I am looking at the impact of a residential growth moratorium - which essentially ends residential development in a jurisdiction. I am trying to estimate the "lost" economic activity from this foregone development - ie how much would county economic activity be greater if this development was allowed to occur. The construction impacts are straightforward - but I have a question on calculating the economic losses in the form of reduced local spending by the residents who would purchase this housing if it were made available;
In estimating the economic impact of the occupancy (not construction) of a residential unit - what is the difference between: 1) using the Household Income Change as the activity type; and 2) importing the Household Spending patterns (Activity Options>Import>Institution Spending Pattern) and adjusting for DPI. I ran it both ways and apart from the fact that using the Household Income Change only yields an induced impact - the results are pretty comparable. Is one better than the other?
Finally - and to confirm - using either approach - the state and local revenue estimate derived from the model is for the economic activity generated by the spending (local purchases made by) - not by the households themselves - and as a result - a separate calculation of the tax revenues associated with these residents would need to be calculated outside of the model to calculate the actual fiscal impacts on the county.
Please sign in to leave a comment.