SHARE
Last October the Lincoln Institute sponsored the fourth annual symposium for recipients of David C. Lincoln Fellowships in Land Value Taxation (LVT). This fellowship program was established to provide funding for in-depth research by scholars and practitioners working on various aspects of the tax and to present a forum for continued learning and sharing among the fellows and Institute faculty.
The fellowship topics include theoretical or basic research as well as research on practical aspects of the administration and implementation of LVT in the U.S. and around the world. This focus on practicality is appropriate since these fellowships are named for David C. Lincoln, the chairman of the Lincoln Foundation and founding chairman of the Lincoln Institute, who has continually challenged the Institute and the fellows to answer such questions as, how can we get LVT put in place and how can we demonstrate the impact?
This year’s symposium presentations reflect the diversity of the work supported by the program. Richard England reported on his efforts to measure the feasibility of getting a two-rate tax adopted in New Hampshire (see page 8 of this newsletter). He developed a model to estimate the number of taxpayers who would gain or lose with various forms of the two-rate tax. His research suggests that to gain support from taxpayers a new two-rate tax needs to be coupled with some kind of tax credit.
David Brunori conducted a national survey of state legislators who sit on finance or tax committees to determine their familiarity with land value or two-rate tax schemes. To his surprise most were familiar with the two-rate tax and believed that a movement to use it would stimulate economic development. Given that favorable view toward LVT, he was hard pressed to explain why so few policy initiatives have moved in this direction.
Other fellows focused on LVT experiences outside the U.S. Frances Plimmer and Greg McGill reported on their updating of the classic case study of property values in the town of Whitstable in the United Kingdom. Riel Franzsen and William McCluskey reported on their cataloging of all of the LVT efforts in 37 of the 54 member states of the British Commonwealth. Yu-Hung Hong described the existing tax structure on property in the People’s Republic of China and suggested alternative schemes for introducing an expanded LVT system as part of the taxation reform presently being considered there.
On a more empirical track, Suzi Kerr reported on efforts to measure the revenue requirements of growing and declining communities in New Zealand, and Courtney Haff reported on econometric efforts to estimate land value in New York City. All of these papers will be available on the Lincoln Institute’s website when they have been completed.
The list of fellows and their research topics for 2003–2004 is shown on pages 16-17 of this newsletter. Again, the diversity of topics reflects the Institute’s continued support for investigations into viable experiments with the LVT and examples of how to measure the impact. I look forward to the results of this work and the discussion at the next symposium.
SHARE
Veintitrés estados ofrecen un incentivo para preservar el espacio abierto, que consiste en un avalúo preferencial del impuesto a la propiedad sobre las parcelas elegibles (tabla 1, pág. 17). Estas reducciones en el impuesto a la propiedad pueden considerarse como gastos, ya que reducen los ingresos disponibles para otros usos con el interés de proteger la gran cantidad de atracciones y beneficios ambientales que proporciona un terreno sin desarrollar.
Los programas varían mucho de un estado a otro, pero todos los programas de avalúo preferencial para el espacio abierto deben definir el tipo y tamaño de las parcelas elegibles, los usos permitidos, los requisitos de certificación, los métodos de avalúo, la duración del plazo de inscripción y las sanciones (de corresponder) en el caso de cancelar la condición preferencial de la parcela. Varios estados ofrecen más de un programa, cada uno de los cuales establece sus propios requisitos de elegibilidad. En el presente artículo consideramos estas diferencias, ofrecemos ejemplos del cálculo del gasto fiscal y describimos los posibles beneficios y costos sociales derivados de dichos programas.
Determinación de la elegibilidad para el avalúo preferencial
Cada estado define la elegibilidad de diferentes maneras, pero los requisitos son, por lo general, relativamente sencillos de cumplir. Una parcela puede ser elegible simplemente por no estar desarrollada. Varios estados permiten que los terrenos con valor paisajístico sean elegibles siempre que la densidad de construcción no exceda los límites establecidos. Por ejemplo, en Washington se permite que los terrenos sean elegibles si cumplen al menos con uno de once requisitos muy generales, tales como la protección de corrientes de agua o recursos hídricos, la conservación o mejora de recursos naturales o paisajísticos, la preservación de la calidad visual a lo largo de los caminos o la mejora de las oportunidades recreativas.
Aunque estos criterios son muy generales, los estados pueden elevar el nivel mediante la imposición de requisitos adicionales a los propietarios. Algunos estados requieren que los propietarios elaboren un plan de gestión de la propiedad, aprobado por el estado, con el fin de fomentar los beneficios de la vida silvestre del lugar. En Vermont se establece que una organización de conservación elegible debe poseer y gestionar el espacio abierto. Uno de los dos programas vigentes en Texas requiere que los propietarios realicen actividades de gestión de terrenos y vida silvestre con el fin de propagar una población de animales salvajes indígenas, que estén criando, migrando o hibernando, para uso humano, incluidas alimentación, medicina o recreación.
Varios estados ofrecen un avalúo preferencial a las propiedades que han obtenido la condición de espacio abierto a nivel federal. Por ejemplo, las parcelas que se encuentran limitadas por una servidumbre de conservación que cumple con los requisitos del IRS (Servicio de Rentas Internas) para ser considerada una donación de beneficencia son automáticamente elegibles para un avalúo preferencial en Illinois y Oregón. En Ohio, las parcelas son elegibles sólo si son objeto de un contrato con alguno de los cuatro programas de la USDA (Departamento de Agricultura de los Estados Unidos): el Programa de Reserva de Conservación, el Programa de Mejora de Reserva de Conservación, el Programa de Reserva de Pantanos y el Programa de Preservación de Pastizales.
Además, es posible que las parcelas deban cumplir requisitos de tamaño mínimo. El mínimo más común es de 4 hectáreas contiguas, aunque algunos programas permiten propiedades más pequeñas, de hasta 0,8 hectáreas y otros programas directamente no establecen requisitos en este sentido. Unos pocos estados limitan el total de hectáreas que un propietario en particular puede inscribir en el programa. Por ejemplo, en Tennessee se limita la elegibilidad a 607 hectáreas por propietario y condado, incluyendo tierras agrícolas, bosques y espacio abierto combinados. La declaración del tipo de uso de la propiedad puede tener influencia sobre la posibilidad de que dicha propiedad sea aceptada o no, ya que algunos estados prohíben específicamente las propiedades con fines comerciales, tales como los campos de golf. No obstante, al menos dos estados tienen programas diseñados específicamente para los campos de golf y otras propiedades con fines comerciales que brindan oportunidades de recreación al aire libre.
Criterios estatales versus criterios municipales
Los gobiernos estatales por lo general autorizan la creación de programas de avalúo preferencial y los criterios de inclusión. Seis estados permiten que los funcionarios municipales o de cada condado determinen los criterios: el estado autoriza un programa y solamente establece, por ejemplo, que las parcelas estén “incluidas en un plan de preservación aprobado por una agencia de planificación estatal o municipal” (Chervin, Gibson y Green 2009, 8) o que el organismo gubernamental respectivo acepte la propiedad mediante una resolución. Los estados que establecen este requisito son California, Connecticut, Florida, Nevada, Tennessee y Oregón. Los funcionarios municipales o de cada condado deben luego escoger los criterios de elegibilidad que, en algunos casos, incluyen la denominación de parcelas específicas. En otros casos, la oficina de avalúo determina la elegibilidad teniendo en cuenta las características de la propiedad y evaluando si ésta cumple con los criterios.
Este enfoque permite a los gobiernos municipales controlar la cantidad de gastos realizados en sus respectivas jurisdicciones y adaptar el programa con el fin de proteger las cualidades específicas que resultan más importantes para esa área en particular. Por ejemplo, es posible que los funcionarios en un entorno predominantemente agrícola prefieran utilizar los gastos fiscales en bosques o pantanos, mientras que los campos abiertos tal vez sean más valorados en un entorno más urbano.
Cálculo del valor del gasto fiscal
Los programas de avalúo preferencial de espacios abiertos por lo general utilizan uno de los tres métodos para determinar el valor fiscal de la propiedad. Nueve estados valúan el espacio abierto como si estuviera inscrito en el programa del estado para agricultura o bosques, aun cuando el terreno no se utilice para ninguna de estas actividades. Otros nueve estados ordenan a los tasadores valuar las propiedades teniendo en cuenta solamente su utilización actual, sin incluir el valor de los derechos de desarrollo (es decir, el valor de mercado como si su uso futuro estuviera permanentemente limitado a su uso actual). Cuatro estados establecen que los tasadores deben determinar el valor justo de mercado como si el terreno no estuviera inscrito en el programa y luego aplicar una fórmula establecida por ley con el fin de determinar el valor fiscal preferencial. Illinois tiene tres programas de avalúo preferencial para el espacio abierto, que varían según sus criterios de elegibilidad, aunque todos ofrecen reducciones establecidas por ley que se encuentran entre el 75 por ciento y el 85 por ciento. Nevada aplica un descuento establecido por ley más reducido del 26 por ciento.
En ocasiones, los estados deciden definir valores máximos o mínimos por hectárea para las parcelas en espacios abiertos. Por ejemplo, en Maryland se estableció un valor en todo el estado de US$187,50 por acre (US$75 por hectárea) para el año 2009. En Washington se permite que los gobiernos municipales determinen el valor de uso para su región, según un sistema de calificación de beneficios públicos; en el caso de que no exista tal sistema, los terrenos en espacios abiertos pueden recibir una valuación no menor que la valuación agrícola más baja del condado. En Massachusetts se calcula el valor preferencial como valor de uso, que no debe exceder el 25 por ciento del valor justo de mercado.
Duración del programa y sanciones por rescisión anticipada
Muchos programas establecen la renovación anual automática a menos que el propietario decida retirarse del programa. En algunos casos, la duración del contrato está predeterminada: con frecuencia es de 10 años, período que generalmente se traslada al nuevo propietario cuando se vende la propiedad, a menos que el nuevo propietario altere el uso de la propiedad e infrinja los términos del programa. Los propietarios deben pagar una multa por retirarse del programa para alterar el uso del terreno o por alterarlo sin notificar esta decisión. Las sanciones suelen ser equivalentes al valor del gasto fiscal recibido para una determinada cantidad de años antes del año en curso, más los intereses sobre dichos gastos. Varios estados aplican un monto del 10 por ciento del valor justo de mercado cuando la utilización de la parcela cambia, o cobran un impuesto a la transferencia o transmisión de la propiedad cuando una parcela inscrita en el programa se vende.
Sin embargo, si un propietario retira una parcela de un programa después de transcurrida una cantidad mínima de años, el estado puede reducir o incluso eliminar las sanciones. Por ejemplo, en Vermont se les cobra a los propietarios el 20 por ciento del valor justo de mercado por retirar la propiedad durante la primera década, y un 10 por ciento por retirarla después de los 10 años. Rhode Island deduce el 10 por ciento del nuevo valor justo de mercado por retirar una propiedad del programa después de transcurridos 6 años, pero dicha multa se va reduciendo hasta que el contrato se rescinde, es decir, a los 16 años de la inscripción en el programa.
Beneficios económicos de la preservación del espacio abierto
La abundante bibliografía en torno a los efectos que las atracciones ambientales tienen sobre los valores de las propiedades circundantes sugiere que si se evita el desarrollo en una parcela, esto traerá como consecuencia el aumento del valor de las parcelas adyacentes. Sin embargo, en estas investigaciones se observaron factores de complicación que dificultan la predicción de cambios en el valor para regiones específicas. Por ejemplo, los resultados de un estudio realizado en Maryland arrojaron que los programas para espacios abiertos tienen efectos muy diferentes en el valor de las propiedades en tres condados distintos, probablemente debido, al menos en parte, a las variaciones en la cantidad de espacios abiertos que existen (Geoghegan, Lynch y Bucholtz 2003). Muchos otros estudios indican que el valor del espacio abierto para propietarios en particular disminuye a medida que aumenta la distancia desde la parcela protegida (Chamblee y otros 2011). El tipo de hábitat o espacio verde probablemente también sea un factor de influencia: según un análisis, la presencia de árboles frondosos en un barrio se asocia con valores positivos, pero la presencia de abetos tiene un efecto negativo en los valores de la propiedad (Garrod y Willis 1992). Los resultados de un análisis de precios de viviendas en Tucson, Arizona, arrojaron que existe una preferencia por viviendas en áreas con espacios verdes, inclusive el hábitat ribereño nativo (Bark y otros 2009; 2011).
El acceso público a espacios abiertos de propiedad privada con fines recreativos o educativos probablemente también brindaría grandes bene-ficios al municipio en muchos casos. Los estados casi nunca requieren que el acceso público sea una condición para el gasto fiscal, aunque tanto Maine como Nueva Hampshire fomentan esta condición, ya que ofrecen una reducción adicional en el valor fiscal del 25 por ciento y el 20 por ciento, respectivamente.
El espacio abierto protegido también puede reducir el crecimiento en la demanda de servicios provistos por el municipio y, así, evitar los efectos negativos del desarrollo, tales como el tránsito intenso o las escuelas superpobladas, que muy probablemente se traducirían en una mayor carga fiscal para los residentes actuales. La creciente bibliografía en cuanto al costo de los servicios comunitarios indica que los impuestos a la propiedad que se pagan por los terrenos desarrollados son, por lo general, insuficientes a la hora de cubrir el costo de los servicios creados con el fin de apoyar dicho desarrollo, mientras que los espacios abiertos frecuentemente generan ingresos fiscales que exceden el costo de los servicios utilizados en la propiedad. El American Farmland Trust observó, según los resultados de 151 estudios realizados en condados y municipios de 25 estados, que los propietarios de terrenos de cultivo o espacios abiertos con frecuencia pagan impuestos superiores al costo de los servicios que reciben en dichas propiedades (e incluso llegan a ser el doble), mientras que los propietarios de inmuebles residenciales por lo general pagan menos que el costo de los servicios que reciben (Farmland Information Center 2010).
Resultados de este tipo sugieren que el avalúo preferencial puede justificarse con base en la equidad, ya que es posible que los propietarios de espacios abiertos estén subsidiando servicios prestados a los propietarios de inmuebles desarrollados. Sin embargo, el hecho de que la mayoría de los programas requieran un contrato a largo plazo e incluyan sanciones por la rescisión anticipada indica que el objetivo no es la equidad sino evitar el desarrollo durante un período determinado.
Lamentablemente, existe muy poca bibliografía sobre la estimación de si los programas de avalúo preferencial pueden evitar el desarrollo futuro en parcelas que no se encuentran protegidas en forma permanente, tales como las servidumbres. Gran parte de las evidencias que existen actualmente está basada en estudios sobre los programas de protección de terrenos agrícolas en lugar de evaluaciones del impacto que los gastos del impuesto a la propiedad tienen sobre el espacio abierto. En dos estudios llevados a cabo por el programa Greenbelt (cinturón verde) de Tennessee se evaluó una encuesta realizada a propietarios de zonas boscosas inscritos en el programa y sus resultados arrojaron muy pocas pruebas que sustentaran la hipótesis de que el avalúo preferencial reducía la probabilidad de que se llevaran a cabo desarrollos en dichas parcelas (Brockett, Gottfried y Evans 2003; Williams y otros 2004).
Es mucho más sencillo evaluar los terrenos sujetos a una protección a largo plazo o permanente, ya sea mediante una servidumbre de conservación perpetua como a través de un contrato de avalúo preferencial a largo plazo que incluya importantes sanciones en caso de rescisión anticipada. En dichos casos, es posible predecir con un gran nivel de confianza la presencia continua del espacio abierto. Lamentablemente, dichos contratos de protección pueden anteceder al avalúo preferencial o, en otros casos, no estar influenciados por dicho avalúo.
Costos del avalúo preferencial para el espacio abierto
Además del gasto fiscal en sí, estos programas pueden generar otros posibles costos. Por ejemplo, aquellos programas que requieren la aprobación de un plan de conservación podrían generar un gasto particularmente significativo. Aun cuando una agencia estatal pudiera desarrollar y aprobar dicho plan, resultaría muy costoso garantizar el cumplimiento de las condiciones del mismo.
La supervisión del cumplimiento del programa requiere evaluar no sólo los cambios en el valor de mercado de la propiedad sino también los cambios en la utilización de la propiedad. Por ejemplo, si el espacio abierto se usa para pastura del ganado, este nuevo uso podría proteger la situación de no desarrollo de la propiedad pero, aun así, los beneficios ambientales podrían verse disminuidos.
Además, los resultados de los estudios sugieren que, en algunos casos, la preservación del espacio abierto puede reducir el valor de la propiedad por transferencia de los patrones de desarrollo que, generalmente, dan como resultado el desarrollo de las propiedades adyacentes (Irwin y Bockstael 2004; McDonald y otros 2007). Si el avalúo preferencial evita el desarrollo en determinadas parcelas, dicho desarrollo podría trasladarse a otras parcelas de tal manera que aumentaría la expansión urbana descontrolada. Si se da un patrón de desarrollo discontinuo a causa de un programa que evitó el desarrollo parcela por parcela, los efectos negativos (tales como mayores costos de infraestructura) podrían superar en gran medida cualquier beneficio público que generara el programa.
Debido a la naturaleza voluntaria de estos programas y a los cambios que pueden darse en los patrones de desarrollo, en el peor de los casos, las parcelas de menor calidad podrían recibir un avalúo preferencial, lo que aumentaría la presión para llevar a cabo desarrollos en las parcelas que generan mayores beneficios públicos. Por un lado, la aprobación del gobierno municipal podría disminuir este problema, ya que permitiría que las personas que tienen un mejor conocimiento del área pudieran escoger las parcelas que merecen más protección. Por otro lado, esto podría inspirar a los funcionarios municipales a proteger el espacio abierto en sus respectivas jurisdicciones, lo que incitaría el desarrollo en las comunidades vecinas y generaría patrones de desarrollo no deseados a nivel regional. Es importante destacar además que el avalúo preferencial del espacio abierto genera, hasta cierto punto, un sistema de tarifas diferenciadas, según el cual la tarifa más alta se aplica sobre los terrenos desarrollados, especialmente sobre las mejoras realizadas a los terrenos; este problema ha sido un motivo de preocupación para muchos académicos en el campo del impuesto a la propiedad y puede afectar en gran medida los patrones de uso del suelo.
Finalmente, el valor de los beneficios públicos no es estático, ya que puede aumentar o disminuir dependiendo de la condición de la propiedad y el área circundante. Los cambios pueden ser independientes de los futuros cambios en el valor fiscal o, incluso, pueden estar negativamente correlacionados con los mismos. Por ejemplo, una presión más intensa para llevar a cabo desarrollos podría aumentar el beneficio de preservar una parcela de grandes dimensiones como espacio abierto, o podría disminuir el beneficio de preservar una pequeña parcela aislada. Un espacio abierto de 10 hectáreas en medio de una ciudad podría beneficiar en gran manera a la comunidad; sin embargo, si se llevan a cabo desarrollos en 9 de esas hectáreas, esto probablemente reduciría los beneficios ambientales de la hectárea restante. Sin embargo, en ambos casos, es probable que aumenten los ahorros fiscales derivados del avalúo preferencial, ya que la presión por el desarrollo genera un aumento en los valores de las propiedades en el lugar.
Estos factores indican que, a pesar de que el avalúo preferencial ofrece a los propietarios un incentivo para preservar los beneficios públicos, la cantidad del incentivo puede no compensar, o incluso compensar de más, el beneficio generado. Esto dará como resultado un programa ineficiente en sí mismo, aunque este tipo de programas siga dando importantes beneficios netos si se compara con el hecho de no tener ningún programa.
Consecuencias en la distribución
Los gastos en el impuesto a la propiedad con el fin de proteger el espacio abierto tendrán consecuencias en la distribución. De manera más inmediata, el programa redistribuiría la carga fiscal a otros propietarios de inmuebles en los mismos distritos tributarios, a medida que los gobiernos modifican el tipo fiscal a tanto por mil a fin de mantener la recaudación presupuestada. Los propietarios de inmuebles desarrollados constituirían así una gran parte de la base imponible y, como resultado, deberían pagar una fracción mayor de la factura de cobro total del impuesto.
Debido a que los programas de avalúo preferencial se encuentran diseñados principalmente para mantener el espacio abierto existente, las parcelas inscritas en dichos programas continúan generando beneficios, aunque dichos beneficios no aumenten necesariamente. De esta manera, sería de esperar que los beneficios públicos continuaran devengándose como hasta ahora. Sólo los residentes locales se beneficiarán con los paisajes y los costos externos previstos del desarrollo, mientras que tanto residentes como no residentes por igual podrán obtener los beneficios derivados de la protección de las cuencas de agua o los hábitats de especies en riesgo (Anderson y West 2006). No obstante, podría esperarse un aumento de los beneficios si el programa requiriera a los propietarios que mejoraran el valor del espacio abierto realizando actividades tales como la restauración de hábitats.
Varias investigaciones indican que los efectos del espacio abierto en los valores de las propiedades adyacentes dependen significativamente del tipo de protección y de su capacidad para evitar el desarrollo en el futuro. Por ejemplo, los terrenos adquiridos como parques o reservas forestales o los terrenos que se encuentran sujetos a una servidumbre de conservación tienen un efecto mucho más positivo en el valor de las propiedades adyacentes que el espacio abierto que no se encuentra protegido de forma permanente (Geoghegan 2002). La inscripción en un programa de avalúo preferencial podría tener pocos efectos, o incluso ninguno en absoluto, en los valores de las propiedades adyacentes si la protección se percibe como algo temporal, lo que puede dar como resultado reducciones permanentes en la recaudación o tasas de impuesto permanentemente altas sobre las parcelas que no se encuentran inscritas.
Cálculo del costo fiscal de los gastos del avalúo preferencial
La metodología para calcular el gasto fiscal derivado del avalúo preferencial del espacio abierto es clara. El propietario del inmueble percibiría una carga fiscal reducida, resultado de la diferencia entre el avalúo sin el programa y el avalúo preferencial. Esta disminución en el valor fiscal puede reducir la recaudación fiscal debido a la reducción de la base imponible. De forma alternativa, la pérdida de recaudación podría compensarse transfiriendo dicha carga fiscal a otros propietarios de inmuebles, a los que se les aumenta la tasa del impuesto. También es posible una combinación de ambos resultados. En el informe de gastos fiscales de Oregón (tabla 2) se observó tanto la pérdida como la transferencia del impuesto; en dicho informe se indican valores de exención de US$126 millones en el ejercicio 2009–2010 para los tres programas aplicables al espacio abierto. La pérdida de recaudación estimada en dos ejercicios es de US$3,2 millones, mientras que la recaudación estimada derivada de la transferencia del impuesto durante dicho período es de US$0,7 millones.
Los datos son desiguales de un estado a otro, lo que dificulta la estimación de los efectos del avalúo preferencial en la recaudación. Los datos totales que se presentaron respecto de Oregón son mucho más útiles que los datos presentados por otros estados. Aquellos estados que no calculan los gastos del impuesto a la propiedad con regularidad no facilitan el acceso a dichos datos; como mucho, por lo general presentan cifras totales que combinan los resultados de los programas para terrenos agrícolas, bosques y espacios abiertos. En la tabla 2 también se indican los alcances relativos del espacio abierto en dicho contexto. Los valores de exención para las zonas boscosas privadas fueron superiores a los US$5 mil millones, y los valores de exención para los terrenos de labranza y las viviendas en zonas agrícolas fueron de US$14,1 mil millones. Los tres programas de conservación combinados representan aproximadamente el 0,5 por ciento del valor total de exenciones y menos del 1 por ciento de la recaudación perdida o trasladada.
Estos cálculos también dependen de otros efectos que pueden ser muy difíciles de observar. Será imposible determinar los alcances de la transferencia de la recaudación sin tener información detallada acerca de la capacidad de respuesta del gobierno municipal a la hora de modificar el tipo fiscal a tanto por mil. En este caso, la estimación sólo corresponderá a la recaudación prevista. También será necesario ignorar los posibles efectos positivos del programa en cuanto al valor inmobiliario en las parcelas adyacentes.
Conclusión
La tarea de diseñar un programa de avalúo preferencial para el espacio abierto requiere una cuidadosa consideración. Aunque los terrenos con poco desarrollo brindan atracciones y beneficios ambientales bajo numerosas circunstancias, el valor de dichos beneficios puede variar significativamente según las condiciones de cada lugar. Si el objetivo principal del programa es proporcionar beneficios a nivel municipal en vez de regional, establecer un único conjunto de criterios para todo el estado probablemente no maximizaría los beneficios. La determinación de criterios de inscripción a nivel municipal puede otorgar la flexibilidad necesaria para reaccionar ante las mencionadas condiciones variables, mientras que los criterios a nivel estatal probablemente son necesarios para proteger los recursos regionales, tales como las cuencas de agua.
La escasez de investigaciones empíricas en esta área de estudio dificulta la tarea de evaluar la efectividad de los programas actualmente en vigencia. Si el objetivo es verdaderamente evitar el desarrollo en ciertas parcelas, al diseñar el programa debería tenerse en cuenta la duración del contrato y las sanciones por rescisión anticipada del mismo. Los retrasos a corto plazo en el desarrollo generarán beneficios principalmente para los propietarios del espacio abierto. Para que un programa tenga éxito, el espacio abierto debe generar beneficios significativos para la comunidad, ya sea mediante una protección ambiental a largo plazo como la aplicación de mayores valores inmobiliarios para otros residentes del área. Si el programa establece mayores requisitos de elegibilidad, esto debería reducir la cantidad de hectáreas inscritas; no obstante, el objetivo principal del programa no debería ser la cantidad de hectáreas inscritas, a menos que la intención de los legisladores sea únicamente la reducción del desarrollo a nivel municipal. La inscripción de una significativa cantidad de parcelas en el programa podría tener importantes implicaciones fiscales para las juris-dicciones municipales, especialmente cuando el establecimiento de criterios amplios y sanciones de poco monto por rescisión anticipada permite que los propietarios fácilmente se inscriban en el programa y luego lleven a cabo desarrollos en su propiedad. El diseño de los programas debe garantizar un máximo de beneficios públicos a cambio de los efectos fiscales.
El presente artículo es una adaptación del documento de trabajo del Instituto Lincoln titulado “Avalúo preferencial para el espacio abierto”: https://www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/dl/2281_1620_Sundberg_WP13JS1.pdf
Sobre el autor
Jeffrey O. Sundberg es profesor de Artes liberales y negocios en la Fundación James S. Kemper y profesor de Economía en la Universidad Lake Forest. Obtuvo su doctorado (Ph.D) en Economía por la Universidad de Stanford. Sus intereses de investigación actuales son la eficiencia de los incentivos fiscales estatales y federales para las donaciones de servidumbre de conservación y los programas de avalúo preferencial para el espacio abierto. Sundberg también se desempeñó como presidente del directorio de un fideicomiso de suelo en el condado de Lake, Illinois, durante cuatro años. Contacto: jsundber@mx.lakeforest.edu.
Recursos
Anderson, Soren y Sarah West. 2006. Open space, residential property values, and spatial context. Regional Science and Urban Economics 36: 773–789.
Bark, R. H., D. E. Osgood, B. G Colby y E. Halper. 2011. How Do Homebuyers Value Different Types of Green Space? Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 36(3): 395–415.
Bark, R. H., D. E. Osgood, B. G. Colby, G. Katz y J. Stromberg. 2009. Habitat preservation and restoration: Do homebuyers have preferences for quality habitat? Ecological Economics 68(5): 1465–1475.
Brockett, C. D., R. R. Gottfried y J. P. Evans. 2003. The Use of State Tax Incentives to Promote Forest Preservation on Private Lands in Tennessee: An Evaluation of Their Equity and Effectiveness Impacts. Politics and Policy 31(2): 252–281.
Chamblee, John F., Peter F. Colwell, Carolyn A. Dehring y Craig A. Depken. 2011. The Effect of Conservation Activity on Surrounding Land Prices. Land Economics 87(3): 453–472.
Chervin, Stan, Teresa Gibson y Harry Green. 2009. Greenbelt Revisited. Tennessee Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. http://www.tn.gov/tacir/PDF_FILES/Taxes/greenbeltrevisited.pdf.
Farmland Information Center, American Farmland Trust. 2010. Fact Sheet: Cost of Community Services Studies. http://www.farmland.org/documents/Cost-of-Community-Services-08-2010.pdf.
Garrod, Guy y Ken Willis. 1992. The environmental economic impact of woodland: a two-stage hedonic price model of the amenity value of forestry in Britain. Applied Economics 24: 715–728.
Geoghegan, Jacqueline, Lori Lynch y Shawn Bucholtz. 2003. Capitalization of Open Spaces into Housing Values and the Residential Property Tax Revenue Impacts of Agricultural Easement Programs. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 32(1): 33–45.
Geoghegan, Jacqueline. 2002. The Value of Open Spaces in Residential Land Use. Land Use Policy 19(1): 91–98.
Irwin, Elana G. y Nancy E. Bockstael. 2004. Land Use Externalities, Open Space Preservation, and Urban Sprawl. Regional Science and Urban Economics 34:705–725.
SHARE
“Como trabajador migrante durante 13 años, siempre he querido ser dueño de mi casa y tener una vida familiar normal aquí en Shenzhen” dijo el Sr. Wang, un exagricultor de la provincia de Sichuan que ahora gana 3.100 yuan (US$500) al mes en una fábrica de esta ciudad inmensa ciudad al sur de China. Wang compró recientemente lo que se conoce como una vivienda de “derechos de propiedad pequeños” (small property rights o SPR), un tipo de emprendimiento residencial ilegal pero muy difundido construido por los habitantes de las aldeas en su suelo de propiedad colectiva ubicado en áreas periurbanas y poblaciones urbanas. Estos son asentamientos rurales rodeados de emprendimientos modernos que se encuentran en muchas ciudades de China. Si bien no hay estadísticas oficiales disponibles, se estima que hay unos 70 millones de unidades SPR, quizá un cuarto de todas las unidades de vivienda urbana en China (Shen y Tu 2014). “La vivienda de derechos de propiedad pequeños satisface mis necesidades”, señaló el Sr. Wang. “Está al alcance de mi bolsillo. Es la mejor opción para mí”, dice.
La vivienda SPR, que se vende principalmente a individuos sin domicilio registrado, o hukou, local (recuadro 1), viola las leyes de administración de suelo de China, que estipulan que sólo el Estado, representado por las municipalidades, tiene el poder de recalificar el suelo rural para uso urbano. A diferencia de los compradores de casas construidas legalmente, los compradores de viviendas SPR no reciben un certificado de derecho de propiedad de la agencia de administración de viviendas del gobierno municipal; sólo firman un contrato de compra de la propiedad con el comité de la aldea. Como la población china de escasa formación frecuentemente considera que el estado es la institución “grande”, las unidades de vivienda compradas a los comités de las aldeas se llaman popularmente viviendas de derechos de propiedad “pequeños”.
————————
Recuadro 1: El sistema de hukou de China
China está dejando de usar paulatinamente el sistema de registro de hogares llamado hukou, instaurado en la década de 1950. El hukou identifica a un ciudadano como residente de una localidad en particular, y le da derecho a la seguridad social, las escuelas públicas, una vivienda al alcance de su bolsillo y otros servicios públicos proporcionados por su distrito, pueblo o aldea. Muchos servicios públicos urbanos sólo están disponibles para los titulares de hukou urbanos. Como la mayoría de los inmigrantes internos tienen un hukou rural, no tienen derecho a recibir muchos de los servicios públicos en las ciudades donde trabajan y viven. Más aún, tienen que volver a los lugares donde están registrados para solicitar los certificados de matrimonio o pasaportes y para renovar su documento de identidad personal y otros documentos, lo cual produce inconvenientes e importantes costos.
————————
El desarrollo extendido de viviendas SPR presenta una serie de preocupaciones legales, políticas, sociales y económicas en el mundo académico y ha generado encendidos debates de política pública (Shen y Tu 2014; Sun y Ho 2015). ¿Por qué ha surgido la vivienda SPR en China, donde el control administrativo generalmente se considera estricto? ¿Qué llevó a los comités de villa a construir viviendas SPR en contravención de las leyes de administración de suelo? ¿Los compradores de viviendas SPR están preocupados por la seguridad de su tenencia? ¿Por qué ha tolerado el gobierno hasta ahora la propiedad de viviendas SPR? Para encontrar las respuestas a estas preguntas, hay que considerar una serie de factores que han contribuido a la creación de viviendas SPR, tales como el sistema de gestión de suelo de China, las finanzas municipales y las actitudes públicas hacia las leyes y regulaciones.
El surgimiento de las viviendas de derechos de propiedad pequeños
El ritmo de urbanización en China no tiene precedente. Entre 1978, cuando comenzó la reforma económica, y 2014, la población urbana más que se cuadruplicó, de 173 millones a 749 millones de habitantes, con un crecimiento promedio anual de 16 millones de habitantes. En el recuento oficial, la población urbana incluye a los residentes con hukou y, en años recientes, a los migrantes que permanecen en una ciudad durante más de seis meses. Con este crecimiento explosivo, la capacidad institucional del gobierno para gestionar la urbanización frecuentemente se ha retrasado, y en el mejor de los casos responde mínimamente a los problemas emergentes.
“El desarrollo informal de viviendas SPR se considera una práctica extralegal y un tipo de urbanización espontánea”, escribió el Dr. Liu Shouying, investigador senior del Centro de Investigación del Desarrollo del Consejo Estatal, en su libro recientemente publicado Land Issues in the Transitional China (Temas del suelo en la China de la transición) (Liu 2014).
“No hay una ley que contemple explícitamente los problemas emergentes de la vivienda SPR”, dijo el profesor Zhou Qiren de la Universidad de Pekín, reconocido académico en temas de derechos de la propiedad en China (Zhou 2014).
Factores legales y económicos
Bajo el sistema dual de gestión de suelo de China, el suelo urbano es propiedad del estado y el suelo rural es propiedad colectiva de las aldeas (figura 1). No hay propiedad privada. Sólo el estado tiene el poder legal para expropiar suelo rural y recalificarlo para uso urbano. Las aldeas no tienen el derecho de desarrollar el suelo. La compensación otorgada a las aldeas por el suelo rural expropiado se basa en el valor de producción agrícola del suelo y no en su valor de mercado, que es mayor.
Cuando el estado expropia suelo rural para uso urbano, asigna los usos residenciales y comerciales por medio de concesiones a emprendedores inmobiliarios, quienes pagan un arancel por el derecho del uso del suelo. Este sistema permite a los gobiernos municipales expropiar suelo rural para el desarrollo industrial y urbano a bajo costo, y generar pingües beneficios por las concesiones de suelo.
La capacidad de los gobiernos municipales para expandir la oferta de suelo urbano está muy limitada, sin embargo, por los estrictos requisitos de preservación de suelo agrícola de China. Bajo esta política, se deben preservar 1.800 millones de mu (que equivalen a 1,2 millones de km2) de suelos agrícolas de alta calidad en todo el país para garantizar el aprovisionamiento de alimentos. El Ministerio de Suelo y Recursos aprueba anualmente el monto de suelo urbano para cada ciudad, y el gobierno municipal destina entonces esta cantidad para distintos propósitos, dejando una pequeña fracción (en general alrededor del 30 por ciento) para desarrollo residencial. Dada la oferta limitada de suelo residencial en las principales ciudades, su precio de mercado es muy alto.
En contraste, la mayoría de las ciudades ofrece suelo industrial a las firmas de manufactura a precios muy bajos y subsidiados, para poder obtener inversión y hacer crecer el empleo. Esperan que estas firmas creen puestos trabajo, crecimiento económico e ingresos tributarios para la municipalidad, y que a su vez estos nuevos puestos de empleo aumenten la demanda de vivienda y servicios, generando así más trabajo, crecimiento económico e ingresos tributarios. Como resultado, el precio del suelo residencial es hasta 15 veces mayor que el precio del suelo industrial (figura 2).
En los últimos años, los aranceles de concesión de suelo comercial y residencial constituyeron normalmente del 40 al 60 por ciento de los ingresos tributarios municipales. Con estos ingresos, los gobiernos municipales no sólo subsidian el suelo industrial, sino que también financian la inversión pública en infraestructura y otros servicios. Como la compensación a los agricultores era sólo una pequeña fracción del valor creado por los derechos de desarrollo monopolizados por el gobierno, aquellos buscaron maneras de compartir estos ingresos estatales, preparando el terreno para las viviendas SPR.
Hay tres tipos de suelo rural en China. Uno se usa para agricultura, otro para construcción y el tercero permanece sin utilizar. Las unidades de vivienda SPR suelen edificarse en suelo rural para construcción, que se puede usar para los lotes residenciales de los pobladores de las aldeas y para instalaciones públicas. Si bien la política nacional de preservación de suelo agrícola prohíbe generalmente la conversión de suelo rural en suelo para construcción, esta prohibición no se extiende explícitamente al uso del suelo edificable para industrias, restaurantes, hoteles, almacenes, plantas para alquilar y viviendas de alquiler en las aldeas. Es más, la actividad de alquiler de propiedades ha existido en las áreas rurales desde hace muchos años. Por ejemplo, las familias de origen rural que viven en aldeas urbanas y en los límites urbanos de rápido crecimiento han construido viviendas de varios pisos en sus lotes residenciales y alquilado las unidades a trabajadores migrantes.
Cuando los precios de la vivienda urbana comenzaron a crecer desmesuradamente a mediados de la década de 2000, las aldeas vieron la oportunidad de obtener jugosas ganancias construyendo y vendiendo casas. Entre 2006 y 2014, los precios de la vivienda aumentaron alrededor del 20 por ciento anual en Beijing, 18 por ciento anual en Shanghái, 17 por ciento anual en Shenzhen y 11 por ciento anual en Chengdu (PLC-HLCRE 2014). Estos crecimientos se debieron en parte al rápido incremento de los precios del suelo residencial.
La demanda de compra de viviendas en China sigue siendo alta, debido al crecimiento de la población urbana, de los ingresos de los hogares, las altas tasas de ahorro de los hogares urbanos, y a la falta de inversiones alternativas para los hogares. Y las unidades de vivienda SPR son mucho menos costosas, cuando se las compara con las unidades de vivienda formal en la misma ubicación. Sus precios son normalmente un 40 a 60 por ciento menor, porque las poblaciones no pagan aranceles de concesión del suelo como los emprendedores inmobiliarios urbanos, y los gastos administrativos de las viviendas SPR son también menores. Por lo tanto, las unidades SPR son la opción de vivienda más racional para los hogares de migrantes, e incluso para algunos hogares urbanos con hukou en su ciudad de residencia.
Factores sociales y culturales
Los comités de las poblaciones sabían que construir y vender viviendas SPR violaba la ley de administración de suelo y las regulaciones locales de suelo asociadas, pero la atracción de las ganancias los llevó a exceder los límites legales. Y una vez que unas cuantas poblaciones comenzaron a vender viviendas SPR, las demás no se hicieron esperar. El gobierno central respondió emitiendo una serie de circulares administrativas para detener esta actividad, pero tomó muy pocas acciones concretas, debido a la falta de medidas legalmente efectivas y socialmente aceptables para poner fin a esta práctica.
Mientras tanto, dada la falta de protecciones legales, uno se puede preguntar por qué los compradores de viviendas SPR no optan por viviendas de alquiler. La respuesta es que el mercado de alquileres urbanos en China no está bien regulado, y el cumplimiento de contratos es débil. Los alquileres suben inesperadamente para los inquilinos, y los contratos pueden cancelarse prematuramente. Además, la mayoría de los trabajadores migrantes no pueden participar en los programas de vivienda social de los gobiernos municipales porque no tienen un hukou urbano local.
Al mismo tiempo, las familias chinas tienen una fuerte preferencia por la propiedad de la vivienda, por una serie de razones sociales y culturales. La mayoría de las familias considera que una vivienda estable es esencial en sus vidas. Como dijo el Dr. Sun Yet Sen (1866–1925): “Todo hogar debería tener una casa”. La palabra “familia” (jia) en chino es literalmente la misma palabra que “casa”, tanto en su forma escrita como en su pronunciación. La mayoría de los chinos cree que una casa ideal es un lugar seguro para la familia, y la casa más segura es aquella de la que uno es dueño. Un comprador de vivienda SPR en Shenzhen dijo: “Con mi nueva unidad de vivienda SPR, ya no me tengo que preocupar por los desalojos, y mi lugar para vivir es una casa de verdad”.
Como la atención sanitaria y las oportunidades educativas son mejores en las ciudades que en las áreas rurales, muchos trabajadores migrantes compran unidades de vivienda SPR para que sus familias puedan beneficiarse de estos servicios. Para los hombres jóvenes, la compra de unidades de vivienda SPR es una manera de aumentar sus posibilidades en un mercado matrimonial altamente competitivo, donde hay 34 millones más de hombres que de mujeres, según la Oficina Nacional de Estadísticas. Además, el comportamiento gregario —todos quieren tener lo que tienen los demás— es un factor importante, y la compra de viviendas por algunos compradores influye mucho sobre la decisión de compra de los demás.
Tal como revelan algunas entrevistas en periódicos y encuestas por Internet, a los compradores en general no les preocupa que puedan procesarlos por vivir en viviendas SPR. No creen que el gobierno intente hacer cumplir la ley en contra de millones de ciudadanos. Hay un dicho popular sobre la tradición de cumplimiento legal en China: fa bu ze zhong (la ley no castiga a todos). Si muchas personas contravienen una ley o regulación en China, la gente frecuentemente considera que la ley es defectuosa.
De hecho, si uno analiza la historia de las reformas económicas en China, hay casos célebres en que una violación masiva de una ley produjo su cambio, legalizando así actividades que antes estaban prohibidas. Debido a ello, muchos compradores de viviendas SPR se mostraron confiados en que el gobierno no los iba a desalojar de sus casas. Esta confianza se pone en evidencia por el hecho de que los dueños de viviendas SPR gastan una cantidad sustancial de sus ingresos, ahorros o dinero prestado en mejoras de sus casas, como decoración interior o mobiliario.
Muchos dueños de viviendas SPR creen que constituyen ya un grupo suficientemente numeroso como para desafiar las acciones de penalización gubernamentales. Es muy poco probable que haya desalojos, dado que la prioridad más alta del gobierno es mantener la estabilidad social. El proprietario de una vivienda SPR en Beijing dijo: “Estoy seguro de que el gobierno no nos va a desalojar de nuestras casas. Si lo hiciera, ¿dónde viviríamos? ¿Frente a la alcaldía?”
Un desafío importante para el gobierno
Hacer cumplir la ley contra los millones de hogares que viven en unidades SPR sería realmente poco prudente políticamente. Ello generaría descontento social, que es lo último que el gobierno quiere que ocurra. No obstante, no es fácil enmendar la ley, y el gobierno central no ha podido encontrar desde hace tiempo un sistema de gestión de suelo adecuado para una China urbanizada. Sin una solución clara, el gobierno central ha decidido por ahora tolerar las viviendas SPR.
Los gobiernos locales, sin embargo, se sienten más incómodos con la creciente cantidad de unidades de vivienda SPR, porque reducen su demanda de suelo residencial gubernamental y por lo tanto sus ingresos por concesiones de suelo. Pero debido a su temor al descontento social, la mayoría de los gobiernos locales se limita a repetir la retórica del gobierno central sobre la ilegalidad de las viviendas SPR. La tolerancia del gobierno también es un indicio de que las viviendas SPR ofrecen albergue a muchos grupos de ingresos bajos y medios a los que tanto el gobierno como el mercado no han podido proporcionar. En el debate público, el argumento a favor de las viviendas SPR es que cumple una importante función social, al albergar a la gran cantidad de trabajadores migrantes que China necesita para continuar con su rápido crecimiento económico urbano.
Quizá la mayor preocupación para el gobierno sea el impacto de las unidades SPR sobre los mercados inmobiliarios, las finanzas municipales y las formas urbanas futuras. En la actualidad, ya hay un exceso de oferta en el mercado formal de viviendas urbanas. Una oferta adicional de viviendas SPR debilitaría aún más la demanda en el mercado formal y aumentaría el riesgo de los créditos bancarios. Además, los esfuerzos de planificación de China no cubren el suelo rural fuera de las áreas de planificación designadas. El crecimiento de viviendas SPR en estas áreas podría dar lugar, por lo tanto, a patrones de desarrollo urbano indeseados.
Reformas recomendadas
En reconocimiento de las causas que dieron lugar al desarrollo de viviendas SPR, la Tercera Sesión Plenaria del Partido Comunista del decimoctavo Comité Central de China publicó un documento en noviembre de 2013 que sugiere pautas para realizar reformas directamente relacionadas con el suelo, el hukou y las finanzas municipales.
Sobre el suelo: Integrar los mercados de suelo para construcción urbanos y rurales. Permitir la venta, alquiler y toma de acciones de suelo de construcción rural de propiedad colectiva, siempre y cuando cumplan con las normas de planificación. Reducir la expropiación de suelo que no promueva el bienestar público.
Sobre el hukou: Acelerar la reforma del sistema de hukou para ayudar a que los agricultores se conviertan en residentes urbanos. Los esfuerzos deben dirigirse a poner los servicios públicos urbanos básicos (como las viviendas económicas y la red de seguridad social) al alcance de todos los residentes permanentes de las ciudades, incluidos los residentes rurales que han migrado a las ciudades.
Sobre las finanzas municipales: Mejorar el sistema tributario y ampliar la base tributaria local aumentando gradualmente la proporción de impuestos directos (sobre todo el impuesto sobre los ingresos personales y el impuesto sobre la propiedad). Acelerar la legislación de impuestos sobre la propiedad.
Estas reformas se proponen desmantelar el sistema dual de gestión de suelo, permitiendo que los pueblos participen de los beneficios del desarrollo del suelo y aumentando los costos de transacción de la expropiación de suelo. El sistema de hukou se irá dejando de lado gradualmente, comenzando en las ciudades más pequeñas. Si bien las acciones específicas en estos dos frentes de reformas se están estableciendo y ensayando actualmente en programas piloto, la reforma a las finanzas municipales sigue siendo motivo de gran preocupación. Si se reduce el alcance de las concesiones de suelo y se desmantela el sistema de hokou, las ciudades verán reducciones significativas en sus ingresos por venta de suelo y los gastos públicos aumentarán para proporcionar servicios a los trabajadores migrantes y sus familias.
Si bien los impuestos sobre la propiedad residencial serán una nueva fuente de ingresos municipales, este cambio no ocurrirá de inmediato. El gobierno central está escribiendo ahora la ley de impuestos sobre la propiedad, y pueden pasar por lo menos dos años antes de que sea promulgada por la Asamblea Nacional Popular China. Como también las ciudades tardarán unos años en establecer sistemas de avalúo, el impuesto sobre la propiedad residencial no financiará los presupuestos municipales durante un tiempo. De todas maneras, se espera que este nuevo ciclo de reformas políticas resolverá apropiadamente el crítico problema de las viviendas SPR.
Li Sun es investigadora posdoctoral en la Universidad Tecnológica de Delft, Países Bajos, e investigadora afiliada del Centro de Desarrollo Urbano y Política del Suelo de la Universidad de Pekín-Instituto Lincoln.
Zhi Liu es senior fellow y director del Programa de China del Instituto Lincoln, y también director del Centro de Desarrollo Urbano y Política del Suelo de la Universidad de Pekín-Instituto Lincoln.
Referencias
Liu, Shouying. 2014. Land Issues in the Transitional China. Beijing: China Development Press.
Liu, Zhi, y Jinke Wang. 2014. “An Analysis of China’s Urbanization, Land and Housing Problems.” En Annual Report on the Development of China’s New Urbanization, Li Wei, Song Min, y Shen Tiyan, eds. Beijing: Social Sciences Academic Press (China).
PLC-HLCRE. 2014. “Report on the China Quality-Controlled Urban Housing Price Indices (CQCHPI).” Beijing: Peking University–Lincoln Institute Center for Urban Development and Land Policy (PLC) y Hang Lung Center for Real Estate (HLCRE), Tsinghua University.
Shen, Xiaofang, y Fan Tu. 2014. “Dealing with ‘Small Property Rights’ in China’s Land Market Development: What Can China Learn from Its Past Reforms and the World Experience?” Documento de Trabajo. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Sun, Li, y Peter Ho. 2015. “An Emerging Phenomenon of Informal Settlement in China: Small Property Rights Housing in Urban Villages and Peri-urban Areas.” [Ponencia presentada en la Conferencia anual del Banco Mundial sobre suelo y pobreza (23-27 de marzo).
Zhou, Qiren. 2014. “The Reform Should Not Be Self-limited” (en chino).
SHARE
The creation of economic and institutional conditions for efficient urban environmental management, which are also committed to the consolidation of democracy, the promotion of social justice and the eradication of urban poverty, constitutes one of the major challenges for leading political and social agents in this century. This challenge to promote sociospatial inclusion is even more significant in developing and transitional countries, given the complexity of problems resulting from intensive urbanization, environmental degradation, increasing socioeconomic inequalities and spatial segregation. The debate on the legal-political conditions of urban environmental development and management deserves special attention.
The discussion on law and illegality in the context of urban development has gathered momentum in recent years, especially since the Habitat Agenda1 stressed the central importance of urban law. At workshops promoted by the International Research Group on Law and Urban Space (IRGLUS) over the last eight years, researchers have argued for the need to undertake a critical analysis of the role played by legal provisions and institutions in the process of urbanization. The UNCHS2 Global Campaign for Good Urban Governance suggests that the promotion of law reform has been viewed by national and international organizations as one of the main conditions for changing the exclusionary nature of urban development in developing and transitional countries, and for the effective confrontation of growing urban illegality.
Illegal practices have taken many different forms, especially in the expanding informal economy. An increasing number of people have had to step outside the law to gain access to urban land and housing, and they have to live without proper security of tenure in very precarious conditions, usually in peripheral areas. This process has many serious implications-social, political, economic and environmental-and needs to be confronted by both governments and society. It is widely acknowledged that urban illegality has to be understood not only in terms of the dynamics of political systems and land markets, but also the nature of the legal order, particularly the definition of urban real property rights. The promotion of urban reform depends largely on a comprehensive reform of the legal order affecting the regulation of land property rights and the overall process of urban land development, policy-making and management. Special emphasis has been placed on land tenure regularization policies aimed at promoting the sociospatial integration of the urban poor, such as those proposed by the UNCHS Global Campaign for Secure Tenure.
Conservative versus Innovative Approaches
This complex legal-political debate has serious socioeconomic implications at the global level, and it has to be viewed against three conservative though influential and intertwined political-ideological approaches to law and legal regulation.
First, discussion of the role of law in urban development cannot be reduced to the simplistic terms proposed by those who suggest, despite historical evidence, that capitalism per se can distribute wealth widely and who defend a “hands-off” approach to state regulation aimed to control urban development. Whereas globalization is undoubtedly irreversible and in some ways independent of government action, there is no historical justification for the neoliberal ideology which assumes that by maximizing growth and wealth the free market also optimizes the distribution of that increment. (Hobsbawn 2000).
Several indicators of growing social poverty, especially those closely related to the precarious conditions of access to land and housing in urban areas, demonstrate that, even if the world has become wealthier as a result of global economic and financial growth, the regional and social distribution of this newly acquired wealth has been far from optimal. Moreover, the successful industrial development of many countries (e.g., the U.S., Germany, or even Brazil and Mexico) was achieved by adopting regulation measures and by not accepting unreservedly the logic of the free market. Perhaps more than ever, there is a fundamental role for redefined state action and economic regulation in developing and transitional countries, especially regarding the promotion of urban development, land reform, land use control and city management. The central role of law in this process cannot be dismissed.
Second, the impact of economic and financial globalization on the development of land markets has put pressure on developing and transitional countries to reform their national land laws and homogenize their legal systems to facilitate the operation of land markets internationally. This emphasis on a globalized, market-oriented land law reform, with the resulting “‘Americanization’ of commercial laws and the growth of global Anglo-American law firms,” is based on an approach to land “purely as an economic asset which should be made available to anyone who can use it to its highest and best economic use.” This view aims to facilitate foreign investment in land rather than recognize that there is “a social role for land in society” and that land is a “part of the social patrimony of the state” (McAuslan 2000).
A third and increasingly influential approach has been largely, and sometime loosely, based on the work of the economist Hernando de Soto. He defends the notion that global poverty can be solved by linking the growing informal “extra-legal” economy to the formal economy, particularly in urban areas. In this view, small informal businesses and precarious shanty homes are essentially economic assets, “dead capital” which should be revived by the official legal system so people could have access to formal credit, invest in their homes and businesses, and thus reinvigorate the urban economy as a whole. Rather than questioning the nature of the legal system that generated urban illegality in the first place, the full (and frequently unqualified) legalization of informal businesses and the recognition of individual freehold property titles for urban dwellers in informal settlements have been proposed in several countries as the “radical” way to transform urban economies.
Contrary to these conservative approaches, several recent studies have argued that, in the absence of a coherent, well-structured and progressive urban agenda, the approach of legal (neo)liberalism will only aggravate the already serious problem of sociospatial exclusion. However, policy makers and public agencies should become aware of the wide, and often perverse, implications of their proposals, especially those concerning the legalization of informal settlements. The long claimed recognition of the state’s responsibility for the provision of social housing rights cannot be reduced to simply the recognition of property rights. The legalization of informal activities, particularly through the attribution of individual property titles, does not necessarily entail sociospatial integration.
Unless tenure legalization policies are formulated within the scope of comprehensive socioeconomic policies and are assimilated into a broader strategy of urban management, they can have negative effects (Alfonsin 2001). These consequences can include bringing unintended financial burdens to the urban poor; having little impact on alleviating urban poverty; and, most important, directly reinforcing the overall disposition of political and economic power that has traditionally caused sociospatial exclusion. New policies need to reconcile four major factors:
The search for innovative legal-political approaches to tenure for the urban poor includes reconciling the promotion of individual tenure with the recognition of social housing rights; incorporating a long-neglected gender dimension; and attempting to minimize impacts on the land market so the benefits of public investment are “captured” by the poor rather than by private land subdividers. Pursuit of these goals is of utmost importance within the context of a broader, inclusionary urban reform strategy (Payne forthcoming). Several cities, such as Porto Alegre, Mexico City and Caracas, have attempted to operationalize this progressive urban agenda by reforming their traditional legal system. Significant developments to democratize access to land and property have included less exclusive urban norms and regulations, special residential zoning for the urban poor, and changes in the nature of fiscal land value capture mechanisms to make them less regressive.
Widening the Debate
In the context of this lively debate on urban law, the Lincoln Institute supported three recent international conferences:
Law in Urban Governance
Given the relatively new emphasis on reconciling urban studies and legal studies, the legal dimension of the urban development process still needs to be made more explicitly the focus of research. This requires a more consistent approach to language so key concepts, such as property rights, can be adequately discussed in both political and legal terms. Most of the papers presented at this IRGLUS conference focused on land regularization. While regularization has become the most frequent policy response to the general problem of illegal settlement, the term is used in a variety of ways, each with different meanings, by different agencies and researchers. The implementation of the physical dimension of regularization policies entails upgrading infrastructure and introducing services. It also highlights the need to be culturally sensitive. For example, regularization policies to provide security of tenure require greater attention to the gender implications of the process.
Participants also discussed the impacts of regularization policies on both formal and informal land market. Regularization was seen by some as the “marketization” of processes operating in erstwhile illegal settlements. One area of concern was the possibility of “gentrification,” which in this case means not the rehabilitation and changed use of buildings but the process of middle-income groups “raiding” newly regularized settlements for residential or other purposes and displacing the original inhabitants. Clearly, a broad range of economic and political issues needs to be addressed when defining regularization policies. In particular, the residents of illegal settlements need to be included in the economic and political life of the city to avoid the dangers of increased socioeconomic segregation.
Responding successfully to the complex problems of illegal settlement is difficult, and particular solutions cannot always be replicated in other places. Ultimately successful regularization is dependent on government and requires costly programs and legal reform. However, the gap between the questions raised and actual practice in the field is significant. Because of the pressing need to “get ahead” of the process of illegal settlement, public agencies are concentrating on cure not prevention.
How do local governments halt the process of illegal settlement? By working on more effective housing and land delivery systems. Conference participants defended the legitimacy of tenure programs, pragmatically in some cases, or as a fundamental right in others. Given the “top-down” approach frequently given to this issue, the discussion on empowerment needs to be widened so the voice of the urban poor can emerge.
The UNCHS/ECLAC Conference
Latin America was the only region to draw up a plan of action for Habitat II-an indication that, despite the existence of fundamental linguistic, historical and cultural differences in the region, there is a common agenda that should mobilize collaboration. The region’s urban structure is undergoing significant transformation as a result of several combined processes:
All such problems have worsened because of expanding economic globalization, inappropriate liberalization policies and largely unregulated privatization schemes. Despite its rapid integration into the growing global market, Latin America has seen social poverty escalate in the last decade. World Bank projections suggest that if this picture remains unchallenged 55 million Latin Americans may be living on less than US$1 a day in the next decade.
The Santiago Declaration resulting from this conference clarified the goal of an urban environmental agenda for political-institutional dialogue and joint action. The focus is to create the conditions needed to overcome political governance obstacles that still challenge the efforts made over the last two decades to promote economic reforms and democratization in the region. To develop a more competitive and efficient urban structure, such a regional action plan should:
An urgent need is to provide better and more accessible housing conditions for the urban poor, as part of a broader urban reform strategy. Since public investment in housing in much of Latin America has decreased recently, the provision of new housing units, improvements to the existing housing stock and the regularization of informal settlements cannot be postponed any longer.
The Santiago Declaration also advanced a number of proposals, including new regulation frameworks for urban and housing policies; territorial organization policies and land use control mechanisms; and public policies for social integration and gender equity. However, it failed to confront the fact that many of the region’s social, urban and environmental problems have been caused by the conservative, elitist and largely obsolete national legal systems still in force in many countries. Any proposed new balance between states, markets and citizens to support the process of urban reform requires not only economic and political-institutional changes but a comprehensive legal reform as well, especially the legal-political approach to property rights.
Brazilian Urban Law Conference
Brazil’s 1988 Constitution introduced a ground-breaking chapter on urban policy by consolidating the notion of the “social function of property and of the city” as the main framework for Brazilian urban law. Although previous Brazilian constitutions since 1934 nominally stated that the recognition of individual property rights was conditioned to the fulfillment of a “social function,” until 1988 this principle was not clearly defined or made operational with enforcement mechanisms. In short, the 1988 Constitution recognizes individual property rights in urban areas only if the use and development of land and property meets the socially oriented and environmentally sound provisions of urban legislation, especially master plans formulated at the local level. As a result, countless urban and environmental laws have been enacted at the municipal level to support a wide range of progressive urban policies and management strategies.
Some of the most interesting international experiences in urban management are taking place in Brazil, such as the participatory budgeting process which has been adopted in several cities (Goldsmith and Vainer 2001). The imminent approval of National Urban Development Law (the so-called “City Statute”) should help consolidate the new constitutional paradigm for urban planning and management, especially by regulating constitutional enforcement mechanisms such as mandatory edification, transfer of development rights, expropriation through progressive taxation and special usucapiao (adverse possession) rights.
This change in the legal paradigm is of utmost importance. The incipient tradition of urban legal studies in Brazil tends to be essentially legalistic, but it reinforces traditional notions of individual property rights found in the long-standing 1916 Civil Code. This obsolete Code views land and property rights almost exclusively in terms of the economic possibilities granted to individual owners, allowing little room for socially oriented state intervention aimed at reconciling different interests over the use of land and property. Just as important as enacting new laws is the need to consolidate the conceptual framework proposed by the 1988 Constitution, and thus replace the individualistic provisions of the Civil Code, which still provide the basis for conservative judicial interpretations on land development. Much of the ideological resistance to progressive urban policies held by large conservative sectors of Brazilian society stems from the Code, which does not address the role of law and illegality in the process of urban development and management.
The papers presented at this conference explored the legal, political and institutional possibilities created by the new constitutional framework for state and social action in the process of urban development and land use control. Participants emphasized that the discussion of laws, legal institutions and judicial decisions has to be supported by an understanding of the nature of the law-making process, the conditions for law enforcement, and the dynamics of the process of social production of urban illegality.
Participants also remarked that if the legal treatment of property rights is to be taken out of the narrow context of civil law so it can be interpreted from the more progressive criteria of redefined public urban law, then the possibilities offered by administrative law in Brazil are not satisfactory either. The limited and formalistic administrative provisions now in force do not have enough flexibility and scope to deal with and provide legal security to the complex and rapidly changing political-institutional relations at various levels-inside the state, among governmental levels, between state and society, and inside society. New urban management strategies are based on ideas such as planning gains, public-private partnerships, so-called “urban” and “linkage” operations, privatization and public service subcontracting, and participatory budgeting, but they lack full support in the legal system. Furthermore, the new constitutional basis of Brazilian urban law still needs to be consolidated as the main legal framework for urban management.
Conclusion
Many important questions about law and urban illegality remain unanswered, and much more work, research and discussion needs to be undertaken before they can be properly answered. However, sometimes formulating the right questions is as important as providing the right answers. Thus, the discussion of the legal dimension of the urban development and management process will continue to explore questions and answers in the regional context of Latin America and internationally.
Notes
1) Habitat Agenda – the global plan of action adopted by the international community at the Habitat II Conference in Istanbul, Turkey, in June 1996
2) UNCHS: United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat). See www.unchs.org/govern for information on the UNCHS Global Campaign on Good Urban Governance and www.unchs.org/tenure for information on the UNCHS Global Campaign for Secure Tenure.
References
Alfonsin, Betania de Moraes. 2001. “Politicas de regularizacao fundiaria: justificacao, impactos e sustentabilidade”, in Fernandes, Edesio (org) Direito Urbanistico e Politica Urbana no Brasil. Belo Horizonte: Del Rey.
de Soto, Hernando. 2000. The Mystery of Capital. London: Bantam Press.
1989. The Other Path. London: I.B.Tauris & Co.
Fernandes, Edesio. 1999. “Redefining property rights in the age of liberalization and privatization,” Land Lines (November) 11(6):4-5.
Goldsmith, William W., and Carlos B. Vainer. 2001. “Participatory budgeting and power politics in Porto Alegre.” Land Lines (January) 13(1):7-9.
Hobsbawn, Eric. 2000. The New Century. London: Abacus.
McAuslan, Patrick. 2000. “From Greenland’s icy mountains, from India’s coral strand: the globalisation of land markets and its impact on national land law.” Paper presented at the 1st Brazilian Urban Law Conference.
Payne, Geoffrey. Forthcoming. “Innovative approaches to tenure for the urban poor.” United Kingdom Department for International Development.
Edésio Fernandes is a Brazilian jurist and lecturer at DPU-Development Planning Unit of University College London. He is also the coordinator of IRGLUS-International Research Group on Law and Urban Space. He thanks the participants in the IRGLUS Cairo workshop who shared their notes, especially Ann Varley, Gareth A. Jones and Peter Marcuse.
SHARE
While the issue of managing suburban growth has long been on the Lincoln Institute’s agenda, “sprawl” is now receiving a great deal of attention from citizens, policy analysts and policymakers, as well as the popular press. However, crafting policies to respond to suburban growth is extremely difficult for a variety of reasons.
First, we lack a public consensus about what sprawl is. Even paraphrasing former US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, “. . . but I know it when I see it” does not work in this case. For example, one often hears from anti-sprawl activists that they do not want their community to be “another Los Angeles.” However, Los Angeles is more densely populated today than it was 30 years ago.
Dowell Myers and Alicia Kitsuse report that “the Los Angeles urbanized area (the region excluding mountains and deserts) has the highest gross population densities among the 20 largest metropolitan regions, higher even than New York.”1 Exploring deeper, one finds that “Los Angeles” is code for a variety of social problems that are concentrated in our nation’s cities, such as urban crime, teenage pregnancy, poverty, persistent unemployment, and a variety of other concerns, not the least of which is the organization of uses in metropolitan space.
A second challenge to crafting policies to respond to suburban growth is the threat to anticipated economic gain by some of those who own undeveloped land on the fringes of metropolitan areas. For example, one can imagine the great interest these landowners would have in negotiations to redraw urban growth boundaries. The line on the map can have significant monetary implications for a parcel depending on which side of the line it lands.
A third challenge is the variety of existing policies and laws that have encouraged suburban growth over the past 50 years. In a recent Institute-supported study, Patricia Burgess and Thomas Bier make a strong case that governmental fragmentation on two fronts contributes to a policy environment that supports sprawl.2 Fragmentation between levels of government makes regional planning approaches difficult, while fragmentation across functional agencies impedes comprehensive solutions. In another study, Joseph Gyourko and Richard Voith have argued that the combination of the federal mortgage interest deductions and local-level exclusionary zoning have encouraged low-density residential development in jurisdictions surrounding central cities.3
Finally, there is little agreement about desired future development patterns. Thus, if the forces that create sprawl are based on a combination of federal, state and local policies, if our existing landscape reflects both public and private actions, and if the desired future is unclear, how does one even begin to address the issue? The Lincoln Institute’s mission is to contribute to and improve the quality of debate about land policies. Toward that end, our work on sprawl is multi-dimensional, focusing on educational programs for policy officials at the federal, state and local levels.
Programs for Federal and State Officials
Land use issues have increased in importance on the federal policy agenda, and the Institute has begun working with Region 1 of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), based in Boston, to develop a training course for senior administrators. Many staff at EPA are not schooled in land use planning, but their work in traditional EPA areas such as water or air quality requires that they pay attention to land use issues.
Harvey Jacobs, professor of urban and regional planning at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, developed and taught a course to two groups of EPA administrators in the fall of 1998. Response to the two-day program, which included the historical and institutional context of land use planning, was so positive that the EPA asked the Institute to offer this program annually as part of EPA’s required orientation for new administrators.
At the state level, the Institute has recently supported programs to facilitate information exchanges among legislators and planning directors. Patricia Salkin of the Government Law Center at the Albany Law School has researched lessons to be learned from states that attempted state-level legislation on growth management, but failed. Among her findings was the lack of in-depth knowledge among state legislators and executive-level policymakers about the causes and consequences of suburban sprawl. In order for any kind of growth management legislation to be passed successfully, sponsorship is needed by the appropriate legislator. Depending on the state, this might be the chair of the Local Affairs Committee or a different committee leader.
In an attempt to respond to this need for better understanding about sprawl on the part of legislators and their staffs, the Lincoln Institute and the Albany Law School cosponsored a briefing session in February 1999, in Albany. It coincided with the legislative session and, fortuitously, was held on the day of a press conference announcing that the bipartisan “Smart Growth Economic Competitiveness Act of 1999” had been filed in both houses of the New York legislature. The bill includes three key provisions:
(1) It charges the Governor to create an inter-agency council to review existing policies related to growth and development.
(2) It creates a task force to study the issue and come up with recommendations.
(3) It asks the Governor to provide grants for regional compact efforts.
National experts on sprawl, state legislators and commissioners, and Mayor William A. Johnson of Rochester and members of his staff exchanged up-to-date information on related state-level efforts, as well as possible resources for their continued work on this issue. The briefing session gave prominence to the issue of growth management at an important juncture in the state’s history. Perhaps most useful to the legislators and other senior-level policymakers was the neutral forum that the briefing provided for frank discussion of the complexities of “smart growth.” While the event was designed with legislators in mind, it is clear that participants from the executive branch who attended the briefing session also benefited.
In another attempt to target our educational programs to key decision makers, the Lincoln Institute, the Regional Plan Association (RPA) and the New Jersey State Planning Commission cosponsored a leadership retreat for state planning directors from ten of the eleven Northeast states. The directors, or in states without a state planning director a representative from the executive branch, met in Princeton in March for a day characterized by peer-to-peer training.
States with nascent state-level efforts were able to learn from those with more institutionalized programs. While Delaware is as different from New York as Connecticut is from Maine, their state officials were able to benefit enormously from stepping outside their individual political, geographic and economic contexts and considering alternative solutions to similar problems. While each state must construct strategies appropriate to its own needs, all states face many common concerns.
The gathering also provided an opportunity to contribute to a larger, region-wide planning effort. Among the initiatives presented by Robert Yaro, executive director of RPA, was Amtrak’s introduction of high-speed rail service between Boston and Washington, DC, which may leverage substantial economic growth for cities along the corridor. Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington will clearly benefit from rapid, comfortable transportation between terminals. However, it may be in smaller cities such as Providence, Hartford, New Haven, Bridgeport, Stamford, Newark, Trenton and Wilmington where high-speed rail could have a far greater impact. Frequent service to these cities, where airline connections are limited, could bring new investment as well as increased access to other employment centers for their residents.
RPA is drafting a proposal to provide the analysis and preliminary recommendations needed to evaluate the benefits of the Amtrak service. The state planning officers at the Princeton meeting felt that the initiative would be of great interest to their governors and agreed to take the RPA proposal back to their states in an effort to broaden the coalition in support of Amtrak’s high-speed rail service in the Northeast Corridor.
Programs for Local Officials and Community-Based Organizations
At the local level, strategies to address suburban sprawl also need to focus on development and redevelopment in the cities, and the Institute is expanding its course offerings to groups long interested in urban policy. Last November, the Institute cosponsored “Breaking Barriers, Building Partnerships: Urban Vacant Land Redevelopment” with the Massachusetts Association of Community Development Corporations. Meeting in Boston, staff from community development corporations and private and non-profit lenders explored strategies for bringing underutilized land back into use. A similar group gathered in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, in May for a workshop cosponsored by the North Carolina Community Development Initiative and the Kenan Institute for Private Enterprise. The hands-on training was designed to give participants experience in generating alternative financing strategies for urban redevelopment
In another effort in the Southeast, the Lincoln Institute provided support to Spelman College as part of an effort to contribute to the redevelopment of its neighborhood in Atlanta. In June, Spelman and its partners from the Atlantic University Center held a community summit as part of a larger initiative to identify both neighborhood needs and university-community strategies to address those needs.
Our experiences in these programs confirm the complex factors influencing current development patterns: the variety of social, economic, technological and political forces; complex and sometimes conflicting policies at the local, state and federal levels; and the actions of those in the public, private and non-profit sectors. Through this work we have come to understand the need for basic information about the broader issue of land markets. In particular we are interested in how and why land markets operate as they do and the implications of land market activity on various public and private stakeholders. Future curriculum development efforts in this area will concentrate on materials to help policymakers and citizens gain a better appreciation of these markets. In doing so, we will have a fuller understanding of the sprawl issue: what causes sprawl, where interventions will be effective, and the characteristics of successful interventions.
Rosalind Greenstein is a senior fellow and director of the program in land markets at the Lincoln Institute.
Notes
1. Myers, Dowell, and Alicia Kitsuse, “The Debate over Future Density of Development: An Interpretive Review.” Lincoln Institute Working Paper, 1999: 22.
2. Burgess, Patricia, and Thomas Bier, “Public Policy and ‘Rural Sprawl’: Lessons from Northeast Ohio.” Lincoln Institute Working Paper, 1998.
3. Gyourko, Joseph, and Richard Voith, “The Tax Treatment of Housing and Its Effects on Bounded and Unbounded Communities.” Lincoln Institute Working Paper, 1999.
SHARE
Rapid urban growth, concentrated land ownership, and land use regulations often contribute to a scarcity of land serviced by public infrastructure, which facilitates huge increases in land prices and incredible speculative gains. When the legal and administrative framework cannot be changed easily to let markets operate gradual price adjustments that can be taxed via existing property and capital gains taxes, value capture is a suitable approach to attain equity, efficiency and sustainable urban development.
Value capture in Colombia
This article examines the implementation of value capture in the Colombian cities of Bogota and Cali. In the early 1990s these two cities adopted land use regulations aimed at expanding their supplies of residential land and needed a way to capture most of the increases in land values that may be attributed primarily to authorized changes in land use. Implementation of the new value capture instrument poses formidable challenges to Colombian city administrators, who must identify those increases in value that are due primarily to administrative decisions.
Advance page to read full article
Under conditions of rapid urban growth, concentrated land ownership and land use regulations often contribute to a scarcity of land serviced by public infrastructure. This scarcity in turn facilitates huge increases in land prices and incredible speculative gains. When the legal and administrative framework cannot be changed easily to let markets operate gradual price adjustments that can be taxed via existing property and capital gains taxes, value capture is a suitable approach to attain equity, efficiency and sustainable urban development.
In the early 1990s two Colombian cities, Bogota and Cali, adopted land use regulations aimed at expanding their supplies of residential land. Bogota released an attractive reserved site in the middle of the city known as “El Salitre,” with the intention of providing additional infrastructure and establishing special regulations to ensure low- to middle-income housing. Cali expanded its urban perimeter to include a substantial piece of swampland known as “Ciudadela Desepaz,” which needed extensive infrastructure investment. The city planned to provide basic infrastructure to encourage both its own housing department and private developers to build low-income housing.
The very announcement that the respective city councils were about to promote development raised the land prices significantly. In the case of Cali, registered land transactions in Ciudadela Desepaz reflected price increases of more than 300 percent even before the City Council made its formal decision. Land quickly changed hands from a scattered group of relatively unknown cattle ranchers (and, it was documented later, some foreign and domestic drug traffickers) to land speculators and land developers. A series of administrative decisions over a 30-month period pushed land with virtually no market value to a price of more than 14,000 Colombian pesos per square meter (about US$18 in 1995). These decisions resulted in overall gains of more than 1,000 times the original land price after accounting for inflation.
El Salitre in Bogota followed a similar path of decisions by the city administration that raised the price of land substantially. Needless to say, residential housing is being occupied in both cases by middle- to high-income people, not the intended lower-income sectors.
Since cases like Desepaz and El Salitre occur regularly in major Colombian cities, the national government prepared a bill to allow cities to capture most of the increases in land values that may be attributed primarily to authorized changes in land use. Such changes include zoning, density allowances or the conversion of land from agricultural to urban uses. The bill, inspired by similar yet less stringent measures in Spanish and Brazilian laws, was passed by the Colombian Congress as Law 388 of 1997.
Colombian income tax laws, including the successfully applied Contribution de Valorizacion, a betterment levy limited to the cost recovery of public investments, are not effective in capturing the kind of extreme capital gains as seen in Desepaz or El Salitre. Law 388 of 1997, known as the Law for Territorial Development, offers several options for how local authorities may “participate in the plus-valias” through payment of the new “contribution for territorial development.” Cities and property owners may negotiate payment in cash, in kind (through a transfer of part of the land), or through a combination of payment in kind (land) plus the formation of an urban development partnership, for instance, between the owners, the city and developers.
Implementation of this new value capture instrument poses formidable challenges to Colombian city administrators, who must identify those increases in value that are due primarily to administrative decisions. The challenges include measuring the relevant increase in the value of the land, negotiating the forms of payment and establishing partnerships for urban development purposes.
As part of its research and education program in Latin America, the Lincoln Institute has been working with Colombian officials since 1994 to provide training and technical support during the successive stages of preparing the regulations and implementing Law 388 of 1997. The Institute plans to work with other countries experiencing land pricing problems so they may consider value capture measures similar to the Colombian law.
Fernando Rojas, a lawyer from Colombia, is a visiting fellow of the Lincoln Institute this year. He and Victor M. Moncayo, currently president of the National University of Colombia, drafted the bill that later became Law 388. They also worked with Carolina Barco de Botero, a member of the Lincoln Institute Board of Directors, who at the time was head of the United Nations Development Program, which oversaw preparation of the bill for the national government. Martim Smolka is senior fellow for Latin America and Caribbean Programs at the Institute.
* Value capture refers to fiscal and other measures used by governments to earmark the portion of land value increments attributed to community effort rather than to actions of the landowner. In Latin America, these land value increments are often referred to as plus-valias.
SHARE
Like the other New Independent States of Central and Eastern Europe, Estonia is striving to adapt complex social and economic systems to changing conditions. To help Estonian policymakers enhance their understanding of land economics, taxation and related policy issues, the Lincoln Institute has embarked on a far-reaching collaborative education program with the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER).
Of special significance to both institutes is Estonia’s position as one of only a few countries where real estate taxes are applied solely to land, and where buildings and other improvements to land are not taxed. In addition, the country has already made dramatic progress toward establishing a market economy and a system of land taxation based on land value as an incentive for productive use of land and a means of discouraging speculation.
In making the transition to a market economy, Estonian policymakers are constrained by the lack of up-to-date information in the Estonian language on the fiscal and political implications of democratic government or on basic theory and research on land economics. Moreover, as the Estonian Parliament moves the country toward decentralization and land reforms, officials have recognized the need for practical assistance in developing procedures to determine land values and to administer tax assessment and collection systems.
The Lincoln Institute’s Role
For the Lincoln Institute, the current situation offers an opportunity to contribute knowledge about the economics of land markets and taxation based on a broad view of land policy. This approach includes examining the principles expounded by Henry George in his book Progress and Poverty that might be relevant in a country at the early stages of developing land markets.
“Estonia is a model environment for the Lincoln Institute to develop seminars in an economic development framework that analyzes land policy, taxation and valuation,” says Lincoln Institute faculty associate David A. Walker, professor of finance and director of the Center for Business-Government Relations at Georgetown University.
The Institute’s work with Estonia began in September 1993, when senior fellow Joan Youngman and fellow Jane Malme were invited to a conference in Tallinn to discuss the design of a property taxation system. The conference, sponsored and supported by the Paris-based Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the Danish Ministry of Taxation, was organized by Tambet Tiits, then director of the Estonian National Land Board and responsible for implementing the land assessment project.
Malme and Youngman subsequently invited Tiits to participate as a faculty member in a Lincoln Institute course on the interaction of land policy and taxation. Designed for government officials from Eastern Europe and the New Independent States, the course was presented in cooperation with OECD at their training centers in Copenhagen and Vienna.
In December 1994, a delegation composed of Malme, Youngman, Robert Gilmour, president of AIER, and C. Lowell Harriss, professor of economics, emeritus, at Columbia University, went on a fact-finding mission to explore research and education opportunities in Estonia. They recommended that the Institute organize educational programs in Estonia with Tiits, and in May 1995 Walker and Tiits cochaired an intensive three-day seminar. More than 20 senior level public policymakers attended, representing academia, business, three city governments, and various ministries and agencies of the national government.
The program focused on three key goals: studying the role of land taxation to promote efficient land use and to finance local government; learning about legal and administrative systems that support the development of efficient land markets; and understanding the relationships among land policies, land taxes, and land utilization, and their effective application to the economy of Estonia.
Other Lincoln Institute faculty associates participating in the May program were Gilmour; Roy Kelly, deputy director of the International Tax Program at Harvard University and research associate at Harvard Institute for International Development; Malme; Anders Muller, project manager for the Property Valuation and Tax Management Department for the Ministry of Taxation in Denmark; Jussi Palmu, director of Huoneistomarkkinointi Oi, a leading real estate agency in Finland; and Vincent Renard, director of research of CNRS for the Ecole Polytechnique, Laboratoire d’Econometrie, in Paris, France.
“We are pleased to be working with Tambet Tiits and other business and government leaders in Estonia,” says Lincoln Institute president Ronald L. Smith. “We believe the Institute can provide the kind of expertise their policymakers can use to develop the best approaches to land and tax reform, and to strengthen their ability to establish viable programs in a new and still changing economic climate.”
Primer on Land Issues in Estonia
The most northern of the Baltic States, Estonia has a strong tradition of family farming and land ownership. Unlike many other former Soviet bloc countries, its history included a period of independence from 1920 to 1940. In 1939 an estimated 145,000 small farms dotted the land area of 45,200 sq. km., and only about 30 percent of the population lived in urban areas. By the early 1990s, more than 70 percent lived in cities, with one-third of the country’s 1.6 million people inhabiting the capital of Tallinn.
During 50 years of Soviet rule from 1940 to 1990, Estonia experienced intense industrialization and urbanization, nationalization of land and mineral resources, and consolidation of its small farms into huge agricultural collectives. Demographic losses due to deportations, emigration and World War II reduced the number of farm workers and shifted the remaining population away from the land. Land use patterns and environmental integrity were further compromised by Soviet agricultural policies, causing much of the traditional farm land to become forested and moving farm activity to more marginal grasslands.
Restitution began in 1991 but it has been a slow process. The lack of up-to-date knowledge and technology, coexisting with bureaucratic inefficiencies and past agricultural policies, are challenging the effective use of land. However, new land use legislation and taxation have been created to solve these problems in a democratic way.
In only a few years, Estonia has become one of the most progressive and stable of the New Independent States. It has a high level of education and its people are eager to catch up with the “information age.” Its business and government leaders have established significant monetary reforms and pursued foreign trade and investment with the west, particularly Finland, other Scandinavian countries, and its former primary trading partner, Russia. Through the privatization of state enterprises such as textiles and forest products, and the growth of new private businesses in the service sector, Estonia is rapidly becoming a strong economic force in the region.
Current Research on Land Taxation in Estonia
Attiat F. Ott, Professor of Economics and Director of the Institute for Economic Studies at Clark University in Worcester, Massachusetts is conducting a research project titled “Land Taxation in the Baltic States: A Proposal for Reform,” with support from the Lincoln Institute. Over the next two years, Ott will conduct an assessment of the land taxation law introduced in 1994 by the Republic of Estonia. This law was developed in conjunction with the privatization and restoration of land to former owners, as stipulated in the 1992 Constitution. During this period of transition, the interrelationship between public ownership and private rights during the transition period is of primary importance. However, as in other countries, the Estonian property rights structure also affects and ensuing patterns of land use and development. These issues are at the core of the first phase of Ott’s research.
In the second phase, Ott will evaluate the land taxation law as an element of Estonia’s new, overall tax structure. The law defines both state and local land taxes using the same bases (sale price or use value of the land), but a different rate of taxation is levied at each level of government. Ott will review the strengths and weaknesses of the existing land tax system as a basis for offering and offer a comprehensive land taxation proposal for Estonia and the other Baltic States. She will incorporate ideas on the use of a site value tax and concerns about the undesirable effects of land speculation, which is occurring such as those occurring in some urban areas of Estonia.
While Ott’s research is directly related to the Institute’s interest in land value taxation, she will also be making methodological contributions as her quantitative work will extend the area of hedonic pricing models from their common application in housing to the area of land valuation.
Additional information in printed newsletter:
Map: Share of Agricultural Land in the Counties of Estonia: 1939, 1955 and 1992. Source: Adapted from Ulo Mander, “Changes of Landscape Structure in Estonia during the Soviet Period,” GeoJournal, May 1994, 33.1, pp 45-54.
SHARE
It is undeniable that land use change in the United States has been occurring at a rapid rate. Between 1982 and 1997 alone, developed land increased nationwide by 25 million acres, or 34 percent. Population growth certainly helped to fuel this increase in settled land area, as the U.S. resident population grew by 15.6 percent during the same period. From these two trends, it follows that the average population density of developed areas has declined during the late twentieth century: the average number of residents per developed acre fell by 13.6 percent nationwide. This declining density of settled areas is one indicator that “sprawl” has been unfolding across the U.S.
Concerns about Sprawl
Rapid conversion of forests, farms and wetlands to residential, commercial and industrial uses has provoked growing concern among elected officials and voters in many states. In 1999, the National Governors’ Association adopted a statement of principles on better land use that called for preservation of open space and encouragement of growth in already developed portions of the landscape.
The deepening concern for containing sprawl and promoting denser development has been expressed repeatedly at the state and local levels of government. The recent report of the Connecticut Blue Ribbon Commission on Property Taxation and Smart Growth, for example, has explicitly linked “loss of farms, forest and open space . . . [to] decline of and flight from urban areas, along with economic and racial segregation” (State of Connecticut 2003). In New Hampshire during the spring of 2003, a dozen small towns in that politically conservative state authorized million-dollar bond issues to finance conservation of rural lands threatened by metropolitan growth radiating from Boston.
Urban economists have often noted that we should expect the areas of metropolitan regions to expand along with growth of population and income per capita, but this readiness of land markets to accommodate a larger and more affluent population is not the entire story. Jan K. Brueckner and Hyun-A Kim, for example, have pointed out that the territorial expansion of metropolitan regions during recent decades has probably been excessive from a social efficiency point of view. One reason is the failure of developers to account for the loss of amenity values as development consumes open spaces. (Ecological economists would describe this loss as depreciation of natural capital.) Another reason is the failure of local governments to charge developers for the full cost of public infrastructure investments necessitated by metropolitan expansion. Other contributing factors are mortgage interest subsidies under the federal income tax and a failure to price congestion externalities on the roadways linking the metropolitan center to its fringe communities.
There may be other reasons for believing that metropolitan regions have expanded excessively in the U.S. since World War II. First, federal and state grant formulas sometimes reward towns and cities for adopting low-density zoning rules. An example is state reimbursement of pupil busing costs, a subsidy that encourages local school boards to ignore the land use implications of their school siting decisions. Second, several rounds of federal tax cuts since the 1980s have increased the disposable incomes of already affluent households and fueled a status competition favoring construction of ever larger homes on ever larger residential lots.
Tax Policy Tools for Smart Growth
Whatever the exact set of reasons for metropolitan sprawl, state and local policy makers have been scrambling to find policy tools with which to promote compact development. More than a generation ago, nearly all states adopted use-value assessment of rural lands in an effort to protect agricultural lands and other kinds of open space from development. When a rural parcel is enrolled in a use-value assessment program, it is treated for purposes of property taxation as though it were going to remain undeveloped in perpetuity. This legal fiction conveys a substantial tax benefit to rural landowners on the metropolitan fringe because their parcels have far greater market value than assessed value. Under the law, property assessors are required to ignore the development potential of undeveloped parcels enrolled in use-value assessment programs.
Theoretical research by Robert D. Mohr and this author (2003) has found that use-value property assessment, if properly designed, can postpone land use change and thereby provide a window of opportunity for local governments and conservation groups to buy development rights before rural lands are lost to metropolitan growth. However, in 15 states (including Arizona, Florida and New Mexico), the private decision to develop a rural parcel that has enjoyed use-value assessment results in no financial penalty at all to the owner. Hence, the tax incentive to postpone development is very weak. Only in those states (such as Connecticut and Rhode Island) that impose stiff development penalties if a parcel has been enrolled in the use-value assessment program for less than a decade is there a fairly strong incentive to postpone development despite escalating urban land rents. Perhaps it is time for state governments to review their use-value assessment programs to see if they actually postpone development of rural lands. If not, reform of use-value assessment statutes is in order.
Another way to promote compact metropolitan development would be to permit city governments to adopt split-rate property taxation. Under this type of property tax reform, a city can lower the tax rate on buildings and other capital improvements and still maintain the level of municipal services by raising the tax rate on land values. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has had this form of property taxation since 1913. Pittsburgh and Scranton have been the pioneers in tax reform, but by 1995, some 15 cities in the Keystone State had adopted two-rate property taxation. Although the evidence is circumstantial, Wallace Oates and Robert Schwab (1997) have tentatively concluded that lowering the tax rate on building values relative to land values helped to spur downtown commercial construction in Pittsburgh during the 1980s, despite the sharp decline of the city’s steel industry.
A Case Study of New Hampshire
As the fastest-growing state in the Northeast, New Hampshire is witnessing the rapid transformation of its traditional landscape of forests, farms and villages. Between 1982 and 1997, the developed area in the state increased by 210,000 acres, a 55 percent increase, although the population increased only about 26 percent (England 2002). To date, policy makers have paid little attention to the impact of the state’s high property taxes on these trends.
Using a regional econometric model to perform tax reform simulations, I have explored a revenue-neutral shift toward land value taxation in the state. In one study, the statewide property tax (which raised $460 million in 1999) is hypothetically replaced by a pure land value tax yielding an equal amount of state tax revenue. This policy simulation suggests that gross state product, employment and residential construction in the Granite State all would receive a boost from this type of tax reform. The boost to the state’s economic development would be long lasting, not transitory. However, because net migration into the state would receive a strong stimulus, this statewide approach to property tax reform would not serve to deter sprawl (England 2003b).
In a companion study, I simulated a shift to two-rate property taxation in New Hampshire’s largest city, Manchester, and in the economically depressed mill town of Berlin (England 2003a). In both cities, local employment, output and construction would receive a persistent boost following reform of the property tax. This stimulus to urban economic activity also would help to restrain the migration of households and businesses to surrounding rural areas.
If we want to slow down the development of rural lands, then we need to promote employment opportunities and healthy neighborhoods in already settled urban areas. A shift to two-rate property taxation by city governments could help to spark urban revitalization and thereby protect undeveloped lands on the metropolitan fringe. However, even though a shift to two-rate property taxation would promote investment and reinvestment in urban areas, this type of tax reform is likely to confront skepticism and even political opposition. Because industrial and commercial properties frequently have a higher ratio of building value to land value than do residential properties, raising the tax rate on land values in order to pay for a rate cut on capital improvements could have a regressive impact on the distribution of property tax payments. The owners of office buildings and electric power plants, for example, might enjoy lower tax bills while many homeowners might find increased tax bills after implementation of split-rate taxation.
My present research as a David C. Lincoln Fellow aims to see whether this potentially regressive impact of shifting to two-rate property taxation can be avoided, thereby undercutting potential voter opposition. Figure 1 demonstrates that the combination of a generous credit with two tax rates could make a “typical” homeowner a supporter of property tax reform.
Analysis of property tax data for three New Hampshire cities suggests that the introduction of split-rate taxation would indeed be acceptable to many homeowners if it were accompanied by a uniform tax credit on each annual tax bill. One of these communities is Dover, a small but growing city with abundant undeveloped land. In 2002, the total property tax rate was 1.89 percent of market value. Applied equally to land and building values totaling $2.03 billion, this single rate raised $26 million for municipal services and local public schools, with additional revenues raised for county and state purposes.
If the City of Dover had cut the tax rate on buildings by $2 per thousand dollars of assessed valuation and offered a (maximum) credit of $1,000 on each tax bill, then it would have needed to raise the tax rate on assessed land values by roughly $18 per thousand in order to maintain the level of municipal and local school spending during 2002. That particular tax reform would have lowered the annual property tax payment of most owners of single-family homes and residential condos in the city, especially those with relatively modest values. Because of the credit, even owners of inexpensive residential lots would have gained from the tax reform. Many owners of apartment complexes, large commercial properties and extensive tracts of vacant land, however, would have paid more local taxes after the shift to two-rate taxation and a uniform credit applied to each tax bill.
Conclusion
More than a century ago, Henry George advocated taxation of land value in the name of social equity. Contemporary economists have more often advocated land value taxation as an efficiency-enhancing policy favoring economic development. My own research suggests that taxing land values more heavily than building and improvement values could foster urban revitalization and help to protect undeveloped land at the same time. However, unless the design of property tax reform takes distributional impacts explicitly into account, George’s concern for social equity is unlikely to be served.
Richard W. England is professor of economics and natural resources and director of the Center for Business and Economic Research at the University of New Hampshire. He has held a David C. Lincoln Fellowship in Land Value Taxation for three years and will be a visiting fellow at the Institute during 2004.
References
Brueckner, Jan K. and Hyun-A Kim. 2003. Urban Sprawl and the Property Tax. International Tax and Public Finance 10: 5–23.
England, Richard W. 2002. Perspective: A New England Approach to Preserving Open Space. Regional Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston 12(1): 2–5.
———.2003a. Land Value Taxation and Local Economic Development: Results of a Simulation Study. State Tax Notes, 22 April: 323–327.
———.2003b. State and Local Impacts of a Revenue-Neutral Shift from a Uniform Property to a Land Value Tax: Results of a Simulation Study. Land Economics, February: 38–43.
England, Richard W. and Robert D. Mohr. 2003. Land Development and Current Use Assessment: A Theoretical Note. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, April: 46–52.
Oates, Wallace E. and Robert M. Schwab. 1997. The Impact of Urban Land Taxation: The Pittsburgh Experience. National Tax Journal 50(1): 1–21.
State of Connecticut. 2003. Report of Blue Ribbon Commission on Property Tax Burdens and Smart Growth Incentives.
SHARE
Twenty-three states offer an incentive to preserve open space by providing preferential property tax assessment of qualifying parcels (table 1, p. 15). These property tax reductions can be considered expenditures in that they reduce revenue available for other uses in the interest of protecting the many amenities and environmental benefits of undeveloped land.
Programs vary widely from state to state, but all preferential assessment programs for open space must define the type and size of qualified parcels; permissible uses; certification requirements; assessment methods; enrollment term lengths; and penalties, if any, for removing a parcel from preferential status. Several states offer more than one program, each with its own qualification requirements. This article considers these differences, offers examples of how the tax expenditure is calculated, and describes potential societal benefits and costs of such programs.
Determining Eligibility for Preferential Assessment
States define eligibility in many different ways, but the requirements are usually relatively easy to meet. A parcel might qualify simply by being undeveloped. Several states allow landscaped land to qualify provided the building density doesn’t exceed established limits. Washington, for example, allows land to qualify if it meets at least one of eleven very general requirements, including the protection of streams or water supplies, conservation or enhancement of natural or scenic resources, preservation of visual quality along roads, or enhancement of recreational opportunities.
While these criteria are very general, states may raise the bar by placing additional requirements on landowners. Some states require landowners to create and seek state approval for a property management plan that improves benefits for local wildlife. Vermont stipulates that a qualified conservation organization must own and manage the open space. One of two Texas programs requires landowners to provide land and wildlife management to propagate a breeding, migrating, or wintering population of indigenous wild animals for human use, including food, medicine, or recreation.
Several states offer preferential assessment to properties that have attained federal status as open space. For example, parcels restricted by a conservation easement that meets the IRS requirements for a charitable donation automatically qualify for preferential assessment in Illinois and Oregon. Ohio will qualify only parcels under contract to one of four USDA programs (Conservation Reserve Program, Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, Wetlands Reserve Program, and Grassland Preserve Program).
Parcels may have to meet minimum size requirements as well. The most common minimum is ten contiguous acres, though some programs allow properties as small as two acres, and several have no stated requirements. A few states limit the total acreage that any individual landowner may enroll. Tennessee, for example, limits eligibility to 1,500 acres per owner per county, including agricultural land, forest, and open space combined. The stated use of the property may influence its acceptability; several states specifically prohibit commercial property, including golf courses. At least two states, however, have programs specifically designed for golf courses and other commercial properties that provide outdoor recreational opportunities.
State Versus Local Criteria
State governments typically authorize preferential assessment programs and the criteria for inclusion. Six states allow local or county government officials to determine criteria by authorizing a program and requiring only that parcels be “included within a plan for preservation approved by state or local planning agencies” (Chervin, Gibson, and Green 2009, 8), for example, or by requiring that the appropriate governing body accepts the property via resolution. States with this requirement include California, Connecticut, Florida, Nevada, Tennessee, and Oregon. It is then up to local or county officials to choose the criteria for qualification, in some cases naming specific parcels. In other cases, the assessor’s office determines the eligibility, based on the characteristics of the property and whether it meets the criteria.
This approach allows local governments to control the amount of the expenditure in their jurisdiction and tailor the program to protect the specific qualities most important to the area. For example, officials in a predominantly agricultural environment may prefer to use tax expenditures on forests or wetlands, while open fields might prove most valuable in a more urban setting.
Calculating the Value of the Tax Expenditure
Open space preferential assessment programs typically use one of three methods to determine the property’s assessed value. Nine states value open space as if it were enrolled in the state’s program for agriculture or forestry, even though the land isn’t used for either activity. Nine other states instruct assessors to value the property considering only its current use, excluding the value of development rights (i.e., the market value as if its future use were permanently restricted to its current use). Four states instruct the assessor to determine the fair market value as if it were not in the program and then apply a statutory formula to determine the preferential assessed value. Illinois has three programs for preferential assessment of open space, which vary by the criteria for eligibility; all offer statutory reductions that range between 75 percent and 85 percent. Nevada applies a lower statutory reduction of 26 percent.
States occasionally choose to define maximum or minimum values per acre for open space parcels. For example, Maryland set a statewide value of $187.50 per acre for 2009. Washington allows local governments to determine a use value for their region, depending on a public benefit rating system; if no such system exists, open space land may receive an assessment no lower than the lowest agricultural valuation in the county. Massachusetts calculates the preferential value as use value, not to exceed 25 percent of fair market value.
Program Duration and Penalties for Early Withdrawal
Many programs provide for automatic annual renewal unless the landowner chooses to withdraw from the program. In some cases, length of contract is predetermined, most frequently for ten years, which generally carries forward upon the sale of the property unless the new property owner alters the use and violates the terms of the program. Landowners pay a penalty for withdrawing from the program in order to alter land use, or for altering it without notification. Such penalties tend to equal the value of the tax expenditure received for a specified number of years prior to the current year, plus interest on that expenditure. Several states either charge 10 percent of the fair market value when use of the parcel changes, or charge a conveyance or transfer tax when a parcel in the program is sold.
If an owner withdraws a parcel from the program after a minimum number of years, however, the state may reduce or even eliminate penalties. For example, Vermont charges owners 20 percent of fair market value for withdrawing the property in the first decade and 10 percent for withdrawing after more than 10 years. Rhode Island exacts 10 percent of the new fair market value for removing a property after 6 years, but that penalty declines until it terminates, 16 years after enrollment.
Economic Benefits of Open Space Preservation
The large literature discussing the effect of environmental amenities on surrounding property values suggests that preventing development on a parcel will raise the value of neighboring parcels. The studies find complicating factors, however, that make it difficult to predict changes in value for specific regions. One study in Maryland, for example, finds that open space programs have very different effects on the value of property in three different counties, probably due at least in part to variations in the amount of open space present (Geoghegan, Lynch, and Bucholtz 2003). Numerous other studies indicate that the value of open space for individual homeowners declines with distance from the protected parcel (Chamblee, et al. 2011). The type of habitat or green space is also likely to be influential; one analysis finds that the presence of broad-leaved trees in a neighborhood is associated with positive values, but the presence of spruce trees has a negative effect on property values (Garrod and Willis 1992). An analysis of home prices in Tucson, Arizona, finds a preference for homes in areas with green space including native riparian habitat (Bark, et al. 2009; 2011).
Public access to privately owned open space for recreation or educational purposes would also be likely to provide substantial local benefits in many cases. States rarely require public access as a condition for the tax expenditure, but Maine and New Hampshire both encourage it by offering an additional reduction in assessed value of 25 percent and 20 percent, respectively.
Protected open space can also reduce growth in the demand for municipally provided services and forestall negative effects of development, such as heavy traffic or overcrowded schools, which would likely impose a heavier tax liability on current residents. A growing literature on cost of community services indicates that the property taxes paid on developed land are often insufficient to cover the cost of services created to support that development, while open space frequently generates tax revenues well in excess of the cost of services expended on the property. The American Farmland Trust, reporting results from 151 studies covering counties and municipalities in 25 states, finds that the owners of working and open land frequently pay taxes above or even twice the cost of services received on those properties, while residential property owners typically pay less than the cost of services received (Farmland Information Center 2010).
Findings like these suggest that preferential assessment can be justified on the grounds of fairness, because the owners of open space may be subsidizing services sent to owners of developed property. However, the fact that most programs require a long-term agreement and include penalties for early conversion indicates that the goal is not fairness, but preventing development for a specified period.
Unfortunately, there is very little literature evaluating whether preferential assessment programs prevent future development on parcels that aren’t under permanent protection such as an easement. Much of the existing evidence is based on studies of farmland protection programs rather than evaluations of the impact of property tax expenditures on open space. Two studies of Tennessee’s Greenbelt Program evaluated a survey of woodland owners enrolled in the program and found little support for the hypothesis that preferential assessment reduced the likelihood of development on these parcels (Brockett, Gottfried, and Evans 2003; Williams, et al. 2004).
It’s easier to evaluate land under long-term or permanent protection of either a perpetual conservation easement or a long-term preferential assessment contract with substantial penalties for withdrawal. In those cases, it’s possible to reliably predict the continued presence of open space; unfortunately, these protection agreements may predate the preferential assessment or be otherwise uninfluenced by it.
Costs of Preferential Assessment for Open Space
In addition to the tax expenditure itself, these programs may incur several other potential costs. Programs that require an approved conservation plan, for example, might generate a particularly challenging expense. While a state agency could develop and approve such a plan, it will be costly to ensure that conditions of the plan are met.
Program enforcement requires evaluating not only changes in a property’s market value but also changes in its use. If open space is used to graze livestock, for example, this new use might protect the undeveloped condition of the property but still reduce the environmental benefits.
Additionally, evidence suggests that in some instances open space preservation can lower property values by shifting development patterns, typically by resulting in the development of nearby properties (Irwin and Bockstael 2004; McDonald, et al. 2007). If preferential assessment prevents development on particular parcels, that development may shift to other parcels in ways that increase sprawl. If a leapfrog pattern of development occurs because a program prevented development on a parcel-by-parcel basis, the negative effects, such as higher infrastructure costs, could overwhelm any public benefits from the program.
Given the voluntary nature of these programs and resulting changes in development patterns, a worst-case scenario is that lower-quality parcels might receive the preferential assessment, increasing development pressure on parcels that generate greater public benefits. On the one hand, local government approval might reduce this problem by allowing individuals who know the area best to choose the parcels that most deserve protection. On the other hand, it might inspire local officials to protect open space in their jurisdiction, pushing development into other communities and creating undesirable development patterns at the regional level. It is also important to mention that preferential assessment of open space to some degree creates a split-rate system with a higher rate on developed land, particularly on improvements to the land—an issue that concerns many property tax scholars and may also significantly affect land use patterns.
Finally, the value of the public benefits is not static; it may increase or decrease depending on the condition of the property and surrounding area. The changes may be uncorrelated, or even negatively correlated, with future changes in assessed value. For example, more intense development pressure might increase the benefit of preserving a large parcel as open space; or it might decrease the benefit of preserving a small “island” parcel. Twenty-five acres of open space in the middle of a town can greatly benefit a community, but, if 24 of those acres are developed, it will likely diminish the environmental benefits of the remaining acre. Both scenarios, however, are likely to increase tax savings from preferential assessment, as development pressure drives up local property values.
These factors indicate that, while preferential assessment does offer landowners an incentive to preserve public benefits, the amount of the incentive may under-correct or even over-correct for the benefit being created. This will result in an inherently inefficient program, though such programs may still result in significant net benefits compared to having no program at all.
Distributional Consequences
Property tax expenditures to protect open space will have distributional consequences. Most immediately, the program would redistribute the tax burden onto other property owners in the same tax districts, as governments change the mill rate in order to maintain budgeted revenue. Owners of developed properties will now constitute a larger share of the tax base and will need to pay a greater fraction of the total tax bill as a result.
Since preferential assessment programs are primarily designed to maintain existing open space, enrolled parcels continue to generate benefits, but those benefits don’t necessarily increase. Thus the public benefits should be expected to continue to accrue as before. Local residents alone will benefit from scenic views and the foregone external costs of development, while residents and nonresidents alike may benefit from protecting watersheds or habitat for endangered species (Anderson and West 2006). Benefits may be expected to increase, however, if the program requires owners to improve the value of the open space by activity such as habitat restoration.
Several studies indicate that the effects of open space on surrounding property values depend critically on the type of protection and its ability to prevent development in the future. For example, land acquired as a park or forest preserve, or land placed under a conservation easement, has a much more positive effect on neighboring property values than open space that is not permanently protected (Geoghegan 2002). Enrollment in a preferential assessment program might have little or no effect on surrounding property values if the protection is perceived to be temporary, resulting in either permanent reductions in revenue or permanently higher tax rates on the non-enrolled parcels.
Calculating the Fiscal Cost of Preferential Assessment Expenditures
The methodology for calculating the tax expenditure resulting from the preferential assessment of open space is straightforward. The property owner will see a reduced tax burden based on the difference between the assessment without the program and the preferential assessment. This reduction in assessed value can lower tax revenue due to a reduced base. Alternatively, the lost revenue could be recouped by shifting the burden onto other property owners by increasing the tax rate. A combination of both outcomes is also possible. Oregon reports both the loss and the shift in their tax expenditure report (table 2), which listed exemption values of $126 million in fiscal year 2009–10 for the three open space programs. The estimated revenue loss over two fiscal years is $3.2 million, while the estimated revenue shift during that period is $0.7 million.
Data is inconsistent from state to state, which makes it difficult to estimate the revenue effects of preferential assessment. The aggregate data presented for Oregon is much more useful than what many other states present. States that do not calculate property tax expenditures frequently do not make such data available; at best, they usually offer aggregate figures that combine the programs for agriculture, forestry, and open space. Table 2 also indicates the relative scope of open space in that context. The exemption values for private forestry were over $5 billion, and the exemption values for farmland and farm home sites were $14.1 billion. The three conservation programs combined represent approximately one-half of one percent of the total exemption value, and less than one percent of the revenue lost or shifted.
Such calculations also depend on other effects that may be very difficult to observe. It will be impossible to determine the extent to which revenue shifted, without detailed information about local government’s ability to respond by changing the mill rate. In that case, the estimate will account for only foregone revenue. It will also be necessary to ignore the program’s possible positive property value effects on neighboring parcels.
Conclusion
Designing a preferential assessment program for open space requires careful consideration. While land with limited development does provide amenities and environmental benefits under many circumstances, the value of those benefits may vary dramatically according to local conditions. If the program’s goal is primarily to provide local, rather than regional, benefits, one set of criteria for the entire state is unlikely to maximize benefits. Local determination of the enrollment criteria may provide the flexibility necessary to react to those varying conditions, whereas state-level criteria are probably necessary to protect regional resources such as watersheds.
The shortage of empirical work in this area makes it difficult to assess the effectiveness of existing programs. If the goal is genuinely to forestall development on certain parcels, program design should consider the length of contract and penalty for early conversion. Short-term delays in development will primarily benefit the owners of open space. For a program to succeed, the open space must generate significant community benefits in the form of either long-term environmental protection or higher property values for other residents of the area. Higher eligibility requirements for inclusion in the program should reduce the amount of acreage enrolled; however, the number of acres should not be the program’s primary goal unless legislators intend it solely as a means to reduce local development. Significant enrollment in the program could have substantial fiscal implications for local jurisdictions, especially if broad criteria and low conversion penalties make it easy for landowners to enroll and then develop the property later. Program design must ensure a maximum of public benefit in exchange for the fiscal effects.
This article was adapted from the Lincoln Institute working paper, “Preferential Assessment for Open Space”: https://www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/dl/2281_1620_Sundberg_WP13JS1.pdf.
About the Author
Jeffrey O. Sundberg is the James S. Kemper Foundation Professor of Liberal Arts and Business and Professor of Economics at Lake Forest College. He received a Ph.D. in economics from Stanford University. His recent research interests include the efficiency of state and federal tax incentives for conservation easement donations and preferential assessment programs for open space. He has also served on the board of a land trust in Lake County, Illinois, serving as board president for four years. Contact: jsundber@mx.lakeforest.edu.
Resources
Anderson, Soren and Sarah West. 2006. Open space, residential property values, and spatial context. Regional Science and Urban Economics 36: 773–789.
Bark, R. H., D. E. Osgood, B. G Colby, and E. Halper. 2011. How Do Homebuyers Value Different Types of Green Space? Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 36(3): 395–415.
Bark, R. H., D. E. Osgood, B. G. Colby, G. Katz, and J. Stromberg. 2009. Habitat preservation and restoration: Do homebuyers have preferences for quality habitat? Ecological Economics 68(5): 1465–1475.
Brockett, C. D., R. R. Gottfried, and J. P. Evans. 2003. The Use of State Tax Incentives to Promote Forest Preservation on Private Lands in Tennessee: An Evaluation of Their Equity and Effectiveness Impacts. Politics and Policy 31(2): 252–281.
Chamblee, John F., Peter F. Colwell, Carolyn A. Dehring, and Craig A. Depken. 2011. The Effect of Conservation Activity on Surrounding Land Prices. Land Economics 87(3): 453–472.
Chervin, Stan, Teresa Gibson, and Harry Green. 2009. Greenbelt Revisited. Tennessee Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. http://www.tn.gov/tacir/PDF_FILES/Taxes/greenbeltrevisited.pdf.
Farmland Information Center, American Farmland Trust. 2010. Fact Sheet: Cost of Community Services Studies. http://www.farmland.org/documents/Cost-of-Community-Services-08-2010.pdf.
Garrod, Guy, and Ken Willis. 1992. The environmental economic impact of woodland: a two-stage hedonic price model of the amenity value of forestry in Britain. Applied Economics 24: 715–728.
Geoghegan, Jacqueline, Lori Lynch, and Shawn Bucholtz. 2003. Capitalization of Open Spaces into Housing Values and the Residential Property Tax Revenue Impacts of Agricultural Easement Programs. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 32(1): 33–45.
Geoghegan, Jacqueline. 2002. The Value of Open Spaces in Residential Land Use. Land Use Policy 19(1): 91–98.
Irwin, Elana G. and Nancy E. Bockstael. 2004. Land Use Externalities, Open Space Preservation, and Urban Sprawl. Regional Science and Urban Economics 34:705–725.
SHARE
Una versión más actualizada de este artículo está disponible como parte del capítulo 2 del libro Perspectivas urbanas: Temas críticos en políticas de suelo de América Latina.
En los últimos años América Latina ha sufrido muchos desastres naturales que han tenido impactos particularmente graves en asentamientos irregulares de áreas densamente urbanizadas. Con base en las conclusiones de investigaciones que el Banco Mundial y otras instituciones financiaron en México en noviembre de 2000, el Instituto Lincoln copatrocinó un seminario en las ciudad porteña de Veracruz, enfocado en las vías para atenuar los riesgos y resultados de los desastres naturales. El seminario exploró problemas como:
Representantes de autoridades municipales y organizaciones comunitarias compartieron sus experiencias, así como metodologías técnicas y prácticas aprendidas para identificar zonas de alto riesgo, implementar políticas para reducir asentamientos ilegales en esas zonas y establecer medidas de prevención y alivio. Los participantes también identificaron la importancia de la participación social en el proceso. Las principales conclusiones se resumen a continuación:
El Instituto Lincoln ha estado trabajando este problema con Servicios Urbanos Municipales y Estatales (SUME), una institución establecida a finales de 1999 para elevar la calidad y eficiencia de los niveles de administración y de gobierno a nivel local y estatal en México. SUME busca lograr estos objetivos a través de la asesoría, asistencia técnica y entrenamiento de funcionarios de gobierno. Sus actividades han sido respaldadas por el Centro de las Naciones Unidas para los Asentamientos Humanos (Hábitat), que copatrocinó este seminario, y por el Banco Mundial y el Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo.
Douglas Keare es miembro del Instituto Lincoln y Luis Javier Castro es el director general de Servicios Urbanos Municipales y Estatales (SUME) en la Ciudad de México.
