nvironment : A casebook. Washington, D.C. Envi ronmental Law Institute. Healy Robert W. Committee Report of Cambridge City Council Meeting ( 2005 ) Cambridge City Council Retrieved from http://www.rwinters.com/council/080105. htm (11/2011) Hellerstein, Jerome R. and Hellerstein, Walter. ( 1999 ). State Taxation Warren Gorham & Lamo nt; 3 Revised edition. Henig, Jeffrey. ( 1989 90 ) Privatization in the Uni ted States: Theory and Practice Political Science Quarterly. (p p. 104(4):649 670 )

PAGE 65

65 JAM Rural Fringe Mixed Use District ( 2004 ) Comprehensive Plann ing Department Collier County, Florida http://www.colliergov.net/modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=415 (11/2011) Johnston, Robert A. and Mary E. Madison. ( 1997 ) From landmarks to landscapes. (pp. 63:3 ) Journal of the American Planning Association. Karkkainen Bradley. ( 1994 ) Zoning: A Reply to Critics. (pp. 10:1, 2 46 ) Journal of Land Use and Env ironmental Law. Monroe Brendan Donating District and Receiving District in Eastern Cambridge ( 200 9 ) http://www2.cambridgema.gov/cdd/cp/zng/zmap/zoning_map_tdr_ecamb.pdf (11/2011) Morris, Marya ( 2009 ). Smart Codes: Model Land Development Regulations 115 Persia L TDR Program Snapshot View (2008). Comprehensive Planning Department Collier County, Florida http://www.colliergov.net/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=21654 (11/2011) Pruetz Ri ck FAICP Beyond Takings and Givings (2011) Retrieved from http:// www.beyondtakingsandgivings.com (11/2011) Pruetz, Rick. ( 2003 ) Beyond Takings and Givings: Saving Natural Areas, Farmland, and Historic Landmarks with Transfer of Development Rights and Density Tra nsfer Charges. Burbank, CA: Arje Press. Shen Zilong. (2009). The Path Selection of the Sinicization of Land Development Rights Zhejiang University Translate d by Huang, Tingting. Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council. Bridging the Gap: Sout hwest Florida Regional Housing Needs Assessment and Strategic Document. ( 2005 ) Fort Myers, FL: SWFRPC. Fall. Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.net/guest3bd2a12/bridging the gap presentation (11/2011) The State Council (1999) T he document from Ministry of Land and Resources No. 385 National People's Co ngress Translate d by Huang, Tingting. The State Council ( 2008 ) T he law of land administration of the P R epublic of C hina National People's Congress Translate d by Huang, Tingting. Thompson, Joseph. ( 2007 ) Planner, Collier County Comprehensive P lanning Department. Personal communication, January 23 and April 23

PAGE 66

66 Wall Margaret and McConnell Virginia. ( 2007). Transfer of Development Rights in U.S. Communities. (pp. 17 20 ) Resources for the Future Wang, Hui Tao Ran Shi Chen ( 2011) Translate d by Huang, Tingting. Zhejia ng Province Government. (1997 2010) Land Use Comprehensive Planning in Zhejiang Province The State Council

PAGE 67

67 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH H uang,Tingting was born in Huanggang, Hubei province, China. She has lived in Hubei until 2011. She got her Bachelor degree of Urban Planning at HUST (Huazhong University of Science and Technology) and was accepted to the graduate school of HUST after she graduated. She attended the interdisciplinary program between HUST and University of Florida from 2011 to 2012 in sustainab le design. She pursued her University of Florida.