The twenty-first century will witness record growth in the number and distribution of private residential communities. Collectively referred to as common interest communities (CICs) or common interest developments (CIDs), these communities rely on covenants, conditions and restrictions to privately govern and control land use, design decisions, services and social conduct. The communities own, operate and manage the residential property within their boundaries, including open space, parking, recreational facilities and streets. Although CICs historically have been the domain of the affluent, they are now becoming a viable choice for both suburban and urban residential development. Taking the form of condominiums, cooperatives, and single- and multifamily homes, both gated and nongated private communities are spreading among diverse economic and social classes.

A Worldwide Phenomenon

The proliferation of private communities in the United States is causing an unprecedented transition from traditional individual ownership to collective governance of property, signaling a remarkable shift in the American political and economic landscape. This trend establishes a new micro-scale level of governance beneath existing municipal structures, and highlights other tensions between the public and private sectors.

Indeed, the numbers provide a clear indication of this movement’s strength. At the end of the twentieth century, about 47 million Americans lived in condominiums, cooperatives and homeowner associations (HOAs). Growing from only 500 in the 1960s to an estimated 231,000 in 1999, HOAs now comprise almost 15 percent of the national housing stock, with an estimated addition of 8,000 to 10,000 private developments each year. In the 50 largest metropolitan areas, more than half of all new housing is now built under the governance of neighborhood associations. In California—particularly in the Los Angeles and San Diego metropolitan areas—this figure exceeds 60 percent (Treese 1999).

Recent press coverage and research from Europe, Africa, South America and Asia suggest that CICs are rapidly being popularized in other parts of the world as well. Although gated communities are still rare in Britain, former prime minister Margaret Thatcher reportedly moved into such a community in South London. In South Africa, where secure communities were an unavoidable consequence of racism, post-apartheid gated developments are inhabited by all races, and not only by the wealthy. In Saudi Arabia private compounds of linked houses provide extended families with privacy and identity. Those compounds seem to be a reaction to the single residential typology imported from abroad during the country’s modernization period.

Since the economic reforms of the early 1980s, many residential areas in Chinese cities have walls to improve security and define social status. Often these developments are designed by U.S. companies and based on U.S. planning and design standards. Private communities in Southeast Asia, such as in Indonesia, are marketed as places that allow the differentiation of lifestyle and give prestige and security to their inhabitants. In Latin America sprawling gated communities at the metropolitan edges of Santiago, Chile, Bogotá, Colombia, and other cities have become the norm for a growing professional class in need of a secure lifestyle in an environment dominated by social and economic poverty. The deteriorating political and economic state of affairs in Buenos Aires, Argentina, has resulted in situations where developers and private companies provide privatized “public” services that attract large sectors of the population to private developments housing up to half a million people (Environment and Planning B 2002).

Dual Governance, Rules and Outcomes

The spread of CICs in the U.S. is driven by the mutual interests of developers and local governments, including planning officials. Developers benefit because they can maintain profits—despite the high costs of land and infrastructure—by introducing efficient land design schemes and, often, higher densities. Local governments prefer CICs because they privatize infrastructure and reduce public costs. At the same time, consumers see a way to protect their property values through the ability to control their neighborhood character by using compliance and enforcement mechanisms. CICs also provide consumers greater infrastructure options, recreational amenities and community services.

The growing fiscal crisis experienced by many local governments means they are often unable to respond to such traditional community demands as building and maintaining streets, collecting garbage, snowplowing and other services. The establishment of a separate legal mechanism within a private neighborhood association allows collective control over a neighborhood’s common environment and the private provision of common services. Perhaps more important, this trend creates a de facto deregulation of municipal subdivision standards and zoning, because cities and towns allow for a different, more flexible set of standards to be implemented in private developments. Often, the results are innovative spatial and architectural layouts and, sometimes, unusually sensitive environmental design. This shift in neighborhood governance enables a resultant shift in the design of residential developments that heretofore has not been fully appreciated.

A recent nationwide survey of public officials and developers gauges the impacts of subdivision regulations on the design of residential developments and the practices of developers in rapidly growing regions of the country (Ben-Joseph 2003). It assesses attitudes and perceptions and identifies the issues regarding subdivision regulations that members of the housing industry and the regulatory agencies feel are affecting housing development.

Excessive Regulations

As early as 1916 Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr., commented on subdivision standards and regulations.

While such regulations are intended only to guard against the evil results of ignorance and greed on the part of landowners and builders, they also limit and control the operations of those who are neither ignorant nor greedy; and it is clear that the purpose in framing and enforcing them should be to leave open the maximum scope for individual enterprise, initiative and ingenuity that is compatible with adequate protection of the public interests. Such regulations are, and always should be, in a state of flux and adjustment—on the one hand with a view to preventing newly discovered abuses, and on the other hand with a view to opening a wider opportunity of individual discretion at points where the law is found to be unwisely restrictive. (Olmsted 1916, 3)

Indeed, developers in the 2003 survey clearly expressed their frustration with the excessive and often unwarranted nature of physical improvements and standards associated with subdivision development. When asked to indicate which types of requirements present the greatest expense in conforming to regulations, an overwhelming majority (80 percent) pointed to requirements associated with site design. When asked to indicate which specific requirements they perceived as excessive, 52 percent of the respondents indicated those relating to street design and construction, with almost 45 percent indicating land dedication and 43 percent storm sewer systems (underground piping for storm water mitigation). When asked about which physical standards within each category were seen as excessive, those most frequently cited were street widths (75 percent of the respondents), street rights-of-way (73 percent) and requirements of land for open space (73 percent). Most developers also mentioned water and sewer hook-up fees (85–90 percent) and payments in lieu of land dedication (79 percent) as being excessive monetary requirements associated with physical improvements (see Table 1).

While one might expect that developers would criticize regulations as interfering in their business, it is important to note that most respondents were selective in their answers to the survey. Out of 29 requirements listed in Table 1, only 13 were considered excessive by the majority of developers, while 16 others were deemed reasonable. Such results indicate that many developers are tuned in to construction and design performance, and their attitude toward regulation cannot always be assumed to be negative.

Furthermore, the surveyed public officials (town planners and town engineers) often concurred with the developers’ observations. Generally these officials agreed that the regulatory process, such as the enforcement of subdivision regulations, has become more demanding and complex. Over the past five years, for example, 70 percent of the jurisdictions where these public officials work have introduced new requirements, and 57 percent have increased specifications, such as those for setbacks and lot sizes. Only 16 percent of these jurisdictions have decreased their specifications, mostly by reducing street widths.

Relief from Subdivision Regulations

Two-thirds of residential developers consider government regulations, particularly those pertaining to the design and control of subdivisions, the main culprit in prohibiting design innovation and increasing the cost of housing. More specifically, they see these regulations as an impediment to increasing densities, changing housing types, and reconfiguring streets and lots.

One way developers try to relax these regulations is through requests for relief in the form or zoning or design variances. More than half of the surveyed developers (52 percent) had to apply for some sort of relief in at least half of their projects, while 37 percent had to apply in at least three-fourths of their projects. When asked to point to the type of changes they requested, many indicated higher-density single-family projects, more multifamily units, and more varied site and structural plans. The majority of the developers in the survey responded that they sought to increase the density of housing units on their sites, but 72 percent noted that because of existing regulations they had to design lower-density developments than they wanted. Some developers reported that regulations forced them to build in greenfield locations away from major urban areas, where restrictions and abutters’ objections were less onerous.

Although almost all of the public officials (83 percent) reported that their jurisdictions require private developments to follow established subdivision regulations, the enforcement of these standards through the approval process is malleable. In some cases, when such a development is classified as a condominium, which may include attached and/or detached dwelling units, no formal review of street standards is required. In fact, the majority of public officials surveyed (61 percent) indicated that their jurisdictions allow for narrower streets to be constructed within private developments. One respondent stated, “Variances are more easily granted within private road systems since the county will not have any maintenance responsibility or liability.”

The practice of building narrower roadways and offering smaller building setbacks within private subdivisions has become widely accepted over the last decade. A street standards survey completed in 1995 showed that 84 percent of the cities responding allowed for different street standards in such developments, and that they more readily accepted the introduction of different paving materials, changes in street configurations, and the employment of traffic calming devices (Ben-Joseph 1995).

Design Benefits

Both public officials and developers acknowledge the design benefits associated with private subdivisions (see Table 2). Fifty-seven percent of officials indicated that private developments are introducing innovative design in the form of building arrangements and unit clustering. Forty-one percent felt that such developments permit the introduction of housing types not found elsewhere in their communities, and 61 percent indicated that they allow for narrower street standards to be incorporated.

While public officials see the benefits of pushing the design envelope within the confines of the development itself, many are also concerned about the social implications and impacts of these private developments on their surrounding communities. “As a matter of policy,” a survey respondent wrote, “gated private communities are discouraged as they are not in keeping with the urban form, which calls for an interconnecting network of vehicular and pedestrian movement. In addition, the walling of neighborhoods from arterial roadways should be avoided by alternatives such as the placement of other compatible uses along the periphery.”

Both developers and public officials believe that common subdivision regulations restrict alternative solutions, and they see privatizing subdivisions as a vehicle for simplifying the approval process and introducing design innovation. As one of the developers remarked, “Regular subdivision codes don’t allow flexibility. Lots are too standardized and streets use too much area. If I could build narrow streets and small lots, developments controlled by covenants and HOAs will not be necessary.” The ability to provide design choices and efficient layouts and to avoid a lengthy approval process drives both public and private sectors to offer CICs rather than typical subdivisions. Indeed, it seems that in the last decade most innovation in subdivision design has sprung from within the private domain and under the governance of community associations rather than within the public realm through traditional means.

Toward Better Subdivisions

The proliferation of CICs, with their ability to plan, design and govern outside of public boundaries, can be seen as an indicator of a failed public system. When developers and public officials resort to privatization to achieve a more responsive design outcome, and when local jurisdictions acknowledge that privatized communities provide a straightforward way to grant variations and innovation, then something is wrong with the existing parameters of subdivision codes and regulations.

For the last 25 years the subdivision approval process has increased in complexity, in the number of agencies involved, in the number of delays, and in the regular addition of new requirements (Seidel 1978). Both developers and public officials acknowledge that the application for variances and changes in subdivision regulations are lengthy and cumbersome. Therefore, it is not surprising that developers see private projects governed by HOAs as not only responding to market demands and trends, but also introducing planning and design concepts that are often not allowed or are difficult to get authorized under the typical approval process.

CICs are enabling developers to maintain profits and keep the design process relatively open-ended and flexible. The ability to operate outside the regular, common set of subdivision regulations allows developers to offer various design solutions that fit the local setting, the targeted site and the prospective consumers. In some cases these can be attractive, high-density yet affordable single-family developments, and in others low-density, high-end yet ecologically sensitive construction (McKenzie 2003).

The concept of private communities as environmentally sensitive developments may seem a contradiction in terms. However, some of these developments provide examples of responsible construction that minimizes environmental impact while maximizing economic value. In Dewees Island, South Carolina, there are few impervious road surfaces, allowing full restoration of the underground aquifer. Only vegetation indigenous to the local coastal plains is allowed. This xeriscaping approach removes the need for irrigation, fertilizers and pesticides. In addition, homes are required to use water conservation fixtures, reducing water consumption by 60 percent.

Paradoxically, while CICs are often controlled and managed by strict covenants and regulations, their initial design is very much outside the mainstream regulatory apparatus. It is precisely for this reason that they prove to be more flexible in their design solutions and more agreeable to developers, consumers and local governments.

How can such flexibility be integrated in the regular planning process? Can subdivision regulations be made more accommodating and less prescriptive? Will such an approach level the playing field and allow for more housing choices and greater design variety in the public domain? Will such changes promote developers to plan subdivisions endowed with CICs’ design qualities without their restrictive covenants and privatized shared spaces? And conversely, can CICs, while exhibiting great variation in architecture and site design features, be made less controlling in their management policies?

There are many issues raised by the spread of CICs, but none is more important than the realization that public policy and subdivision regulations must allow and promote more variety in housing styles and development options. Consumers should not be forced into CICs because they are the only type of development that offers a lively choice of features. CICs should be seen as a catalyst to change subdivision standards and regulations and as a vehicle to create a bridge between public officials and developers. Through the use of CICs developers are not only able to circumvent existing regulations, lower development costs and in some cases produce quite innovative community design solution, but also enable jurisdictions to secure new taxpayers with less public expenditure.

Not all CICs are created equal, and many are far from perfect. But, in terms of design efficiency, utilization of space, and integration of social and environmental amenities, private communities illustrate the shortcomings of many standards applied to typical subdivisions.

References

Ben-Joseph, Eran. 1995. Residential street standards and neighborhood traffic control: A survey of cities’ practices and public officials’ attitudes. Berkeley: Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California at Berkeley.

———. 2003. Subdivision regulations—Practices and attitudes: A survey of public officials and developers in the nation’s fastest growing single-family housing markets. Working paper. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design. 2002. Theme issue: The global spread of gated communities 29(3).

McKenzie, Evan. 2003. Common-interest housing in the communities of tomorrow. Housing Policy Debate 14(1/2):203–234.

Olmsted, Frederick L., Jr. 1916. Basic principles of city planning. In City planning: A series of papers presenting the essential elements of a city plan, John Nolen, ed., 1–18. New York: D. Appleton and Company.

Seidel, S. 1978. Housing costs and government regulations: Confronting the regulatory maze. New Brunswick: Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.

Treese, Clifford. 1999. Community associations factbook. Alexandria, VA: Community Associations Institute.

Eran Ben-Joseph is associate professor of landscape architecture and planning in the Department of Urban Studies and Planning at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA. This article is based in part on his survey and research that were supported by the Lincoln Institute.

Post-apartheid South Africa is an experiment the like of which the world has never seen before,says Myesha Jenkins, performance poet from Los Angeles who emigrated in 1993, the year before Nelson Mandella became president. “We want this experiment to work.” Taxi-driver Vincent from the northern province of Limpopo, speaking of the elections that will take place later in 2007, says, “We must do it right. The eyes of the world are on us.”

In June 2005 the U.S. Supreme Court issued a much anticipated decision in the case of Kelo v. City of New London, Connecticut (545 U.S. 469 [2005]). The close decision (5–4) galvanized the planning, development, redevelopment, and property rights communities, and continues to have national and international repercussions. What was at issue?

New London, Connecticut is an old, industrial, port city on America’s east coast. Its economic height in the 1920s was based on shipbuilding. Since that time the city has experienced substantial economic and population decline. As the property tax base dwindled, the city’s ability to provide basic public services also deteriorated. In the 1990s, New London developed a plan for economic revitalization, focused on a neighborhood with 115 separate properties. The plan required consolidation of these properties into a single parcel. The city further proposed to transfer ownership of some sections of the newly configured parcel to a multinational pharmaceutical company for a research and production facility.

The city approached landowners about their interest in the voluntary sale of their land, and 100 landowners agreed to sell. The city then proposed the use of eminent domain on the outstanding 15 properties (an action where the city would pay fair market value for each property). In so doing, the city did not assert that these properties were “blighted”—the legal and planning standard under which such eminent domain actions have existed since the 1954 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Berman v. Parker 348 U.S. 26 (1954).

Rather, under the authority of state enabling legislation and based on a comprehensive plan, both of which the court later acknowledged, the city asserted only that the outstanding parcels were required as part of the plan to accomplish a greater public good—increased jobs for the community, increased pubic revenues (taxes), and increased economic competitiveness.

The Kelo Case

Fighting to save her “little pink house,” Susette Kelo became the spokesperson for the opposition to New London’s proposed action on the remaining 15 parcels. Kelo and her co-litigants argued that the type of eminent domain proposed by the city was a misreading of the original intent of the U.S. Constitution’s takings clause (“nor shall private property by taken for public use, without just compensation”).

According to Kelo’s lawyers, the original constitutional clause was intended to allow for governmental actions that create public facilities (e.g., roads, parks, airports, hospitals), but not for government to take private land from one owner to give to another owner. They asserted that if the court found in favor of New London (and against Susette Kelo, which the court did) there would be no effective limit to any proposed physical taking of privately owned land by government. That is, government could always assert that a proposed new use of land was in the greater public interest.

The reasoning and final decision in Kelo was unsurprising. On a base of strong legal and historical analysis, the majority of the court showed why the action by the City of New London was acceptable. In so doing, it affirmed 50 years of similar actions by local and state governments throughout the country—actions which, while often clothed in a justification of blight, regularly had no more (or less) justification to them than that provided by New London.

The court itself provided the basis for much of the public policy controversy that followed when it stated that the decision was only about whether New London’s action was acceptable under the U.S. Constitution: Did it violate the terms of the takings clause in the Fifth Amendment? But, the court noted, “We emphasize that nothing in our opinion precludes any State from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power” (545 U.S. 469 [2005] at 489). That is, while New London’s and similar local and state governmental actions were legal under the federal constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court invited state legislatures to decide whether such actions should be legal under state constitutions.

The negative reaction to the court’s decision was swift and strong. Within a week a proposal was floated that then-U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter’s home in Weare, New Hampshire should be condemned so it might be replaced by the Lost Liberty Hotel. Using the threat of unconstrained governmental action against ordinary homeowners, a national movement emerged to thwart the impact of Kelo.

Following the invitation of the court, 43 states adopted laws that appear to challenge Kelo (see figure 1). The explicit intent of most of these laws is to prohibit governmental eminent domain actions both for the sole purpose of economic development and in cases where privately owned land is taken from one owner to be transferred to another owner.

Analysis of State-based Kelo Laws

Beginning in 2007, we began a two-year research project on the impact of these state-based laws. Planners, public sector lawyers, and redevelopment officials were already expressing strong concern about the constraints these new state laws could have on normal planning practice. Our question was, Would these laws impact planning, and if so, how? To investigate these laws, we adopted a multilevel approach that:

• inventoried and cataloged Kelo laws that had been adopted since 2005;
• undertook exploratory interviews with key stakeholders in the post-Kelo debate (ranging from representatives of the American Planning Association and the National Conference of State Legislatures to the Castle Coalition, the organization actively promoting the state-based laws);
• conducted a Web-based survey about the impacts of the laws with groups including planners, municipal attorneys, and developers; and
• tracked the emerging literature, mostly from opponents of the Kelo decision (that is, those who supported the new state-based laws) about their perceptions of the impacts these laws were having.

State and local governments are now grappling with circumstances quite different from those of a decade ago, especially since the economic recession in 2008 and 2009. Declines in development activity, property values, and property tax revenues appear to be leading a public discussion less focused on rapacious government activity and more concerned about how to encourage development. This change in the economic climate has had a substantial impact on the reach of the adopted state-based Kelo laws.

Stakeholder interviews provided some interesting insights as to agreements and conflicts among those focused on these new laws. Both proponents and opponents are willing to acknowledge that there have been instances of abuse by local governments in the exercise of eminent domain; they differ in whether they see this as an occasional or a regular occurrence.

Both groups comment on how the public discussion about the appropriate response to state-based laws has brought together seemingly unusual and unexpected allies. For example, libertarians and property rights activists who are opposed to expropriation on philosophical grounds are finding themselves allied with community activists who see an historical pattern of eminent domain abuse against communities of color and the poor.

Proponents and opponents also note that much of the change to date is in the legal framework for takings actions, and they agree it is less clear what the impact has been on actual planning and governmental practice. Even opponents of these laws (many planners, for example) see some good coming from them. They argue that eminent domain is becoming more tied into the planning process, more open, and more participatory.

Our survey results reinforced some of these points and added others (Jacobs and Bassett 2010). Respondents reported mixed reactions to the assertion that state-based Kelo laws were negatively impacting urban revitalization efforts, economic development planning, or programs for affordable housing (see table 1). Despite these results, respondents did note a negative effect on the willingness of local governments to use eminent domain, though there appeared to be no impact on blight designations by these governments.

With regard to changes in the planning process toward becoming more open and transparent, the majority reported no changes to date, and nearly half of the respondents saw no impact on the extent of conflict within the process (see table 2). When respondents were asked to share exactly how their localities were grappling with new requirements regarding eminent domain, most identified what we characterize as soft or tacit approaches—building networks, enhancing communication, and linking eminent domain into citizen participation processes.

Despite these relatively mild responses to the passage of state-based laws, 76 percent of respondents suggested that the property rights movement (the proponents of these laws) remains strong or very strong in their areas, versus 19 percent neutral and 4 percent reporting a weak or very weak movement. Yet the respondents also suggested that it was their perception that neither the average citizen nor the majority of elected officials were focused on the issues raised by the property rights movement.

The recent writings of supporters and proponents of the state-based Kelo laws add further understanding of what is (and is not) happening with these laws (see Ely 2009; Morriss 2009; Somin 2009). There appears to be a broad consensus that there has been little substantive impact from the state-based laws. Overall, the laws are characterized as more symbolic than substantive in nature and content. In the words of Ely (2009, 4), they are “merely hortatory fluff.” Why this is true, however, is a subject of some disagreement. Some analysts suggest it is because of the way key interest groups shaped the legislation. Others argue that while citizens appear to be concerned about the Kelo decision, they are less motivated to focus on the particular solution crafted by state legislatures.

There appears to be little expectation of substantive follow-up action by Congress or the U.S. Supreme Court, so whatever occurs will continue to be a function of actions by state legislatures and state courts. Nevertheless, the public is more aware of the eminent domain issue after Kelo, and that may affect future citizen and landowner actions. Where there is a distinction between substantive and symbolic legislation, the more substantive laws appear to be a function of both strong economic growth conditions in states and the promotion of laws through the initiative process versus the legislative process.

Impacts and Implications

Immediately after the Kelo decision, commentaries and reports by property rights advocates warned of impending danger for the American homeowner and the fundamental threat to American democracy. However, little has changed in the decade since a Lincoln Institute report examined the first generation of property rights laws (Jacobs 1999). That study concluded that state-based laws were having little impact on actual policy and planning practice. It appears that the same is largely true now.

That there should be social conflict over the public’s efforts to manage privately owned land is, in and of itself, not surprising (Jacobs and Paulsen 2009). That the physical taking of land would be the source of this conflict is even less surprising. What is surprising is that, beyond the spirited focus of a set of dedicated activists, it is not clear that the American public or their elected representatives really see the issues raised by the state-based laws as requiring substantial attention, and especially not now. The impacts of the state-based Kelo laws can be viewed in three ways.

Changes in Eminent Domain Activity

Both supporters of state-based Kelo laws and independent researchers find little change in what local and state governments are actually doing, or anticipate doing, as a result of the laws. There are several possible explanations. One is that few Kelo-style takings actually occur (Kayden 2009). The New London, Connecticut action was intended for economic development and was not based on a declaration of blight.

Physical takings can be initiated for a wide range of activities, but for at least 50 years (since Berman v. Parker) eminent domain for inner-city redevelopment has usually been accompanied by a declaration of blight. Almost none of the recent state-based laws prohibit physical takings when blight is declared. A second explanation is that even in situations where some physical taking is required, many of the transactions are (or at least appear to be) voluntary. Even in the New London situation, 100 of 115 landowners sold their land voluntarily and did not require an eminent domain action by the city. It is possible that the state-based laws are a solution to a problem that does not really exist.

Changes in Planning Practice

The state-based laws have not been all bad for planning practice. In fact, they have helped sensitize a broad range of interests to a core set of planning issues. In so doing the laws have made the planning and decision-making process a more central focus of public discussion and debate. Where there are indications of change to planning practice, they appear to be welcomed by planners. State-based laws are leading to requirements that when eminent domain is exercised it needs to be tied more explicitly to a broader planning and development process, as was the case in New London.

This means that eminent domain will be more transparent, and planners (and the elected officials to whom they report) will become more accountable. All in all, these new laws suggest that planners need to further improve the communication techniques and processes they use for planning in general, and eminent domain proceedings in particular. Few planners find objection to this, and many embrace it.

Changes in Public Discourse

As argued by even the supporters and proponents of state-based legislation, the most significant impact of these laws seems to be in the area of public awareness. The wide-ranging media coverage of the Kelo decision, the apparent bottom-up backlash against the decision, and survey data about the common understanding and appropriateness of the decision all suggest significantly heightened attention to eminent domain, and to the role of governmental activity in physical takings. It is precisely this situation that provides the conditions for changes in planning practice.

Conclusions

This research was conceptualized and begun at a time when public discussion about land use, taxation, and takings was set within a very different frame than it is today. Now, local, state, and national discussion is focused on the aftermath of the subprime mortgage collapse, the recession, and their systemic impacts on the domestic economy. Communities and states nationwide are having uncomfortable discussions about the provision of local and state services as the property tax and income tax bases that support those services soften and frequently decline, sometimes significantly and precipitously.

The national media seems to have a constant stream of articles detailing this problem. What is particularly significant for our research is the interrelationship of these events. In years past when local governments found themselves in a fiscal crisis, they could and would turn to their states for assistance. And in turn, when states found themselves in a parallel fiscal crisis, they could and would turn to the national government. Today neither the states nor the national government are able to provide assistance as their own fiscal positions stagnate, if not decline.

It is in this context that it is necessary to understand the present and then project the likely future of eminent domain actions by state and local governments and planning authorities. Research by supporters and proponents suggests that substantive, state-based legislation could be explained in part by the level of economic activity in the different states. States with strong economies, especially in the homebuilding sector, were more likely to pass substantive legislation.

What happens when there is not a strong state or local economy or when they are in a downward spiral? For the foreseeable future, we believe it is likely that planning in general and eminent domain in particular will be reexamined, and perhaps even witness a resurgence in support. Communities severely affected by the credit, housing, and mortgage-finance crises are being forced to reexamine eminent domain and related powers as ways to address abandoned housing and facilitate economic and social redevelopment. It is not at all clear what, if any, resistance they will experience from a citizenry wanting and needing solutions to real and seemingly ever more complex problems.

Even though survey respondents spoke to the continued strength and presence of the property rights movement, the results also indicated that it was not clear that the core issues of importance to the property rights movement were important to citizens in general, or even to elected officials. Does this mean that the property rights activists will abandon their activism? No. Just as they have sought to continuously advance their agenda and learn from their policy experiments for more than a decade, they will again learn from their successes and failures with state-based Kelo legislation. These laws represent the latest, not the final, wave of policy activism on property rights issues in the United States.

The planning community should not ignore the property rights advocates who have succeeded in changing the way the American public thinks about the core issue in physical and regulatory takings—the appropriate balance of the government vis-a-vis the individual with regard to property rights. But at the same time, it is not clear that the institutional changes these advocates have brought forth through state-based Kelo laws have changed public administrative practice, or that the laws fundamentally matter to the public and its representatives.

Was Kelo decided properly? That is a different question than our research focus. Are the state-based Kelo laws warranted as a response to the Kelo decision? That is a question that individuals and interest groups need to answer for themselves. Is there anything about the state-based Kelo laws that most planners should worry about? No there is not, but this does not mean that these laws or their supporters should be ignored. It does mean that planners and their allies and what they do in the public interest are on much stronger ground than the passage of these laws would seem to indicate.

References

Castle Coalition. 2007. 50-state report card: Tracking eminent domain reform legislation since Kelo. Arlington, VA.

Ely, James W., Jr. 2009. Post-Kelo reform: Is the glass half full or half empty? Supreme Court Economic Review 17: 127–150.

Jacobs, Harvey M. 1999. State property rights laws: The impacts of those laws on my land. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Jacobs, Harvey M., and Kurt Paulsen. 2009. Property rights: The neglected theme of 20th century American planning. Journal of the American Planning Association 75(2): 135–143.

Jacobs, Harvey M. and Ellen M. Bassett. 2010. All sound, no fury? Assessing the impacts of state-based Kelo laws on planning practice. Working Paper. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Kayden, Jerold R. 2009. The myth and reality of eminent domain for economic development. In Property rights and land policies, Gregory K. Ingram and Yu-Hung Hong, eds., 206–213. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Morriss, Andrew P. 2009. Symbol or substance? An empirical assessment of state responses to Kelo. Supreme Court Economic Review 17: 237–278.

Somin, Ilya. 2009. The limits of backlash: Assessing the political response to Kelo. Minnesota Law Review 93(6): 2100–2178.

About the Authors

Harvey M. Jacobs is a professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, where he holds a joint appointment in the Department of Urban and Regional Planning and the Gaylord Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies.

Ellen M. Bassett is an assistant professor in the School of Urban Studies and Planning at Portland State University in Oregon.

Las comunidades locales sustentables necesitarán mecanismos para visualizar y planificar el futuro y para que los residentes participen en el proceso. La planificación de escenarios es una manera crecientemente efectiva de respaldar estos esfuerzos, y Suelos y Comunidades del Oeste (Western Lands and Communities, o WLC), la sociedad conjunta del Lincoln Institute of Land Policy y el Sonoran Institute, está trabajando para desarrollar las herramientas necesarias.

Planificación de escenarios para afrontar la incertidumbre

Las decisiones y los esfuerzos de planificación sobre el uso del suelo son elementos de fundamental importancia para visualizar el futuro en 20 a 50 años y poder guiar opciones políticas e inversiones públicas que sean sustentables a nivel económico, social y medioambiental. A medida que la incertidumbre aumenta y los recursos disponibles disminuyen, es cada vez más importante considerar la gama completa de condiciones emergentes y preservar nuestra capacidad para responder a esos cambios, adoptar políticas y realizar inversiones que se puedan adaptar a una variedad de futuros potenciales.

Las áreas clave de incertidumbre incluyen los cambios demográficos y de población, las tendencias económicas, la variabilidad y el cambio climático, los costos y disponibilidad de recursos, los mercados de suelos, las preferencias de vivienda, la construcción de viviendas asequibles y la salud fiscal de los gobiernos locales. Junto con la creciente incertidumbre y la reducción de recursos, o quizás debido a ello, las autoridades deben enfrentarse con perspectivas conflictivas sobre el futuro deseado y sobre el papel del gobierno en el suministro de servicios e infraestructura, así como en la regulación y planeamiento.

Esta polarización creciente significa que es necesario contar con más participación cívica y una sociedad más informada para respaldar políticas estables e inversiones adecuadas en el futuro de la comunidad. La planificación de escenarios ofrece un mecanismo para afrontar estas necesidades así como los problemas de incertidumbre y conflicto potenciales. Afortunadamente, a medida que el alcance y la complejidad de la planificación y la demanda de una mayor participación han aumentado, los avances en la capacidad de potencia informática y el acceso público a la tecnología permiten desarrollar herramientas nuevas y más poderosas.

El Instituto Lincoln tiene un largo historial de respaldo al desarrollo de herramientas de planificación y la publicación de sus resultados (Hopkins y Zapata 2007; Campoli y MacLean 2007; Brail 2008; Kwartler y Longo 2008; Condon, Cavens, y Miller 2009). Este artículo describe las lecciones aprendidas con el uso de herramientas de planificación de escenarios en varios proyectos realizados por WLC, así como los mecanismos para ampliar su uso.

Superstition Vistas

Superstition Vistas es un territorio vacante de 275 millas cuadradas (700 Km2) propiedad de un fideicomiso de suelos estatal en el borde urbanizado del área metropolitana de Phoenix (figura 1). Los suelos de fideicomisos estatales, como este sitio en Arizona, son la clave de los patrones de crecimiento futuro, porque el estado es dueño del 60 por ciento del suelo disponible para desarrollo inmobiliario. Colorado y Nuevo México, en un grado un tanto menor, cuentan con oportunidades similares con sus suelos de fideicomisos estatales (Culp, Laurenzi y Tuell 2006). El pensamiento creativo sobre el futuro de Superstition Vistas comenzó a tomar impulso en 2003, y el Instituto Lincoln, por medio de su sociedad conjunta WLC, estuvo entre los primeros en proponer estos esfuerzos (Propst, 2008).

Los objetivos iniciales del WLC para la planificación de escenarios en Superstition Vistas incluyeron el desarrollo de capacidades, el desarrollo de herramientas y la identificación de oportunidades para catalizar el proceso de planificación. Específicamente, propusimos:

• analizar el suelo de manera audaz, holística y comprensiva;
• aumentar la capacidad del Departamento de Suelos del Estado de Arizona para elaborar planes en gran escala y dar el ejemplo a otras dependencias estatales de suelos que tienen que enfrentar las oportunidades de crecimiento urbano;
• diseñar un modelo de desarrollo sustentable;
• impulsar el desarrollo de herramientas de planificación de escenarios e ilustrar su uso;

WLC, junto con otras alianzas regionales, jurisdicciones vecinas, la empresa regional de electricidad y agua, dos proveedores hospitalarios privados y una compañía minera local, formaron el Comité Directivo de Superstition V istas para impulsar los esfuerzos de planificación, obtener financiamiento y contratar a un equipo de consultores. Los consultores, que trabajaron con el comité por un período de tres años, realizaron múltiples actividades de consulta pública e investigación en valores, recopilaron datos sobre Superstition V istas, desarrollaron y refinaron una serie de escenarios alternativos del uso del suelo para construir una comunidad de 1 millón de residentes, evaluaron el impacto de los distintos escenarios y produjeron un escenario compuesto para el sitio.

El Departamento de Suelos Estatales de Arizona (el propietario) adaptó el trabajo de los consultores para preparar un borrador conceptual del plan para Superstition Vistas en mayo de 2011 y presentó una propuesta de enmienda al plan comprensivo ante el condado de Pinal. El condado está considerando ahora la enmienda propuesta y se espera que su Junta de Supervisores tome una decisión a fines de 2011.

Lecciones de sustentabilidad

El análisis de escenarios, utilizando las mejoras promovidos por WLC, identificó los factores más importantes que iban a incidir en los patrones de desarrollo y los conflictos potenciales en los resultados deseados (figura 2). La inclusión de costos individuales de edificación e infraestructura para los escenarios alternativos facilitó el examen de sensibilidad, al variar estos factores claves y la efectividad de costo de cuatro niveles crecientes de eficiencia energética e hídrica en cada tipo de edificio.

Los escenarios también examinaron el impacto de la forma urbana sobre las millas de vehículos viajadas (vehicle miles traveled, o VMT). El modelo de escenarios produce indicadores de uso del suelo, uso de energía y agua, VM T, emisiones de carbono y costos de construcción. Este análisis reveló las oportunidades a corto plazo de mejoras en la sustentabilidad. El equipo de consultores, en colaboración con el Comité Directivo, identificó una serie de lecciones que ilustran el valor de las herramientas de planificación de escenarios, y que se pueden aplicar a otros proyectos para diseñar áreas urbanas más sustentables y eficientes (Equipo de Consultores de Superstition Vistas, 2011).

1. Crear centros de uso mixto para reducir el tiempo de viaje, el uso de energía y la huella de carbono.

Una de las maneras más efectivas de reducir los tiempos de viaje, el uso de energía y la huella de carbono resultante son los centros de usos mixtos a lo largo de las rutas de transporte público y cerca de las residencias y los barrios. Las casas más pequeñas, las formas más compactas de desarrollo urbano y los sistemas de transporte multimodal generan beneficios similares (figura 3). No obstante, el modelo de escenarios para Superstition V istas demostró que los centros de uso mixto serían sustancialmente más importantes que un aumento de densidad para mejorar las opciones de transporte, el uso de energía y la huella de carbono.

2. Promover desde el principio las inversiones y puestos de empleo de alta calidad para catalizar el éxito económico.

Una economía local robusta y un equilibrio diverso de puestos de empleo, vivienda y tiendas cercanas son críticos para crear una comunidad sustentable, sobre todo cuando se ofrecen empleos de alta calidad al comienzo del desarrollo inmobiliario. Una inversión pública inicial significativa y la formación de alianzas público privadaspueden suplir la infraestructura crítica y tener un enorme impacto sobre la forma del desarrollo y sobre el valor de los suelos del fideicomiso estatal. El fideicomiso de suelos estatal también podría brindar una oportunidad única para inversions de capital a largo plazo, ya que las autoridades que administran el fideicomiso de suelos podrían proporcionar acceso a los recursos para las inversions iniciales de capital y permitir que se recuperen dichas inversiones cuando más adelante el suelo se venda o arriende a un valor superior.

3. Proporcionar infraestructura de transporte multimodal y conexiones regionales para facilitar un crecimiento eficiente.

Otro paso crítico es establecer cómo introducir gradualmente las mejoras de transporte a medida que la región vaya creciendo y el mercado pueda sostener un aumento en los servicios. Los componentes de introducción gradual pueden comenzar por autobuses y pasar después a un sistema de tránsito rápido de autobuses (Bus Rapid Transit, o BRT), concediendo derechos de paso para corredores eventuales de trenes suburbanos o trenes livianos. Para establecer la cohesión de toda la zona y permitir la evolución hacia infraestructuras de transporte de mayor envergadura financiera a medida que va madurando la comunidad, es necesario identificar y construir corredores de transporte multimodal e infraestructura antes de iniciar las ventas para emprendimientos residenciales y comerciales.

4. Diseñar edificios eficientes que ahorren agua y recursos energéticos y reduzcan la huella de carbono de la comunidad.

La incorporación de costos de construcción y datos de rentabilidad de la inversión en la planificación de recursos permite hacer cálculos de factibilidad financiera y costo-beneficio. El equipo de consultores construyó un modelo de cuatro niveles de uso de agua y energía (modelo de base, bueno, mejor y óptimo) para cada escenario y tipo de edificación. Los resultados demostraron que las inversiones en eficiencia energética darían más resultados en edificios residenciales que en aquellos comerciales e industriales. Otra conclusión es que la generación de energía renovable centralizada en los edificios podría ser una mejor inversión que las medidas extremas de conservación de energía.

5. Ofrecer opciones de vivienda que cumplan con las necesidades de una población diversa.

La construcción de una comunidad viable significa suplir las necesidades de todos los residentes potenciales con una amplia variedad de tipos de emprendimientos y precios al alcance de los trabajadores locales, permitiendo ajustes para condiciones futuras del mercado.

6. Incorporar flexibilidad para responder a los cambios de circunstancias.

Uno de los desafíos para los planes maestros en gran escala que se irán poniendo en práctica en múltiples fases a lo largo de 50 años o más es cómo elaborarlos para que el desarrollo propiamente dicho pueda evolucionar y revitalizarse con el tiempo. Los planes de implementación tienen que incluir mecanismos que limiten futuros problemas de resistencia a que se construya en parcelas vacías y se reurbanice cerca de donde uno vive (“no en mi patio trasero”).

Lecciones de procedimiento

El proceso de previsualización para Superstition Vistas consistió en planificar una ciudad o región de comunidades completamente nuevas en un área vacante propiedad de un solo dueño público y sin población existente. Dada la reciente recesión económica, así como la capacidad limitada de la agencia estatal para ofrecer suelos al mercado, es probable que el desarrollo de esta zona se postergue por varios años. A pesar de estas condiciones particulares, las lecciones de procedimientos aprendidas en este proyecto hasta ahora son relevantes para otros esfuerzos a largo plazo y de gran escala, y para la expansión de la planificación de escenarios para la toma de decisiones comunitarias en general.

El acuerdo sobre los procedimientos y procesos de planificación se ha convertido en un elemento cada vez más importante a medida que se prolonga el período de planificación y desarrollo, y la cantidad de partes interesadas aumenta. Es probable que en cualquier proyecto a largo plazo con múltiples partes involucradas se produzcan cambios significativos en los participantes, las perspectivas y los factores externos, como el reciente colapso de la economía inmobiliaria. Estos desafíos se tienen que tener en cuenta e incorporarse en las tareas del proyecto.

1. Diseñar para el cambio.

Los proyectos a largo plazo tienen que poder adaptarse a los cambios en las partes interesadas, dirigentes e incluso a las perspectivas políticas en el curso de la planificación e implementación. Los proyectos se beneficiarían enormemente si anticiparan estos cambios, acordaran mecanismos para transferir conocimiento a los nuevos participantes, y establecieran ciertos criterios y decisiones que las nuevas partes interesadas deberían cumplir. Para ello deben comprender cómo manejar condiciones políticas o de mercado cambiantes, e incorporar flexibilidad en estos factores al construir escenarios alternativos.

2. Considerar cómo se va a gobernar.

Este es un tema para la planificación y los esfuerzos de implementación, y también para la elaboración de una estructura de toma de decisiones en una comunidad nueva. Al construir una ciudad nueva, es importante considerar cómo crear un sistema de gobierno capaz de implementar una visión coherente y comprensiva para una comunidad que aún no existe.

3. Incorporar nuevos diseños comunitarios en planes comprensivos locales y regionales.

También es crítico considerar cómo un proyecto de la escala de Superstition Vistas, con hasta 1 millón de residentes y un plan de construcción de 50 años o más, se puede integrar en el marco de un plan comprensivo de condado prototípico. Los escenarios y las visiones tienen que reflejar las ideas y planes a que las jurisdicciones locales están políticamente dispuestas y puedan incorporar desde el punto de vista administrativo en su proceso de planificación.

4. Desarrollo en fases.

Las comunidades tienen que establecer mecanismos para permitir la adopción de una visión de construcción a largo plazo y después incorporar una serie de planes flexibles y adaptables por fases para implementar esta visión en forma paulatina.

5. Planificar para condiciones cambiantes del mercado.

Las condiciones del mercado, las preferencias de vivienda y las oportunidades de empleo evolucionarán, y los proyectos a gran escala con visiones creativas y atractivas pueden hasta crear su propia demanda. Nadie sabe a ciencia cierta qué nos ofrecerán los mercados futuros, de manera que es fundamental considerar mercados alternativos y diseños comunitarios adaptables. Las proyecciones de combinaciones residenciales y las estimaciones de absorción inmobiliaria tienen que ser flexibles y no deben partir de la base de las preferencias y tendencias actuales solamente.

6. Conectar con valores comunes.

También es importante demostrar cómo las propuestas de desarrollo se conectan con visiones y valores comunes compartidos y estables a lo largo del tiempo. Para Superstition Vistas, ciertos valores como la oportunidad de llevar adelante un estilo de vida saludable y brindar opciones para residentes de todo el espectro socioeconómico, son ampliamente compartidos. Los planificadores también tienen que reconocer los valores más polémicos o que pueden ser transitorios y probablemente cambiarán.

Desafíos y oportunidades

La experiencia de WLC en la planificación de Superstition Vistas ha sido exitosa en varios niveles. La comunidad se unió a través del Comité Directivo para desarrollar una visión de consenso que representaba una cooperación multijurisdiccional alrededor de la idea de un crecimiento sustentable e “inteligente”. Las comunidades vecinas, a pedido del comisionado estatal de suelos, demoraron cualquier intento de anexo. Además, el Departamento de Suelos del Estado de Arizona elaboró un plan para una escala geográfica, horizonte temporal y nivel de integración mucho más ambicioso que cualquier intento previo. No obstante, la enmienda al plan comprensivo propuesta para Superstition Vistas es, en el mejor de los casos, un primer paso hacia una visión para una comunidad de hasta 1 millón de personas.

El Departamento de Suelos del Estado de Arizona no ha podido, por lo menos hasta ahora, presionar demasiado para crear maneras nuevas y más creativas de conceptualizar emprendimientos a gran escala que puedan mejorar el valor económico de los suelos de fideicomisos estatales y la forma urbana regional. El reciente colapso de los mercados de suelos y de vivienda en todo el país también ha afectado este proyecto y las percepciones locales del potencial de crecimiento en el futuro. Como el esfuerzo general para conceptualizar e implementar planes de desarrollo para Superstition Vistas está sólo comenzando, no se espera que el desarrollo concreto comience hasta por lo menos dentro una década más. Habrá múltiples oportunidades para continuar con estos esfuerzos de planificación y construir previsiones más audaces y comprensivas a medida que la economía inmobiliaria se vaya recuperando y el desarrollo de suelos vuelva a ser más atractivo.

La planificación de escenarios y las visualizaciones efectivas cobran más importancia y son más difíciles de lograr cuando se intenta construir una visión más ambiciosa y a más largo plazo. Las visualizaciones que pueden ilustrar de manera convincente los centros de actividad y los barrios de mayor densidad y uso mixto, pueden ayudar a obtener aceptación del público. También se necesitan mecanismos efectivos para comunicar a los participantes actuales que el proceso de planificación pasa por imaginarse características comunitarias y preferencias de vivienda y estilos de vida para sus nietos o bisnietos, dentro de muchos años.

Como se apuntó previamente, las inversiones iniciales en transporte, desarrollo económico, educación y servicios públicos pueden afectar significativamente a una comunidad y hacer de catalizador para la creación de puestos de empleo de alto nivel y obtener una alta tasa de retorno. Para alcanzar este potencial, hacen falta mecanismos que faciliten estas inversiones, ya sea en suelos privados o suelos de fideicomisos estatales. La continuación del trabajo sobre el valor de contribución de la conservación de suelos, inversiones en infraestructura, planificación y servicios de ecosistemas, así como la integración de esta información en la planificación de escenarios, resultaría de gran ayuda en la tarea de resolver la incertidumbre e impulsar la sustentabilidad comunitaria.

Otros proyectos y lecciones aprendidas

WLC realizó tres proyectos adicionales de demostración para ilustrar y mejorar las herramientas de planificación de escenarios y aplicarlas en distintas situaciones.

Condado de Gallatin, Montana

El personal del Sonoran Institute colaboró con la Universidad Estatal de Montana para organizar un taller con las partes interesadas locales, en el que cuatro equipos distintos produjeron escenarios para concentrar el crecimiento proyectado en la región actualmente desarrollada del “triángulo” de Bozeman, Belgrade y Four Corners. Este esfuerzo integró exitosamente la herramienta de planificación de escenarios Envision Tomorrow con las proyecciones de unidades de vivienda del Modelo de Crecimiento del Sonoran Institute, y demostró el valor de las herramientas de modelación de retorno a la inversión como elemento de verificación del uso propuesto del suelo y los tipos de construcción. El proyecto también demostró el valor de la planificación de escenarios a los expertos locales.

Las lecciones aprendidas incluyeron las siguientes: (1) para muchos participantes, los mapas impresos son más intuitivos que la tecnología de pantalla táctil que utilizamos; (2) se debería usar información adicional sobre las características del suelo, como la productividad de la tierra y los valores del hábitat, para preparar los escenarios de crecimiento; y (3) hacen falta técnicas más efectivas para visualizar la densidad y el diseño de los distintos tipos de uso del suelo, así como para incorporar las realidades políticas y del mercado que las herra mientas de planificación de escenarios generalmente no captan.

Los productos de este proyecto en Montana incluirán la creación de una biblioteca de tipos de construcción apropiados para la región para usar con los modelos de retorno de inversión y escenarios, y un informe que examina los costos y los beneficios, incluyendo el impacto en la sustentabilidad, de un crecimiento futuro en el área del triángulo del valle de Gallatin. Con el respaldo de WLC, la Universidad Estatal de Montana ha podido incorporar el uso de herramientas de planificación de escenarios en sus programas de estudiantes graduados.

Condado de Garfield, Colorado

La oficina de Áreas Legadas del Oeste de Colorado del Sonoran Institute, con el respaldo del Instituto Lincoln, la Agencia de Protección Ambiental de los Estados Unidos y otros contribuyentes locales, utilizó la herramienta Envision Tomorrow como una nueva manera de impulsar la implementación de planes adoptados previamente para contrucción en parcelas vacías y reurbanización de uso mixto en áreas de crecimiento previsto. Este proyecto se concentró en la educación de las partes interesadas sobre los mecanismos necesarios para implementar recientes planes comprensivos adoptados para el desarrollo centrado en ciudades, más que en la generación de escenarios para un plan comprensivo.

Uno de los tres esfuerzos que se llevaron a cabo por separado examinó la factibilidad política y de mercado de la revitalización del centro de Rifle, Colorado. El proyecto de la ciudad de Rifle utilizó exitosamente una herramienta de retorno de la inversión para identificar factores financieros y de regulación que podrían afectar los esfuerzos de revitalización, y congregó a las partes claves necesarias para su implementación: propietarios, emprendedores, corredores inmobiliarios, comisionados de planificación, funcionarios locales, representantes estatales del transporte y personal local.

Una de las lecciones aprendidas en este proyecto fue la importancia de evaluar las visiones audaces a la luz de la realidad del mercado. Por ejemplo, los esfuerzos de la anterior planificación de Rifle se concentraron en edificios de uso mixto de seis a ocho pisos, pero en el mercado actual, incluso los proyectos de tres a cuatro pisos no se consideran factibles (figura 4c). Ahora se presta mayor atención a proyectos de uso mixto de dos pisos y casas adosadas. Las visualizaciones de una parcela subutilizada en el centro de la ciudad ilustran el tipo de opción de un solo piso que puede llegar a ser más factible para el desarrollo comercial inicial (figura 4b). También se identificó como un límite a la inversión las restricciones de estacionamiento de vehículos y un requisito mínimo elevado de cobertura de lotes. Además de identificar cambios en el código de edificación de Rifle, estos resultados generaron un debate sobre el papel de las alianzas público privadas para catalizar el emprendimiento inmobiliario del centro.

Cuenca de Morongo, California

Esta área de gran cantidad de espacio abierto y hábitat silvestre, situada entre el Parque Nacional Joshua Tree y el Centro de Combate Aéreo Terrestre de la Infantería de Marina en el sur de California, puede verse afectada por la expansión regional de población. Este proyecto del Grupo de Espacios Abiertos de la Cuenca de Morongo es un esfuerzo innovador para vincular los resultados actuales de priorización de conservación con una herramienta SIG para analizar y predecir de qué manera los patrones de uso del suelo afectan el hábitat silvestre y la capacidad de planificación de escenarios de Envision Tomorrow.

Estamos evaluando los impactos ambientales de los patrones actuales y de las alternativas potenciales de desarrollo y las opciones de planificación geográfica y del uso del suelo. Las herramientas que se están desarrollando con este empeño serán útiles para todos los fideicomisos de suelos del país que estén interesados en aliarse con otros socios para tratar temas de planificación local y regional e incorporar en sus proyectos objetivos mayores de conservación del paisaje y el hábitat silvestre.

Herramientas de planificación de código abierto

WLC ha concentrado recientemente sus esfuerzos en el desarrollo de herramientas de planificación de código abierto como un mecanismo para aumentar el uso de planificación de escenarios. Los factores claves que entorpecen su uso incluyen: (1) el costo y la complejidad de las herramientas propiamente dichas; (2) el costo y disponibilidad de datos; (3) la falta de normalización, que dificulta la integración de herramientas y datos; y (4) herramientas privadas que pueden ser difíciles de adaptar a las condiciones locales y pueden impedir la innovación.

Los partidarios de las herramientas de modelación de código abierto creen que los códigos normalizados permitirán una mayor transparencia e interoperabilidad entre modelos, lo que daría como resultado una capacidad más rápida de innovación y un mayor nivel de utilización. Como resultado de nuestro trabajo con Envision Tomorrow en el proyecto de Superstition Vistas, WLC y otros miembros de un grupo de herramientas de planificación de código abierto siguen tratando de impulsar las herramientas de planificación de escenarios y la promesa de las herramientas de código abierto para promover comunidades sustentables en muchos más lugares.

Sobre El Autor

Jim Holway dirige Western Lands and Communities, la sociedad conjunta del Instituto Lincoln con el Sonoran Institute, con sede en Phoenix, Arizona. Previamente fue subdirector del Departamento de Recursos Hídricos de Arizona y profesor de práctica en la Universidad Estatal de Arizona.

Referencias

Propst, Luther. 2008. A model for sustainable development in Arizona’s Sun Corridor. Land Lines 20(3).

Superstition Vistas Consulting Team. 2011. Superstition Vistas: Final report and strategic actions. www.superstition-vistas.org

Publicaciones Del Instituto Lincoln

Brail, Richard K. 2008. Planning support systems for cities and regions.

Campoli, Julie, and Alex S. MacLean. 2007. Visualizing density.

Condon, Patrick M., Duncan Cavens, and Nicole Miller. 2009. Urban planning tools for climate change mitigation.

Culp, Peter W., Andy Laurenzi, and Cynthia C. Tuell. 2006. State trust lands in the West: Fiduciary duty in a changing landscape.

Hopkins, Lewis D., and Marisa A. Zapata. 2007. Engaging the future: Forecasts, scenarios, plans, and projects.

Kwartler, Michael, and Gianni Longo. 2008. Visioning and visualization: People, pixels, and plans.

Durante las últimas décadas, la estructura de la economía de los EE.UU. ha cambiado, a medida que experimenta una continua reducción en el empleo fabril en general y un continuo crecimiento en el sector de los servicios, especialmente aquellos relacionados con los trabajadores capacitados. La distribución geográfica de la actividad también ha cambiado debido a que la población continúa moviéndose de las zonas noreste y medio oeste, en donde las estaciones son más marcadas, hacia las zonas sur y oeste, que son más cálidas. Finalmente, en las áreas metropolitanas, las poblaciones y el empleo se movieron de las ciudades a los suburbios, ya que los viajes en autobús y automóvil se han generalizado. Estas tres tendencias han provocado que muchas ciudades del noreste y oeste medio tengan ahora poblaciones mucho menores, economías más débiles, menos empleos fabriles y una incapacidad para compensar las oportunidades de empleo perdidas con las ganancias de sectores que se están expandiendo a nivel nacional. Estas son, hoy en día, las ciudades industriales históricas, que, con frecuencia, poseen una capacidad excesiva de infraestructura, una oferta de viviendas sin utilizar y una tensión fiscal relacionada con obligaciones asumidas en el pasado por sectores públicos que actualmente se encuentran muy disminuidos. En un reciente informe sobre enfoque en políticas de suelo del Instituto Lincoln, Regeneración de las ciudades tradicionales industriales de los Estados Unidos, sus autores, Alan Mallach y Lavea Brachman, analizan el desempeño de una muestra de estas áreas urbanas e identifican las medidas que han tomado las ciudades con más éxito para producir resultados más sólidos.

Aunque la decadencia de las ciudades industriales tradicionales posee causas comunes, el rendimiento económico de las mismas ha sido muy distinto en las últimas décadas, ya que muchas de estas ciudades han logrado resultados económicos, institucionales y fiscales más sólidos que otras. Todas las ciudades industriales antiguas poseen una serie de activos, tales como infraestructura, barrios, instituciones, poblaciones y actividades económicas en desarrollo. Las diferencias en su rendimiento, en forma comparativa, están relacionadas con la manera en que las políticas y el liderazgo municipal han sacado partido de los inventarios existentes de estos activos. En particular, las ciudades históricas tradicionales en vías de recuperación han construido y basado su expansión sobre instituciones preexistentes dedicadas a la investigación, la medicina, la salud y la educación. También han explotado el creciente interés por los barrios urbanos, donde resulta fácil ir caminando a las tiendas y a los restaurantes y donde las densidades residenciales son mayores que las de la mayoría de las comunidades suburbanas. Las ciudades en recuperación también, en general, han mantenido o atraído más residentes con mayores niveles de educación y han experimentado un crecimiento en las actividades relacionadas con el conocimiento.

Las ciudades industriales tradicionales que han visto cómo sus economías comienzan a transformarse y a crecer de nuevo no necesariamente experimentaron aumentos en sus poblaciones. La población de la mayoría de las ciudades tradicionales tuvo su pico de crecimiento a mediados del siglo XX y posteriormente descendió. Por ejemplo, Buffalo y St. Louis presentaron poblaciones más reducidas en el año 2000 que en 1900. A veces, la disminución de la población en estas ciudades se ve compensada por un crecimiento suburbano, por lo que las poblaciones metropolitanas no se reducen. Sin embargo, algunas ciudades tradicionales exitosas, tales como Pittsburgh, han experimentado leves reducciones de población incluso a nivel metropolitano. Cambiar la composición de las poblaciones de las ciudades y de su actividad económica es más importante para lograr el éxito que el crecimiento de la población por sí solo.

La exitosa recuperación de las ciudades industriales tradicionales normalmente no ha sido el resultado de megaproyectos enfocados en el redesarrollo, sino en el aumento de muchas medidas pequeñas que generan un gran impacto por acumulación, un enfoque que Mallach y Brachman han dado en llamar “crecimiento gradual estratégico”. En su investigación, los autores demuestran que las ciudades industriales tradicionales exitosas se han centrado en dicho enfoque de forma continua e incesante. Los elementos clave del crecimiento gradual estratégico requieren de la evolución de nuevas formas de organización física de la ciudad, de componentes económicos, de formas de gobierno y de relacionarse con las regiones circundantes. Desde un punto de vista físico, la práctica implica centrarse en el núcleo de la ciudad, en sus barrios más importantes y en la gestión del suelo vacante. Desde el punto de vista económico, supone restaurar el rol económico de la ciudad según sus ventajas comparativas y sus bienes existentes, compartir los beneficios del crecimiento con la población y reforzar las conexiones con la región en la que se encuentra la ciudad. Las ciudades también deben fortalecer sus formas de gobierno y ocuparse de que la provisión de servicios y de recursos fiscales entre la ciudad y los municipios del área metropolitana sea fluida.

Las ciudades industriales tradicionales han experimentado un deterioro en las últimas décadas, por lo que su recuperación llevará tiempo e implicará una buena dosis de paciencia. Aunque el funcionamiento de algunas de estas ciudades, tales como Camden, Nueva Jersey, continúa disminuyendo, otras ciudades están mostrando signos de progreso. En Pittsburgh, Filadelfia, Milwaukee y otras ciudades industriales tradicionales que se están recuperando, el rendimiento económico ha mejorado y las tasas de desempleo, delincuencia y pobreza se han reducido por debajo de los promedios nacionales, a pesar del hecho de que las poblaciones permanecen bastante por debajo del pico al que habían llegado unos 60 años atrás.

Para obtener información adicional sobre los factores determinantes del éxito de las ciudades tradicionales, ver: http://www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/2215_Regenerating-America-s-Legacy-Cities.

Adam H. Langley is a senior research analyst in the Department of Valuation and Taxation at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Previously, Langley worked for the New York State Assembly. He earned his B.A. in political studies from Bard College and an M.A. in economics from Boston University.

Langley’s research has covered a range of issues related to state and local public finance, with a particular focus on the property tax. He has coauthored three Lincoln Institute Policy Focus Reports: Property Tax Circuit Breakers: Fair and Cost-Effective Relief for Taxpayers (2009), Payments in Lieu of Taxes: Balancing Municipal and Nonprofit Interests (2010), and Rethinking Property Tax Incentives for Business (2012). He has also led several projects to provide data on the Lincoln Institute’s website, including creation of the Fiscally Standardized Cities (FiSCs) database and a dataset with extensive information on nonprofits that make payments in lieu of taxes and the localities that receive them.

His articles have appeared in journals such as Regional Science and Urban Economics, Public Finance and Management, and Publius: The Journal of Federalism. His research has also been covered by more than a hundred news outlets, including The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Economist, Governing, and The Boston Globe.

Land Lines: What projects have you been working on recently as a senior research analyst at the Lincoln Institute?

Adam Langley: I have been working on several projects related to local government finances. One major project has been the creation of the Fiscally Standardized Cities (FiSCs) database. This subcenter on the Lincoln Institute’s website allows users to make meaningful comparisons of local government finances at the city level for 112 of the largest U.S. cities over the past 35 years. I drew on this data in a recent paper on municipal finances during the Great Recession, which I presented at Lincoln’s 9th annual Land Policy Conference on June 2, 2014. I am also creating a summary table that describes state programs for property tax exemptions and credits, drawing information from Lincoln’s Significant Features of the Property Tax subcenter. I plan to use that table to estimate tax expenditures for these programs in all 50 states.

Land Lines: You’ve worked on several projects to provide data on the Lincoln Institute’s website. What motivates this focus on data?

Adam Langley: These data projects go to the core of Lincoln’s mission to inform decision making on issues related to the use, regulation, and taxation of land. Lincoln’s databases have been used by policymakers to help guide their decisions, by journalists to provide broader context in their stories, and by researchers for their own projects. Providing data that is freely accessible and easy to use greatly magnifies the potential reach of Lincoln’s work on land policy issues, because it empowers other analysts to undertake new research in this area.

It is also essential for Lincoln’s reputation that we base our policy recommendations on high-quality analysis and good data. To impact policy decisions, it’s critical that our research be widely viewed as objective, nonpartisan, and evidence-based.

Land Lines: You say that Fiscally Standardized Cities allow for meaningful comparisons of local government finances at the city level. What’s wrong with simple comparisons of city governments?

Adam Langley: The service responsibilities for city governments vary widely across the country. While some municipalities provide a full array of public services for their residents, others share these responsibilities with a variety of overlying independent governments. Because of these differences in local government structure, comparing city governments alone can be very misleading.

For example, consider a comparison of Baltimore and Tampa. The city government in Baltimore spends three times more per capita than the city government in Tampa—$5,594 versus $1,829 in 2011. However, the difference is almost entirely due to the fact that the City of Tampa splits the provision of local services with overlying Hillsborough County and an independent school district, whereas Baltimore has no overlying county government and the schools are part of the city government itself. Once all overlying governments are accounted for in the FiSC methodology, per capita expenditures for residents in the two cities are nearly identical—$6,083 in Baltimore versus $6,067 in Tampa.

Land Lines: Can you explain the methodology used to create Fiscally Standardized Cities?

Adam Langley: FiSCs are constructed by adding together revenues for each city government plus an appropriate share from overlying counties, independent school districts, and special districts. County revenues are allocated to the FiSC based on the city’s share of county population, school revenues are allocated based on the percentage of students in a school district who live in the central city, and special district revenues are allocated based on the city’s share of residents living in the district’s service area. Thus FiSCs provide a full picture of revenues raised from city residents and businesses, whether collected by the city government or a separate overlying government. These allocations are made for more than 120 categories of revenues, expenditures, debt, and assets. The FiSC methodology was developed with Andrew Reschovsky, a Lincoln Institute fellow, and Howard Chernick, a professor at Hunter College of the City University of New York. We calculate the estimates using fiscal data for individual governments provided by the U.S. Census Bureau, and we will update the FiSC database as data for additional years become available.

Land Lines: Why is it important to compare local government finances at the city level?

Adam Langley: Many people want to know how their city compares to other cities, but it’s critical to account for differences in local government structure when making these comparisons. The FiSC database does account for these differences. Thus, it can be used to compare property tax revenues in two cities, rank all cities by their school spending, investigate changes in public sector salaries over time, or see which cities are most reliant on state aid to fund their budgets.

In a separate project with Andrew Reschovsky and Richard Dye, we’re using the FiSC methodology to estimate pension costs and liabilities for all local governments serving each city. Media coverage sometimes creates the impression that all public pension plans face serious challenges, but in fact there is a great deal of variation around the country. In order to investigate these differences, it’s essential to have comparable data on pension costs for all local governments serving each city. For example, initial estimates show that on average the annual required contribution (ARC) for local pension plans in 2010 was equal to 4.9 percent of general revenues for the 112 FiSCs. However, ARC was more than 10 percent of revenues in both Chicago (11.7 percent) and Portland, Oregon (10.9).

Land Lines: Did revenue declines vary much across cities during the Great Recession?

Adam Langley: Yes, revenue declines ranged widely across the 112 FiSCs during and after the recession. Accounting for inflation and population growth, only eight FiSCs avoided revenue declines entirely through 2011. I calculated changes in real per capita revenues from each FiSC’s peak through 2011: About a third experienced declines of 5 percent or less (41 FiSCs), another third saw declines between 5 and 10 percent (34 FiSCs), and about a quarter had declines exceeding 10 percent (29 FiSCs). FiSCs with very large revenue declines include Las Vegas (20.2 percent), Riverside (18.0 percent), and Sacramento (18.0 percent).

Land Lines: Have local government revenues recovered much since the end of the recession?

Adam Langley: Not really, because revenue changes lagged behind economic changes by several years during and after the recession. Real per capita local government revenues were stable through 2009, declined slightly in 2010, and fell more significantly in 2011. The latest year with comprehensive data is 2011, so I tied together several different data sources to estimate revenues through 2013. Those data suggest that revenues hit bottom in 2012, when they were 5 to 6 percent below 2007 levels. That means revenues did not bottom out until three years after the recession officially ended. Revenues started to recover in 2013 but remained more than 4 percent below pre-recession levels.

This lag is driven by changes in intergovernmental aid and property taxes, which together fund almost two-thirds of local governments’ budgets. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provided states with about $150 billion in federal stimulus between 2009 and 2011, and there were additional stimulus funds provided directly to local governments. Most stimulus funds were gone by 2012, however, which led to the largest cuts in state spending in at least 25 years. Moreover, changes in property taxes typically lag behind changes in housing prices by two to three years, due to the fact that property tax bills are based on assessments from prior years, there are delays in reassessing properties, and other factors. That lag means that property taxes actually grew through 2009, did not fall until 2011, and then hit their trough in 2012.

Land Lines: Can you elaborate on your work describing property tax exemption and credit programs?

Adam Langley: I’m nearly finished with the first stage of this project, which entails creating a summary table on states’ exemption and credit programs. The table contains data for 167 programs, with 18 variables describing the key features of each program. There is information on the value of exemptions expressed in terms of market value; criteria related to age, disability, income, and veteran status; the type of taxes affected; whether tax loss is borne by state or local government; local options; and more. Once that table is completed, I will write a policy brief to outline key features of these programs. All of this information is drawn from the table on Residential Property Tax Relief Programs in Lincoln’s Significant Features of the Property Tax subcenter of the website. The original Residential Relief table provides detailed descriptions of each program, while the summary table should be most useful for users who want to make quick comparisons of states or for researchers who want to conduct quantitative analysis.

In the second stage of this project, I will estimate tax expenditures for these property tax relief programs. Despite the prevalence of these programs and their often large impacts on property tax burdens, there are no comprehensive estimates of their costs. Using data from the summary table and microdata from the American Community Survey, I will estimate for each state the percentage of residents who are eligible for property tax relief programs, the total cost of tax relief programs, the average benefit for beneficiaries, and the percentage of residents eligible and their average benefit by income quintile. These estimates will provide valuable new information on the impacts of property tax relief programs in the United States.

Una versión más actualizada de este artículo está disponible como parte del capítulo 5 del libro Perspectivas urbanas: Temas críticos en políticas de suelo de América Latina.

Actualmente se está llevando a cabo en La Habana, Cuba, un programa de estudio de aprovechamiento del suelo y de su valor para fines de facilitar la revitalización física y el desarrollo económico en Cuba. Participan en dicho estudio investigadores del Instituto Lincoln y del Grupo para el Desarrollo Integral de la Capital (GDIC).

Durante la era soviética, la economía cubana estaba caracterizada por un modelo económico de decisiones tomadas “desde arriba”, en el cual los organismos estatales eran los principales actores de la economía y del desarrollo. La planificación era autocrática e inflexible; el comercio dependía principalmente de los países del bloque socialista; la capacidad financiera estaba centralizada en el presupuesto nacional; y no existía un sistema tributario. Las reformas legales, financieras y económicas puestas en marcha desde 1990 han ayudado a crear un entorno institucional conducente al aumento de la eficiencia económica y de la participación cubana en el mercado mundial (ver tabla 1).

Así y todo, la economía de Cuba sigue tropezando con enormes dificultades que han afectado seriamente la sustentación del estándar de vida de sus habitantes, la calidad de los servicios sociales y públicos, y los programas de desarrollo económico en general. Para citar un ejemplo, en 1995 el producto interior bruto (PIB) de la isla se había reducido a la mitad de su valor de 1989, mientras que la capacidad de importación había caído de manera precipitosa, desde unos US$ 8 mil millones a US$ 2 mil millones anuales.

Tabla 1: Resumen de las principales reformas

1990 Apertura de la economía a inversionistas extranjeros
• 1991 Reorientación del comercio internacional cubano
• 1992 Introducción de modificaciones a la Constitución de 1976 Introducción de nuevas formas de propiedad no estatal Eliminación del monopolio estatal del comercio exterior Expansión de sociedades mercantiles privadas extranjeras
• 1993 Entrega a trabajadores de tierra de antigua posesión estatal
• 1994 Reestructuración de los organismos de la administración central del Estado

  Apertura del mercado agropecuario a partir de mecanismos de oferta y demanda

• 1995 Restablecimiento de la planificación indicativa e introducción de indicadores financieros Inicio del redimensionamiento empresarial estatal Regularización de la circulación de divisas fuertes en el sistema bancario
• Aprobación de nuevas leyes de inversiones extranjeras Gradual introducción de los componentes de un sistema tributario
• Aprobación de la Ley de Reestructuración del Sistema Bancario
• 1997 Aprobación del Decreto Ley sobre Zona Franca

El gobierno cubano ha tratado de promover el turismo como la fuente principal de generación rápida de esas divisas tan necesarias. Siendo una isla del mar Caribe, Cuba ofrece atracciones turísticas significativas que abarcan desde magníficas playas hasta el patrimonio arquitectónico del Centro Histórico de La Habana (declarado “Patrimonio de la Humanidad” por la UNESCO), así como otras áreas naturales, históricas y culturales ubicadas a lo largo y ancho del país. Sin embargo, para estimular la industria turística se precisan socios internacionales que emprendan el desarrollo de hoteles, tiendas, restaurantes y la ampliación del aeropuerto. El hecho de que la mayoría de las tierras disponibles para el desarrollo está en manos del Estado, es un elemento crítico de la estrategia cubana para atraer promotores y turistas extranjeros.

El plan gubernamental de poner en marcha su propia industria turística ha mostrado resultados alentadores. Por ejemplo, en el año 1967 la isla recibió a unos 2.000 visitantes, mientras que en 1998 fue visitada por más de 1,4 millones de turistas. Sólo durante los últimos cinco años, un grupo de inversionistas extranjeros ha aumentado sus operaciones en varios sectores económicos de Cuba, particularmente en el sector turístico. Como resultado, se han construido 2.000 nuevas habitaciones hoteleras en La Habana, con lo cual la capacidad total actual alcanza más de 10.700 habitaciones. A nivel nacional hay 31.600 habitaciones hoteleras, y se planea aumentar la capacidad a 40.000 en el transcurso de los próximos dos años. Aproximadamente el 80 por ciento de las nuevas construcciones cubanas están directa o indirectamente relacionadas con el sector turístico. Ciertos estimados indican que la tierra y los inmuebles estatales ya destinados a estos nuevos proyectos representan unos US$ 500 millones. Cabe destacar que este desarrollo se ha logrado en ausencia de un mercado formal del suelo.

Políticas orientadas al suelo para estimular el desarrollo

El suelo ha sido utilizado de varias maneras para incentivar el desarrollo y generar ingresos públicos. Primero que todo, el gobierno cubano lo ha utilizado como su contribución capital en asociaciones conjuntas con promotores internacionales. Por ejemplo, la empresa canadiense VanCuba Holdings, S.A. se asoció a medias con el gobierno cubano en un proyecto de construcción de once hoteles. La participación cubana del 50 % consiste en el aporte del suelo; por su parte, se espera que la compañía canadiense invierta US$ 400 millones. Similares operaciones conjuntas se han llevado a cabo con promotores canadienses, españoles, italianos e israelíes en proyectos variados, principalmente inmobiliarios y turísticos.

Dado que la principal contribución cubana a estas asociaciones internacionales es el suelo, es fundamental verificar que su valor financiero represente el 50 por ciento del capital social del proyecto. Cuando el valor monetario de la tierra aportada ha sido inferior al 50 por ciento, el socio extranjero frecuentemente ha desempeñado un papel crítico para ayudar a su contraparte cubana a solicitar crédito de bancos internacionales o instituciones financieras a fin de compensar la diferencia. Más recientemente, el crédito para asegurar el 50 por ciento de la participación cubana ha provenido directamente del Banco Central de Cuba (a bajas tasas de interés), en vez de entidades bancarias internacionales.

Un segundo mecanismo para estimular el desarrollo, cuyo uso va en aumento, son los arriendos de tierras (leasing) para proyectos comerciales y de oficinas. Esta modalidad cuenta con muchos adeptos puesto que la venta directa de la tierra estatal es posible únicamente en situaciones muy especiales. Los alquileres se negocian según el valor específico de la tierra, y se establecen por 25 años previo acuerdo de las partes negociantes. Además, es posible revisar los contratos de alquiler y prolongarlos por otros 25 años si las partes involucradas en las renegociaciones están de acuerdo sobre los nuevos criterios. Actualmente existen varios proyectos de este estilo con inversionistas extranjeros, y el área estimada de desarrollo en La Habana sobrepasa las 100 hectáreas.

Tercero, el gobierno cubano ha celebrado acuerdos de alquileres directos en tierras estatales en zonas francas que en algunos casos generan alta rentabilidad. Ya unas 120 empresas privadas extranjeras y públicas-privadas se han establecido en dos zonas comerciales de La Habana.

Tanto los arriendos como los alquileres directos del suelo del Estado son importantes fuentes de nuevos fondos que, a su vez, se inyectan en la economía local para mejorar la calidad de vida de las comunidades locales mediante la prestación de servicios sociales (educación y salud), el desarrollo de proyectos económicos, la modernización y ampliación de la infraestructura básica, y la generación de empleos. Como ejemplos del impacto positivo generado por estos ingresos para la ciudad y la comunidad figuran el nuevo Aeropuerto Internacional de La Habana, la creación y el mejoramiento de un sistema telefónico digital, y los proyectos del parque metropolitano en la región del río Almendares.

Otro mecanismo interesante de captura de la plusvalía resultante de las inversiones públicas, es el establecido por la Oficina del Historiador, la entidad pública encargada de promover, financiar y desarrollar el programa de revitalización de La Habana Vieja. Esta oficina ya comenzó a recaudar impuestos directos e indirectos que suman el 35 por ciento de los ingresos de empresas privadas no relacionadas con la Oficina, tales como hoteles, establecimientos comerciales y restaurantes que se han beneficiado de las labores de rehabilitación del distrito histórico. Tales ingresos externos, así como también las entradas generadas por proyectos iniciados por la oficina misma, se utilizan en una especie de fondo rotativo para financiar no sólo inversiones adicionales en el ambiente construido, sino también una variedad de programas sociales entre los que figuran viviendas, hogares para ancianos y actividades educativas y culturales en La Habana Vieja. En 1998 los ingresos totales de la Oficina sobrepasaron los US$ 40 millones, y excedieron de US$ 50 millones en 1999. El gobierno también está negociando otras clases de programas de generación de ingresos para capturar los incrementos del valor del suelo, con el fin de financiar la rehabilitación de las áreas del Paseo del Prado y Rampa en La Habana, así como el proyecto de desarrollo Boca de la Chorrera, en la boca del río Almendares.

Dificultades de aplicación

La aplicación de estas diferentes herramientas de captura de plusvalía no ha sido una tarea fácil. En lo que se refiere a los gravámenes indirectos y directos introducidos en La Habana Vieja, muchos dueños de negocios aducen que sus fuentes de ingresos no son resultado de las labores de mejoramiento de la Oficina del Historiador, y que por tanto no deberían estar obligados a pagar impuestos. Por ejemplo, la empresa petrolera cubana (CUPET) tiene su sede en un área valiosa en el corazón del centro histórico, pero no paga el impuesto. La compañía argumenta que sus fuentes de ingresos (es decir, sus instalaciones y redes de distribución) están situadas fuera del centro, y que por tal motivo no se benefician del proceso de remozamiento.

Los acuerdos de alquiler por 25 años ilustran otro problema que surge del dilema implicado por las “metas a corto plazo” frente a las “metas a largo plazo”, porque los acuerdos no incluyen una actualización periódica de pagos de alquiler. Por una parte, si los pagos se establecen sobre la base del valor y uso existente, las autoridades públicas corren el riesgo de perder considerables recursos financieros que podrían derivarse de estas inversiones y otros cambios en el valor del suelo a lo largo del período de alquiler de 25 años. Sin embargo, si las autoridades intentan capturar el esperado aumento del valor inmediatamente, tendrán dificultades para vender esos costosos proyectos a inversionistas cautelosos.

La falta de un adecuado sistema legal para el desarrollo de bienes raíces y préstamos hipotecarios en Cuba es un obstáculo principal para la puesta en práctica de todos estos instrumentos. Si bien ya existen borradores de nuevas propuestas de leyes inmobiliarias, aún no se han adoptado las leyes que se esperaban introducir el año pasado. Esta situación incierta e impredecible puede entorpecer la formación de sociedades comerciales serias, que por lo general requiere estabilidad, transparencia y visión a largo plazo. Además, esta falta de protección legal puede alejar a promotores de calidad que podrían tener la capacidad de realizar proyectos más sofisticados y de mayor envergadura. Como resultado, el gobierno cubano ha recibido menos propuestas sólidas y ha estado aceptando proyectos menores con promotores internacionales menos establecidos.

Estos proyectos menores son a veces problemáticos por varias razones. Primero que todo, frecuentemente se destinan a las zonas más deseables de La Habana, aun cuando no sean necesariamente apropiados para dichas zonas. Segundo, están obligados a depender de infraestructura existente, dado que no son lo suficientemente grandes como para aportar esa inversión adicional. Tercero, la calidad estética e incluso los servicios básicos de estos nuevos hoteles o apartamentos son algunas veces cuestionables. Dado que estas edificaciones afectan la imagen general de la ciudad, pueden hasta ejercer un efecto negativo y contribuir a la desvalorización de la zona.

Otro problema relacionado es la incertidumbre que deben afrontar los promotores al tratar con nuevas instituciones y políticas que se están negociando dentro del gobierno cubano al mismo tiempo que se están implementando en la calle. Mientras las políticas están siendo objeto de revisión, el gobierno ha introducido una moratoria para nuevos proyectos de desarrollo en ciertas áreas de La Habana y ha retrasado el proceso de negociación de bienes inmobiliarios en general. La inestabilidad y falta de confianza en los organismos y políticas gubernamentales pertinentes conllevan riesgos que desalientan a los inversionistas privados de proyectos comerciales o residenciales a largo plazo. Obviamente, ello perjudica los costos de desarrollo y las tasas de rentabilidad esperadas.

Finalmente, la ausencia de mercados formales dificulta efectuar avalúos del suelo y enturbia las transacciones. Los organismos gubernamentales involucrados en proyectos de desarrollo tienen dos opciones: 1) utilizar los precios administrativos para determinar el valor de alquileres o aportes financieros, aun cuando la base de estos precios puede no reflejar el valor real de los atributos del suelo; o bien, 2) negociar el precio con promotores extranjeros sobre la base de la dinámica de la región en particular. Ambas opciones están limitadas por la carencia de transacciones comerciales continuas e independientes sobre las cuales evaluar los precios reales.

Dilemas de la política del suelo

Si bien es cierto que Cuba ha hecho avances significativos, también es cierto que se está enfrentando a muchos problemas para utilizar la tierra de una manera eficaz para estimular el desarrollo y generar recursos financieros. Por ejemplo, muchos proyectos pequeños y “convenientes” pueden acelerar los desarrollos y la generación de ingresos, pero no tienen la capacidad de crear una visión más amplia para usos futuros del suelo y frecuentemente causan daños a la infraestructura histórica y al ambiente natural. Por otra parte, los proyectos mejores financiados y de más envergadura pueden crear tal visión y mejorar el ambiente, pero son mucho más difíciles de negociar y exigen más tiempo.

Más aún, los proyectos más grandes pueden requerir inversiones cuantiosas en la infraestructura básica dada la deficiente calidad de las condiciones existentes. El gobierno ha carecido de los recursos necesarios para apoyar estas inversiones, lo cual amenaza la sustentación de las nuevas intervenciones urbanas, y los proyectos pequeños no son capaces de afrontar tales cargas. Además, incluso si los proyectos grandes pueden financiar las inversiones en infraestructura, corren el riesgo de convertirse en enclaves exclusivos separados de la comunidad vecina al proporcionar la infraestructura sólo como parte de su propio proyecto. El problema que se plantea aquí es cómo financiar la infraestructura de una manera no excluyente a fin de alentar otros proyectos de desarrollo de menor escala. Para ello se están estudiando tres opciones que actualmente son objeto de un acalorado debate:

• intervenciones pequeñas e individualizadas que utilicen alquileres para ocupar zonas de la ciudad equipadas con una buena infraestructura;
• enclaves de grandes establecimientos turísticos y comunidades enrejadas que puedan financiar la infraestructura mediante tributos y tasas de desarrollo, y cuyas negociaciones incluyan cláusulas que impidan procesos de exclusión; o
• políticas más amplias para la captura de plusvalías, a ser aplicadas usando bienes inmobiliarios para generar ingresos de una manera que fomente la conservación del patrimonio histórico y la solidaridad comunitaria, al mismo tiempo que impida la segregación social, la urbanización desenfrenada y otros efectos negativos.

Otro aspecto del debate entre los expertos cubanos de planificación y desarrollo se refiere a las ventajas y desventajas de introducir mercados libres de tierras acompañados de un fuerte sistema tributario, en contraposición a seguir manteniendo el manejo público de la tierra estatal. Aquellos que abogan por la idea de introducir los mercados libres de tierras opinan que es un paso necesario al desarrollo, para que así Cuba pueda beneficiarse de los vínculos con la economía mundial y con diferentes clases de inversiones extranjeras. Estos expertos también defienden la idea de desarrollar mecanismos de captura de las plusvalías urbanas.

Por su parte, el grupo que defiende la continuación del sistema actual señala el éxito cubano en aspectos tales como la reducción de la segregación espacial, el equilibrio de los servicios sociales y urbanos, la conservación del patrimonio histórico y otros valores patrimoniales de la ciudad, y la reservación de suficiente tierra para los proyectos de desarrollos futuros. También apunta a la reciente experiencia latinoamericana con los mercados libres, que han redundado en mayor segregación entre ricos y pobres, falta de servicios sociales en las zonas pobres de las ciudades, y aumentos de la violencia urbana, la especulación, y los problemas ambientales.

En resumen, la agenda cubana de desarrollo de suelo tiene dos prioridades: establecer un sistema legal con parámetros claros, e introducir mecanismos rigurosos y transparentes para efectuar los avalúos de inmuebles y suelos. Además, la diversificación de los socios cubanos disponibles para participar en proyectos de desarrollo internacionales ayudará a establecer criterios para una perspectiva de planificación a largo plazo que alentará la realización de proyectos de infraestructura de gran escala y la provisión continua de beneficios a la comunidad. En realidad, todos estos asuntos e inquietudes no son muy diferentes a los desafíos que enfrentan otros países en vías de desarrollo en lo que se refiere a las políticas del suelo. El continuado estudio del valor de la tierra como un instrumento de desarrollo en Cuba ofrece lecciones importantes para investigadores y funcionarios públicos de toda América Latina.

Ricardo Núñez es investigador del Grupo para el Desarrollo Integral de la Capital (GDIC) en La Habana, Cuba. H. James Brown es Presidente y Jefe ejecutivo del Instituto Lincoln, y Martim Smolka es Senior Fellow y Director del Programa para América Latina y el Caribe del Instituto Lincoln. También contribuyó a este artículo Laura Mullahy, asistente de investigación del Programa para América Latina y el Caribe.

En la Web

En la página Web del Instituto Lincoln, www.lincolninst.edu, hay artículos relacionados sobre Cuba, los cuales están disponibles para bajarlos sin costo alguno.

“Participatory Planning and Preservation in Havana: Q & A with Mario Coyula”. Land Lines 9:4 (julio de 1997). (Sólo en inglés.)

Ricardo Núñez. “El suelo urbano como factor de inclusión económica y social: La experiencia de La Habana.” Artículo. 1999. (Sólo en español.)

Ricardo Núñez. “La ciudad de La Habana: Prácticas y perspectivas de captura de plusvalía urbana.” Artículo. 1999. (En inglés y en español.)

Ricardo Núñez y Carlos García Pleyán. “La regeneración en La Habana Vieja: ¿Un modelo de gestión que moviliza las plusvalías urbanas?”. Artículo. 1999. (En inglés y en español.)

Peter Pollock. “Exploring Cuba’s Urban and Environmental Heritage.” Land Lines 10:5 (septiembre de 1998). (Sólo en inglés)

Cuba is a striking country. Its historic capital city of Havana boasts 400 years of architectural heritage. Many areas are in a state of sad decay but some represent very creative approaches to preservation and economic development. Because of the focus on rural development after the 1959 revolution, Cuba did not experience the same kind of popular migration from the countryside to the cities as did other parts of Latin America. What modern redevelopment did occur happened largely outside the historic core of Havana. The good news is that the city’s architectural heritage is still standing; the bad news is that it is just barely standing.

Architects and planners in Cuba are struggling with the basic tasks of improving infrastructure and housing while encouraging economic development appropriate to their socialist vision. They are developing models of neighborhood transformation through local organizing and self-help programs, and are creating models of “value capture” in the process of historic preservation and tourism development.

Through connections with the Group for the Integrated Development of the Capital (Grupo para el Desarrollo Integral de la Capital, GDIC), nine environmental design professionals traveled to Cuba in June to explore the issues of decay and innovation in the built and natural environment. The team included nine of the eleven 1997-98 Loeb Fellows from the Harvard University Graduate School of Design.

The Loeb Fellowship in Advanced Environmental Studies was established in 1970 through the generosity of Harvard alumnus John L. Loeb. The Fellowship annually awards ten to twelve leaders in the design and environmental professions with support for a year of independent study at Harvard University. A recent tradition of the Fellowship program is for the Fellows to take a trip together at the end of the academic year, to solidify their ties developed over the year, explore a new environment together, and share their knowledge and expertise with others.

The Loeb Fellows who traveled to Cuba have a variety of interests that together represent a cross-section of the environmental design professions:

• Charles Birnbaum, a landscape architect who advocates the preservation of significant landscapes.
• Toni Griffin, an architect concerned with economic and community development in urban neighborhoods.
• Pamela Hawkes, an architect specializing in historic preservation.
• Daniel Hernandez, an architect who creates affordable housing.
• Leonard McGee, a community leader who works to transform and improve inner-city communities.
• Julio Peterson, a community developer interested in economic development in inner cities and developing countries.
• Peter Pollock, a city planner who specializes in growth management issues.
• Anne Raver, a journalist interested in people’s relationship with the natural environment.
• Jean Rogers, an environmental engineer and planner who focuses on ameliorating the impacts of industrialization on the environment.

The Fellows were hosted in Havana by GDIC, which was created in 1987 as a small, interdisciplinary team of experts advising the city government on urban policies. “The group intended since its very beginning to promote a new model for the built environment that would be less imposing, more decentralized and participatory, ecologically sound and economically feasible-in short, holistically sustainable,” according to Mario Coyula, an architect, planner and vice-president of GDIC. He and his GDIC colleagues put together a series of informative seminars and tours for the Fellows in Havana, and made arrangements for them to visit planners and designers in the cities of Las Terrazas, Matanzas, and Trinidad.

Several foundations and groups lent support to the project: the Arca Foundation, the William Reynolds Foundation, the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, the Loeb Fellowship Alumni Association, and the Harvard University Graduate School of Design Loeb Fellowship Program. Each Loeb Fellow will write an essay on a relevant area of research and its relationship to conditions in Cuba. These papers will be compiled and made available to GDIC, Harvard University and potentially to others through publication in a journal or special report.

Peter Pollock is director of community planning for the city of Boulder, Colorado. In 1997-98 he was a Loeb Fellow at Harvard and a visiting fellow at the Lincoln Institute.

Imagine two communities in the Rocky Mountain region in the late 1860s. One is located along the transcontinental railroad, the other is 100 miles to the south. Which community would come to dominate the region by the turn of the century? Counterintuitively, the latter community did. There, aggressive entrepreneurs and community leaders orchestrated the completion of a spur linking the town to the railroad and then commenced a promotional campaign on the community’s behalf. Over time, that town, Denver, flourished, while the other, Cheyenne, did not. Denver leaders did not rely on chance. Instead they mobilized public resources to pursue their vision of Denver as a major city.

As product cycles ebb and flow, populations and firms migrate, natural resources peter out and consumer tastes change, cities either adapt to their changing environments or succumb to the invisible hand of the marketplace. Local elected and appointed officials can shape their cities by deciding whether or not to implement nonmarket, city-sponsored development.

Politics is important because these city officials either respond to a tax-services imbalance or they pursue an image or vision of their city’s future, its cityscape. Although city-sponsored development might lower business costs and spur economic growth, such development is not an automatic response to changing economic circumstances. Rather, public economic development is the result of a purposive political decision and is undertaken selectively.

Mobilizing Public Capital

City governments search for an equilibrium in their relations with the external environment. Governments operate within fixed territorial jurisdictions, but capital is not similarly constrained. To avoid driving business elsewhere, officials must try to maximize services while minimizing taxes. Two factors are important to our argument: (1) efforts to restore the tax-services equilibrium are rooted in a city’s development function, and (2) the decision to mobilize a development tool has to do with the tax-services disequilibrium and is unrelated to employment and income issues.

Threats to a city’s revenue stream disrupt the tax-services balance and most assuredly trigger the search for an appropriate development policy to redress the imbalance. But for some city officials, a perceptual concern motivates their actions. They may want their city to move into a higher orbit or plane within its “system of cities,” the spatial and market area within which cities compete to provide goods and services. These city leaders hope to expand their city’s influence beyond the immediate region rather than cast its fate to the workings of the marketplace. They actively intervene in hopes their city will catapult to a higher level or regain lost status within its relevant system.

City Types

A city government’s orientation reflects both its leaders’ aspirations and its tax-services balance. We have defined four city types based on levels of economic stress and political activism to promote development. In “survivalist cities” development decisions are triggered by a tax-services imbalance. These cities experience economic and fiscal stress and employ a greater-than-average number of development tools. In “market cities” that also suffer economic and fiscal stress, officials do not implement many economic development tools but instead leave the city’s economic fortunes to the private marketplace. “Expansionist cities” are in fairly healthy economic shape, but they mobilize more economic development tools than the average city out of the desire to become a higher order city. “Maintenance cities” also enjoy economic and fiscal health, but city officials refrain from mobilizing many economic development tools because they want to control or manage growth.

Duluth, Minnesota, is an example of a “survivalist city.” It was mired in economic and social malaise after the mid-1970s shutdown of U.S. Steel and many subsequent plant closings. Unemployment was well above the national average, emigration decreased the population by nearly 16 percent in a decade’s time (1970-1982), and general fund revenues declined in constant dollars. By the early 1980s, insufficient revenues and the prospect of lower services triggered Duluth’s response to become exceptionally active in promoting itself as a business location. Development projects ranged from sprucing up the downtown business district through a storefront renovation program to involvement in constructing a several hundred million dollar paper mill.

Since the 1970s, declining manufacturing employment in the industrial belt hit Springfield, Ohio, a “market city,” particularly hard. However, city officials there have been hesitant to invest in public development because of fiscal realities and the dominant political culture, which favors limited government involvement. They clearly understand that by not risking city resources in the development process, it is possible that Springfield will “ratchet down” the hierarchy in its relevant system of cities.

In Huntsville, Alabama, an “expansionist city,” there are no reservations about using the public sector to prime the economic development pump. But unlike in Duluth, Huntsville officials are not responding to economic decline. Instead, their motivation is a vision of Huntsville as the major high-tech, regional city of the new South. To pursue that vision, the city has constructed an economic development program around extant defense installations and the aerospace industry. Huntsville markets itself as a limitless place, as a community reaching for the stars.

Santa Barbara, California, is a “maintenance city” guided by its vision as a Refuge from the Commonplace. It does not offer money or underwrite programs for commercial rehabilitations. It provides no low-interest subsidies for business. It offers no tax abatements. It has no marketing program for economic development. It conducts no industrial recruitment. There is no program in Santa Barbara to leverage private investment, nor is there a public/private partnership. City assistance or involvement in development often is nothing more than approval of a proposed project. The city’s dominant policy instrument is the comprehensive plan. Zoning variances, manipulation of the parking supply, and the imposition of fees are additional tools. The city does not promote development the way other cities do; instead, Santa Barbara molds it.

Politics Matters

The envisioned city of tomorrow is not static; it evolves in response to shifting economies and political coalitions. A city’s underlying economic base, its governing coalition, and the vision of its leaders are in constant tension with other conflicting opportunities, possibilities and visions. A change in city leadership and the governing elite, the closing or downsizing of a large firm, or a substantial change in state aid or in unfunded mandates will, among other factors, influence the vision of the city’s leaders and affect the underlying economy. These changes in vision and market adjustments, then, profoundly affect a city’s approach to economic development. The mobilization of public capital as a mechanism for achieving the vision may change as well.

When voters replaced the leadership of Boise, Idaho, with more proactive officials in the mid-1980s, for example, a new vision was one of the most obvious results. The new mayoral-led coalition talked about regional prominence, and boldly marshaled public capital in support of development projects. The city used development tools and sponsored projects that were vastly different from those of the previous regime. In effect, Boise was transformed from a “maintenance city” to an “expansionist city.”

Thus, politics plays an important role in explaining the path and direction a city chooses. Local officials may perceive a relevant orbit and then try to mobilize public capital in order to keep their city in (or move it to) that orbit. Or, they may choose to allow the workings of the marketplace to determine the city’s orbit. In either case, market forces, a city’s comparative advantage, the relative factor prices of land, labor, and capital—in short, the underlying local economy—influence these perceptions and the city’s approach to development policy.

Political leaders’ images of the good society and their perceptions of their city’s relevant orbit are the foundations for a city’s economic development functions and for the political decision to mobilize public capital. City investment in, and regulation of, development projects is the most effective means by which a city controls and molds its growth in pursuit of its future cityscape.

_________________

Ann O’M. Bowman is professor in the Department of Government and International Affairs at the University of South Carolina, Columbia. Michael A. Pagano is professor of political science at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio. This article is excerpted in part from their book Cityscapes and Capital: The Politics of Urban Development (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995).

Supporters of land taxation view it as an efficient and effective means of financing government, and the concept has wide appeal among public finance scholars. Many economists, including several Nobel Prize winners, actively endorse this method of taxation, which taxes land value separately and instead of buildings and improvements. At least from an academic perspective, then, the case for the efficiency and fairness of a land-based tax system seems irrefutable.

Despite that support, the concept of land taxation has not been widely embraced in the United States. Property tax bases are set by state constitutional or statutory law, so local governments cannot implement a land tax, or its split-rate variant, without authorization from their respective state legislatures. Other than a handful of Pennsylvania cities that have adopted split-rate or two-rate tax systems, no American jurisdictions currently place higher tax burdens on land than on buildings and other improvements. Virginia recently responded to interest in two-rate taxation with legislation allowing two local governments to adopt graded tax programs, but they have not yet done so. While split-rate taxation is discussed periodically as a reform measure, there are no current proposals for its adoption awaiting action before a state legislature (Brunori and Carr 2002).

Statutory or constitutional enactment of a land tax would entail revising property tax laws that have been substantially unchanged for more than a century. In general, state legislators are cautious about implementing dramatic reforms in any public policy area, and comprehensive tax reform has been a particularly elusive goal. Adoption of split-rate or land taxation would be a dramatic change, requiring significant awareness, advocacy and support in the ranks of the legislature and at the local level.

There are few areas of government finance in which scholarly opinion and actual public policy diverge so dramatically. This situation prompted me to undertake two nationwide research surveys. The first survey sought to ascertain the level of knowledge of land taxation on the part of the nation’s state legislators. Without an understanding of the issues presented by the taxation of land, legislators are unlikely to champion, advocate or even vote for such measures. I also surveyed local elected officials, because state legislators will not advocate any reforms without constituent support. Moreover, since the reforms at issue will affect primarily local government finances, any legislative body seeking to reform a tax system will solicit the views and advice of local officials.

The Survey Questions

To gauge general awareness of the concept of land value taxation, the survey began with a broad question, describing it as “taxing the full value of land but exempting buildings, structures and other improvements from tax.” The next question narrowed the scope to determine familiarity with split-rate taxation, the version of land taxation practiced in Pennsylvania and authorized in two Virginia municipalities. Because it entails less dramatic reforms, split-rate taxation is the version of land taxation most likely to be adopted in the U.S. This concept was described as “taxing land at a higher rate than buildings, structures and other improvements.”

Legislative research has long found that state lawmakers are likely to support policies that they believe will foster economic development and oppose policies perceived to deter development (Beamer 1999). Taxing land at a higher rate than improvements has historically been thought to encourage building and investment by eliminating or reducing the tax burdens of improving the land. Thus, the third question asked for the respondents’ opinion on the effect that taxing improvements at a lower rate than land would have on economic development, defined as capital investment and job creation.

The proliferation of suburban sprawl is a growing concern among legislators and local officials across the country. The vast academic literature suggests that policy makers view sprawl unfavorably and that most officials think that policies that promote sprawl are unsound. Some public finance scholars believe that adopting split-rate tax policies will limit the negative effects of sprawl (Brueckner 2001). If this belief is true, split-rate taxation could play an important role in the continuing debate over policies intended to deter suburban sprawl. Question four asked what effect taxing improvements at a lower rate than land would have on sprawl. Sprawl was not defined in the question because the term can refer to a number of developments affecting density, suburban growth, loss of open space and decrease in population. Indeed, scholars have lamented the lack of a single operational definition of sprawl. Still, the perception of sprawl as an undesirable land use pattern and policy outcome warranted inclusion of the question in the survey.

Finally, state and local legislators are influenced by the desires and concerns of their constituents. The more important a particular issue is to constituents, the better informed a legislator will become about that issue. Thus, survey participants were asked if during the past year any citizens or organizations had contacted their offices with respect to the issue of split-rate taxation, and if so, whether the constituent supported or opposed the idea.

State and Local Respondents

The first survey focused on state legislators who served on committees with primary responsibility for tax policy and local government finance during the period January–June 2003. There were 106 such committees in the 50 state legislatures, but I excluded those in Pennsylvania and Virginia. Since those states have either adopted or authorized graded tax systems, I assumed that their legislators would be more familiar with the concept and could bias the results.

For the second survey I chose city and county officials from 15 randomly selected local jurisdictions within the 25 largest metropolitan areas in the U.S. To insure a national perspective, I also included city council members from the largest city in each state. Again I focused on officials with primary responsibility for implementing and administering public finance policy and excluded all jurisdictions in Pennsylvania and Virginia.

The survey questions were sent to 1,284 legislators, of whom 780 responded (see Brunori 2003 for more information on methodology). An identical survey was sent to 3,298 city and county officials, of whom 430 responded. The response rate for the state legislators was far above national standards, and the response rate for the local officials was considerably below national standards, but both were statistically significant.

Before revealing the results of the survey research, I must confess that I entered this project with a bias. Having worked in the state and local tax field my entire professional life, as a lawyer, teacher and journalist, I think about tax policy more than any sane person should and have come to know many state legislators and local public officials. In my experience, these government officials are quite capable of finding revenues to pay the bills, but they generally have little in-depth knowledge of the more philosophical and theoretical underpinnings of tax policy. So I assumed that few of them would understand what I was talking about when I began asking questions about land taxation. After all, I did not think most politicians were using their spare time to read Henry George’s classic book, Progress and Poverty. I was quite surprised at the responses.

The Results

In a country where there are virtually no land tax policies in place, the survey results show that a vast majority of elected political leaders do know about land and split-rate taxation (see Table 1). More surprising, to me at least, most political leaders are aware of the benefits of adopting land tax policies. More than 70 percent of the state legislators and 65 percent of the local government officials responded that they were either very or somewhat familiar with the concept of land value taxation, and 67 percent of state legislators and 65 percent of local officials were very or somewhat familiar with split-rate taxation.

The single most important policy goal (after public safety) that concerns American politicians is economic development. When asked about the relationship between the economy and land taxation, more than 62 percent of state legislators and 76 percent of local government officials replied that adopting a split-rate tax system would promote economic development. About one-quarter of both state and local officials thought that taxing improvements at a lower rate than land would have no effect on economic development. These results are arguably consistent with the conventional view that land taxation would have a benign effect on economic decision making. Only 5 percent of the state legislators and no local officials believed that taxing land at a higher rate would deter economic development.

One of the common misperceptions about land taxation is that it will lead to more sprawl, and many, but not a majority, of the respondents shared that misperception. Forty-one percent of surveyed state legislators and 46 percent of local officials said they believed that adopting a split-rate tax system would lead to more suburban sprawl. About 51 percent of the state legislators and 53 percent of local officials surveyed said that split-rate taxation would have no effect on sprawl or would deter sprawl. The fact that so many respondents believe that split-rate taxation would foster more sprawl, presumably by encouraging development of open space in suburban and rural areas, should be troubling to advocates of land taxation.

Finally, a surprisingly small number of elected political leaders have been contacted by constituents regarding land taxation. Eleven percent of state legislators and 9 percent of local government officials said an individual constituent or organization had contacted them regarding the issue of land-based or split-rate taxation, and all were supporters of the idea.

What Does It All Mean?

What originally sparked my interest in this research project was the disconnect between scholarly opinion about land taxation and political action to promote it. I thought this discrepancy might be the result of ignorance of the concepts of land taxation on the part of state and local political leaders. If state legislators and city council members were unaware of land or graded taxation, then they could not be expected to champion such reforms.

The survey results show, however, that this discrepancy cannot be resolved by looking at level of awareness alone. Most state legislators and local officials involved in public finance and taxation issues are familiar with both land taxation and split-rate taxation, and they know that moving to a split-rate tax system would have a positive effect on economic development. Moreover, a slight majority of those surveyed believe that graded taxes would have no negative effects on sprawl.

Since state and local officials know about land taxation and believe it could lead to positive policy outcomes, why are so few local governments using this method of public finance? It is difficult to answer that question without eliciting views on more technical aspects of land or split-rate taxation. Implementation of land taxation raises complex issues as to the feasibility of adopting major property tax reforms, the effects on other revenue sources, and the administration of a land tax system, particularly with respect to valuation. Solving the mystery as to why more jurisdictions are not exploring the policy of taxing land at a higher rate than improvements may lie in analyzing these important operational factors.

References

Beamer, Glenn. 1999. Creative politics: Taxes and public goods in a federal system. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Brueckner, Jan K. 2001. Property taxation and urban sprawl. In Property taxation and local government finance, Wallace E. Oates, editor. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Brunori, David. 2003. Awareness of land taxation: Survey of state legislators. Working paper. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Brunori, David, and Jennifer Carr. 2002. Valuing land and improvements: State law and local government practices. State Tax Notes (September 30):1023–1033.

David Brunori is contributing editor of State Tax Notes for Tax Analysts in Arlington, Virginia, and research professor of public policy at The George Washington University in Washington, DC. This article is based on research he conducted as part of a David C. Lincoln Fellowship in Land Value Taxation, awarded by the Lincoln Institute.