SHARE
Governments have often intervened in land markets in Asian cities, but with limited effects. In recent decades, economic globalization and political democratization have created even stronger demands for more efficient and equitable land use policies. Rapid economic growth in cities with scarce land resources has generated a wave of new thinking on land values and land markets among scholars and policymakers.
The GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) negotiations are stimulating new production structures in much of Asia, which consequently shift demand from agriculture into manufacturing and other urban land uses. At the same time, local governments are struggling with more financial autonomy and are becoming dependent on revenues from increased land values to subsidize the costs of development.
Three countries illustrate emerging land and tax policy issues raised by these complex interactions of international and local economies.
In Taiwan, land values for urban and agriculture uses are extremely divergent. The immediate issues are: 1) how to better use the 40,000 hectares of agricultural land that are no longer needed for production as a result of the GATT agreements; and 2) how to distribute the development benefits created by this conversion of agricultural land.
In Korea, the challenge concerns the legality of taxation to capture excessive increases in land value and gains from land speculation. Faced with builders’ pressure to develop greenbelts and open spaces in metropolitan areas and with local politicians’ concerns over fiscal autonomy, the central government is preparing a major tax reform to capture these increments in land value.
In Japan, land values have changed dramatically over the past ten years, but the reasons for these fluctuations are not always clear. Land speculation, unpredictable market forces and government regulation all play a part. Analysis of failed attempts to control land prices will be valuable in developing future policies.
Land Value and Speculation
The perception of land value in Taiwan, Korea, and Japan may not be significantly different from that in other capitalist countries. The problem is in the speculative value, also known as “unearned income” or the “unearned increment” in land value. This value can be so high that it distorts all the legal, administrative, political and social measures designed to manage the use of land. In Japan, for example, land value in major cities tripled from 1983 to 1989. In Korea, land value increased 13 times between 1975 and 1990, while the national income increased only 5 times in the same period. In Taiwan, the value of farm land increased 155 percent from 1986 to 1990, compared to the GDP’s 36 percent growth during the same period.
Policies intended to control land values during periods of high speculation are unlikely to succeed. During the boom times of the 1980s in all three Asian countries, special interest groups and politicians dependent on economic growth failed to anticipate any negative downturn effects. Land policies became disorganized, and conflicts arose among different government departments. For example, some local governments subsidized farmland owners who had already sold their land for conversion to urban uses and had benefited financially from this speculation. Financial institutions provided loans to corporations which depended on land speculation for their corporate earnings. The results were devastating: farmers who wished to farm could not afford to buy farm land; manufacturers could no longer compete when 60 percent of their investments were spent on land costs; and average citizens had an even more difficult time owning a house.
Reevaluating Land and Tax Policy
As land values have dropped in recent years, there is a new opportunity to revise land policies. Special interest groups and land value speculators have softened their opposition to government intervention on land markets. The GATT and WTO (World Trade Organization) negotiations are requiring countries to better coordinate their land policies and general economic policies in the interests of industrial readjustment. Future policies in Taiwan, Korea, and Japan will likely incorporate the following measures:
New regulations will be designed to convert some farmland and environmentally less-sensitive land for housing and mixed-use urban development. The goals are to continue sustainable development and to assist the conversion of the agricultural sector.
Tax reform and exaction-like laws will be introduced to capture the “unearned income” from land speculation. A capital gains tax, land value tax and land value increment tax will be the hallmarks of tax reform. Local government will be given more autonomy to require private developers to share benefits with the community.
Land use planning systems will be coordinated at all levels of government to manage growth. New land use controls will be designed to cope with new economic activities derived from the economic readjustments.
To help advance these land and tax policy reforms, the Lincoln Institute research staff is working with colleagues in each country. The Council of Agriculture in Taiwan, Republic of China, and the Institute are conducting a three-year joint study (1994-97) on land value capture and benefit distribution mechanisms. A team of researchers from the Lincoln Institute and the Korea Tax Institute is researching tax reform for the Korea Ministry of Finance during the 1995-1996 academic year. Both American and Japanese scholars are examining land values in Japan from a macroeconomic perspective.
Alven Lam in a Lincoln Institute fellow whose current research focuses on land value capture and property rights in Asia.
Additional information in the printed newletter.
Chart: Indices of Korea Land Values and Major Economic Indicators: 1980, 1985 and 1990. Land prices, housing prices, national income and wholesale prices are charted. Source: Office of National Statistics, Korea Statistical Yearbook, each year, and Kim, Dai-Young, “Choices for Future Land Policy,” in Land Policy Problems in East Asia, 1994.
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
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
Gerrit-Jan Knaap is an economist, professor of urban studies and planning, and executive director of the National Center for Smart Growth Research and Education at the University of Maryland, in College Park. His research interests include the economics and politics of land use planning, the efficacy of economic development instruments, and the impacts of environmental policy. His research in Oregon, Maryland and elsewhere has made him a recognized expert on land use policy and planning. He is the coauthor or editor of several books, including two published by the Lincoln Institute: The Regulated Landscape: Lessons on State Land Use Planning from Oregon (1992); and Land Market Monitoring for Smart Urban Growth (2001).
Land Lines: As director of the National Center for Smart Growth Research and Education, what land policy issues are you addressing now?
Gerrit-Jan Knaap: This Center has been in existence for only three years, but this year it is finally getting established and recognized. In the past year we have been able to pull together a core group of national and international researchers who are now working in three key areas: land use and environment; transportation and public health; and international urban development. The Center is also recruiting a faculty researcher to concentrate on housing and community development.
LL: What are the Center’s most difficult challenges?
GK: Ironically, the Center’s name is a problem. While the phrase “smart growth” is helpful shorthand for describing an approach to land use planning and management, some people identify the term with liberal causes or with former Maryland Governor Parris Glendening or the Clinton-Gore administration. As a result, the phrase has been politicized in a way that causes confusion and polarized reactions. The Center does not support or oppose smart growth; it is just an adjective modifying what we do: research and education.
We have found, however, that it is more difficult to obtain funding for objective research on growth management and planning issues than it is to obtain funding for activities that advocate either for or against smart growth. The Lincoln Institute’s willingness to fund independent, objective, high-quality research in this field fills an important niche.
LL: What are some of the Center’s most significant projects?
GK: We are doing a lot of work to develop quantitative measures of urban form. We are not alone in this enterprise, but we think we’re still a step ahead of other research centers in applying such measures to policy issues. Reid Ewing, a nationally recognized expert on growth management, community development and traffic management, recently joined the staff. He and others, for example, have developed a sprawl index that they use to explore the relationship between sprawl and obesity, which is part of our public health focus.
Yan Song, a former post-doctoral fellow in the Center and now an assistant professor at the University of North Carolina, developed quantitative measures of urban form and used them to explore whether Portland, Oregon, was winning the battle against urban sprawl. She also used them to determine whether characteristics like street network connectivity, residential density, land use mix and pedestrian accessibility to commercial uses were capitalized into property values. Most recently, she has used the measures to classify neighborhoods into clusters with similar design characteristics as a means of classifying the types of neighborhood that are currently being built.
Another major focus of our work is land policy and growth management in the People’s Republic of China. As a result of recent economic growth and reforms, China’s 1.3 billion people are urbanizing at an astonishing rate, creating an unprecedented growth management challenge. The Chinese are struggling to find a way to accommodate urban growth and, at the same time, preserve their ability to feed their people. Though we certainly do not have all the answers, Chinese scholars and public officials are interested in learning from our experiences in confronting and balancing these challenges. Chengri Ding, another member of the Center’s faculty, is leading this work with support from the Lincoln Institute. He and Yan Song are editing a book on the evolution of land and housing markets in China that will be published by the Institute later this year.
Our third major focus area is land market monitoring, which grew out of my work in Oregon. Land market monitoring is based on the idea that urban growth management is partly an inventory problem: too much land can lead to urban sprawl, but too little land may create land and housing price inflation. Maintaining balance requires accurate and timely information about land supplies, development capacity, land and housing prices, natural resource constraints and urban development demands. We have conducted several workshops around the country on land market monitoring, and now we are working with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Lincoln Institute to establish a national demonstration project.
LL: How did you develop this concept of land market monitoring?
GK: It started with my dissertation work on the price effects of the urban growth boundary (UGB) in Portland, Oregon. Later, at the University of Illinois, Lew Hopkins and I worked on a project we called, “Does Planning Matter?” We sought to develop planning support systems that not only helped to improve land use decision making, but also helped identify the effects of land use plans and regulations on urban development patterns (Ding, Hopkins and Knaap 1997). Building on this work, I organized a conference at the Lincoln Institute in Cambridge in 2000 and invited a group of leading scholars to present papers on this issue. These papers were published by the Institute in the book Land Market Monitoring for Smart Urban Growth, which was recently translated into Chinese. The idea of measuring development capacity and the need for housing is actually as old as planning itself, but recent advances in GIS technology and digital data bases makes it possible to monitor development capacity on a nearly continuous basis.
LL: How are these ideas being used by planners in the U.S.?
GK: Well, to a large extent, they are not. Typical planning practice in the U.S. still involves the formulation of a comprehensive plan—usually for a 10- to 20-year period—then implementing the plan, and then, after 5 to 10 years, formulating a new plan. With a land market monitoring system it is possible to shorten this cycle considerably. In the extreme, it is conceptually possible to monitor development capacity and urban development trends on a continuous basis and make adjustments as needed. Most planners, however, are not trained to think about growth management issues in this way.
LL: What are the obstacles to using land market monitoring in different locales?
GK: The major obstacles are: (1) the lack of quality data; (2) the lack of intergovernmental cooperation; and (3) the lack of political will to place this issue high on the agenda. The primary problem is not money. To do land market monitoring correctly requires a certain level of resource commitment, but since virtually every local government is developing GIS data and has the necessary technical capacity, it is not difficult to develop an operational monitoring system.
There are some positive examples, however. Monitoring of some kind has been required in Oregon for many years; for this reason, Metro, the regional government for the Portland metropolitan area, has developed an extensive monitoring system (Knaap, Bolen and Seltzer 2003). In its Growing Smart Guidebook, the American Planning Association recommends that any local government that adopts an urban growth boundary also should develop a land monitoring system. Most recently, Maryland Governor Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. signed an executive order that will initiate a pilot program of land market monitoring in five cities and five counties, and I will serve on the task force that oversees that demonstration project.
LL: What are your plans for the future?
GK: We have two demonstration projects under way. In the first, we are working with the Maryland Department of Planning to develop a series of indicators to assess the progress of the state’s Smart Growth program. These indicators will measure development capacity as well as housing starts and prices, acres of land protected from development, vehicle miles traveled, transit ridership and other trends that will help state officials and the public judge the effectiveness of smart growth policies.
Second, we have just completed phase one of a national demonstration project that was jointly funded by HUD, the Federal Highway Administration and the Lincoln Institute. We identified a generic protocol for conducting a development capacity analysis, applied this protocol to 15 counties in Maryland, and held workshops on monitoring in several metropolitan areas around the country. With Zorica Nedovic-Budic, we also conducted an assessment of the capacity of regional governments to use GIS for land use and transportation planning (see http://www.urban.uiuc.edu/faculty/budic/W-metroGIS.htm). We hope to begin the second phase of that project early in 2004 in five selected sites around the country. Phase two will focus first on residential development capacity, then on employment development capacity, then on how to tie together land use forecasting with transportation planning.
We’re also exploring the possibility of setting up a land market monitoring demonstration project in China, in conjunction with the Lincoln Institute’s new China program.
LL: So where does smart growth go next?
GK: What will happen to the expression “smart growth” is difficult to say. Governor Ehrlich has started calling his version of Maryland’s land use program “Priority Places,” but all of the newspapers still refer to his effort as smart growth. So, it remains to be seen whether the phrase becomes part of the national lexicon or fades like the Macarena. There is no doubt, however, that the issues associated with the term “smart growth” will not go away, in Maryland, around the country, or even overseas. We think this Center is now well-positioned to become an important and objective source of information and education on these issues well into the future.
References
Ding, Chengri, Lewis Hopkins and Gerrit Knaap. 1997. Does Planning Matter? Visual Examination of Urban Development Events. Land Lines 9(1): 4-5.
Knaap, Gerrit, Richard Bolen, and Ethan Seltzer. 2003. Metro’s Regional Land Information System: The Virtual Key to Portland’s Growth Management Success. Lincoln Institute Working Paper.
SHARE
El exceso de derechos de desarrollo y las subdivisiones sujetas a ejecución hipotecaria actualmente reducen la calidad de vida, sesgan los patrones de desarrollo y los mercados inmobiliarios, dañan los ecosistemas y reducen la salud fiscal en muchas comunidades de la región intermontañosa del oeste de los Estados Unidos. Con posterioridad a la caída inmobiliaria de 2007, que golpeó fuertemente en muchos lugares de la región, los caminos erosionados presentes en las subdivisiones atraviesan actualmente las tierras de cultivo y muchos paisajes rurales y suburbanos continúan viéndose salpicados por solitarias viviendas “modelo”. Algunas de estas subdivisiones están desocupadas, pero otras se encuentran parcialmente ocupadas y requieren la prestación de servicios públicos a vecindarios lejanos que generan muy pocos ingresos fiscales. En aquellas jurisdicciones en donde podían venderse lotes antes de que se completara la infraestructura, muchas personas terminaron siendo propietarias de una parcela en la que se suponía que existiría un desarrollo de alto nivel y actualmente sólo existe poco más que un plano catastral.
Estos desarrollos interrumpidos, conocidos coloquialmente como subdivisiones “zombies”, son los muertos vivientes del mercado inmobiliario. Acorralados por problemas financieros o legales, los proyectos que una vez fueran muy prometedores actualmente están afectando a sus entornos con riesgos para la salud y seguridad de los habitantes, deterioro, disminución del valor de las propiedades, amenazas a las finanzas municipales, recursos naturales sobreexplotados, patrones de desarrollo fragmentados y otras distorsiones en los mercados inmobiliarios municipales.
Este artículo presenta un panorama general del contexto económico que promovió tal exceso de derechos en la región oeste, y de las medidas de planificación y control del desarrollo a nivel municipal que influyen en la forma en que dichas fuerzas del mercado actúan en una comunidad determinada. Además se describe de qué manera tres comunidades de la región intermontañosa del oeste rediseñaron las subdivisiones sujetas a ejecución hipotecaria que existían en sus jurisdicciones, y la forma en que dichas medidas están facilitando la recuperación, generando entornos de crecimiento más sustentables, mejorando el valor de las propiedades, y conservando el suelo y el hábitat de vida silvestre.
El trasfondo económico que fomentó el desarrollo excesivo en la región oeste
En la región intermontañosa del oeste, donde abundan los terrenos y el crecimiento rápido es algo común, no es raro que los gobiernos municipales otorguen derechos de desarrollo con una gran anticipación a la demanda de viviendas por parte del mercado. Los ciclos de auge y caída tampoco son una rareza en esta región. Sin embargo, la magnitud de la Gran Recesión amplificó la frecuencia del exceso de derechos y exacerbó el daño que provocaban en las comunidades adyacentes. Sólo en la región intermontañosa del oeste, existen millones de lotes vacantes con derechos de desarrollo. A lo largo de muchos condados en esta región, el índice de parcelas desocupadas en las subdivisiones representa aproximadamente del 15 por ciento a dos tercios de la totalidad de los lotes (ver tablas 1 y 2).
A medida que la economía se va recuperando, ¿corregirá el mercado este exceso de derechos de desarrollo, incentivando así a los promotores inmobiliarios a construir en subdivisiones sujetas a ejecución hipotecaria o a rediseñar aquellas que no reflejan la demanda del mercado? En algunos lugares, sí; en otros, no es muy probable. Las subdivisiones están diseñadas para ser divisiones semipermanentes del suelo. Aunque muchas áreas en la región intermontañosa del oeste están recuperándose con vigor, muchas subdivisiones todavía permanecen sujetas a ejecución hipotecaria, con derechos de desarrollo vencidos, con pocos o ningún residente, derechos de propiedad fragmentados, mejoras en la infraestructura realizadas en forma parcial o deterioradas, y mecanismos débiles o inexistentes para mantener los nuevos servicios. Si no se hace algo al respecto, estos desarrollos interrumpidos continuarán debilitando la salud fiscal y la calidad de vida de las áreas afectadas.
La complejidad de revisar los derechos de desarrollo
Las jurisdicciones municipales forjan el futuro de sus comunidades mediante el otorgamiento de derechos sobre el suelo, la aprobación de subdivisiones y la concesión de subsecuentes permisos de desarrollo. Estas medidas dan como resultado compromisos del uso del suelo que resultan difíciles de cambiar en el futuro, establecen estándares de desarrollo y, por lo general, comprometen a la comunidad a soportar importantes costos a largo plazo en los servicios.
La figura 1 demuestra que resulta mucho más fácil abordar el tema del exceso de derechos cuando se trata simplemente de subdivisiones catastrales sobre papel, con un solo propietario, sin mejoras, sin lotes vendidos y sin viviendas construidas. A medida que el estado de la subdivisión va avanzando desde un plano catastral a un desarrollo parcialmente construido, al tiempo que se involucran en el proyecto varios propietarios, o el encargado de la subdivisión ya ha comenzado a instalar mejoras, o varios propietarios han construido viviendas, los problemas se van haciendo cada vez más complejos y las opciones para resolverlos son cada vez más reducidas.
La revisión o revocación de un plano catastral requiere la aceptación de sólo un propietario que no haya realizado ninguna inversión importante que pudiera limitar la posibilidad de modificar los planes de diseño, permitiendo así las resoluciones más simples (aunque la situación se complica más si una entidad crediticia también debe aprobar los cambios). La venta de un simple lote a un propietario en particular genera más dificultades a la hora de resolver cualquier problema de derechos que tenga la subdivisión, debido a tres cuestiones legales importantes: (1) la necesidad de proteger los derechos de propiedad de los propietarios de lotes; (2) la necesidad de preservar el acceso a los lotes vendidos; y (3) la presión para que se trate de igual manera tanto a los propietarios actuales como a los posibles propietarios en el futuro. Algunos de estos problemas pueden dar lugar a demandas legales, lo que, a su vez, puede generar un posible pasivo para la ciudad o el condado. La revisión o revocación de un plano catastral con lotes vendidos requiere que muchos propietarios se pongan de acuerdo, con la consecuente posibilidad de que cada uno de ellos decida iniciar una demanda con base en uno o varios de los mencionados fundamentos legales.
Una vez que el promotor realiza inversiones significativas en infraestructura y otras mejoras, las complicaciones se multiplican. Aunque la compra de terrenos no crea en sí misma un “derecho adquirido” para completar el desarrollo, una vez que el propietario invierte en mejoras para las futuras viviendas, resulta difícil detener la construcción de dichas viviendas sin tener que reembolsar al promotor los costos de dicha infraestructura.
Las viviendas terminadas (en particular, si varias de ellas ya están ocupadas) suman una dificultad más a la complejidad de resolver las subdivisiones sujetas a ejecución hipotecaria. Los caminos de acceso deben conservarse y mantenerse, aun cuando las viviendas estén muy lejos unas de otras, formando patrones ineficientes. Si el promotor se comprometió a construir un campo de golf, un parque u otras atracciones para la comunidad, cada uno de los propietarios de los lotes podría reclamar el derecho a utilizar dichas atracciones, ya sea que se hayan construido o no, e independientemente de que las asociaciones para conservar dichas atracciones existan o posean la suficiente cantidad de miembros como para llevar a cabo dicha conservación. Aun cuando el promotor sea claramente responsable de construir las atracciones, el gobierno municipal podría llegar a ser responsable de las mismas si no le permite al desarrollador construir las atracciones por haber declarado desocupadas ciertas partes del plano catastral en donde se deberían haber construido dichas atracciones.
Las subdivisiones de mayor extensión que se van dividiendo en diferentes fases a lo largo de las distintas etapas de la construcción son las que generan los problemas más intrincados y de mayor alcance. Las primeras fases de la construcción pueden, en su mayoría, consistir en la venta de lotes con la mayor parte de la estructura en pie, pero las fases posteriores tal vez consistan en meros planos catastrales, sin construcciones, sin lotes vendidos y sin mejoras realizadas. De esta manera, una sola subdivisión sujeta a ejecución hipotecaria puede generar distintos tipos de problemas legales en cuanto a los derechos y, en consecuencia, puede presentar distintos niveles de riesgo y de posible responsabilidad, en diferentes zonas del desarrollo.
Cómo tres comunidades rediseñaron con éxito el exceso de derechos
Los gobiernos municipales que desean solucionar los posibles impactos negativos derivados del exceso de derechos de desarrollo y de las subdivisiones sujetas a ejecución hipotecaria, tienen a su disposición diferentes medidas sobre el uso y la zonificación del suelo. Como resultado de nuestra investigación, hemos identificado 48 herramientas y 12 buenas prácticas, que hemos extraído de casos de estudio, lecciones impartidas por diferentes expertos en varios talleres, análisis de datos y una encuesta realizada a planificadores, promotores y propietarios en la región intermontañosa del oeste (para obtener el listado de las estrategias de prevención y tratamiento, consultar el informe completo sobre enfoque en políticas de suelo titulado Arrested Developments: Combating Zombie Subdivisions and Other Excess Entitlements). En general, estas estrategias pueden clasificarse en cuatro categorías: incentivos económicos, compra de derechos sobre el suelo o derechos de desarrollo, programas de gestión del crecimiento, y normativas sobre el desarrollo:
1. Los incentivos económicos, tales como inversiones específicas en infraestructura, exención de tarifas y racionalización de las normas, con el fin de evitar las normas regulatorias controvertidas.
2. La compra de derechos sobre el suelo o derechos de desarrollo es la forma más directa de eliminar los derechos de desarrollo indeseados, pero puede resultar muy costosa para algunas comunidades.
3. La gestión del crecimiento implica hacer uso de los límites de las áreas de servicios urbanos o adaptar los requisitos adecuados de servicios públicos con el fin de limitar nuevos derechos de desarrollo.
4. Las normativas de desarrollo, que implican llevar a cabo una rezonificación, realizar cambios en las ordenanzas sobre subdivisiones y garantías de desarrollo, iniciar procesos de desocupación de planos catastrales, y revisar los modelos de acuerdo de desarrollo.
Las tres comunidades siguientes que conforman nuestros casos de estudio utilizaron principalmente normas sobre el desarrollo. El condado de Mesa, en Colorado, y el condado de Teton, en Idaho, revisaron sus acuerdos sobre el desarrollo a fin de rediseñar las subdivisiones municipales sujetas a ejecución hipotecaria. Las tres jurisdicciones, incluyendo a la ciudad de Maricopa, en Arizona, también facilitaron las medidas de realización de nuevos planos catastrales en forma voluntaria.
De qué manera el condado de Mesa, Colorado, revisó su procedimiento para aprobación de desarrollos y abandonó los planos catastrales
Durante el período de auge y caída del petróleo en la década de 1980, el condado de Mesa, Colorado, fue una de las regiones que sufrió los peores efectos. Cuando ExxonMobil abandonó sus operaciones en el área, la población de Grand Junction (la sede del condado) disminuyó bruscamente en unos 15.000 habitantes de la noche a la mañana. Todos los desarrollos se detuvieron. Después de la caída, quedaron abandonadas más de 400 subdivisiones que comprendían cerca de 4.000 lotes en todo el condado. Aproximadamente el 20 por ciento de las subdivisiones en el condado de Mesa quedaron con acuerdos sobre mejoras en el desarrollo sin cumplir.
Cuando la clasificación crediticia de bonos del condado cayó en el año 1988, se tomaron varias medidas a fin de eliminar el exceso de derechos. El condado negoció con bancos locales y con la comunidad dedicada a los desarrollos a fin de establecer formas y procedimientos para celebrar acuerdos sobre mejoras al desarrollo. También se estableció una nueva garantía financiera, denominada “Acuerdo de desembolso para subdivisiones”, entre las entidades crediticias de la construcción y el condado. Este acuerdo permite al condado asociarse directamente con las instituciones financieras para garantizar: (1) un presupuesto para la construcción firmado de mutuo acuerdo; (2) un plazo establecido para la construcción de las mejoras; (3) un procedimiento elaborado de mutuo acuerdo, que implica inspecciones en el lugar durante la construcción, para el otorgamiento de fondos de préstamo a los promotores; y (4) el compromiso del condado de aceptar las mejoras del promotor (una vez reunidas ciertas condiciones) y de liberar al promotor de la garantía financiera.
Al condado de Mesa le llevó 15 años resolver completamente el exceso de derechos derivados de la caída de la década de 1980, pero la tarea dio sus frutos: durante la Gran Recesión, el condado tuvo el menor índice de parcelas desocupadas en las subdivisiones en relación con la totalidad de lotes subdivididos, comparado con cerca de 50 condados examinados en la región intermontañosa del oeste. Ningún promotor se echó atrás en los acuerdos de desarrollo cuando sólo se realizaron mejoras parciales. Aunque algunas subdivisiones permanecen desocupadas, todas las mejoras se han completado hasta el punto de que las parcelas estarán listas para las obras de construcción una vez que sean vendidas.
A modo de ejemplo, River Canyon (figura 2) se planificó como una subdivisión de 38 lotes sobre una superficie de 77 hectáreas. Cuando explotó la burbuja inmobiliaria en el año 2008, todo el sitio había sido ligeramente nivelado con carreteras construidas a través de las montañas, aunque no se habían completado otras mejoras ni se había vendido ninguna parcela. Al caer en cuenta de que los lotes no serían viables a corto plazo, el promotor trabajó junto con el condado para realizar nuevos planos catastrales de la subdivisión con el fin de lograr un solo lote matriz hasta que el propietario estuviera listo para solicitar una nueva revisión de la subdivisión.
Esta solución permitió que todos salieran beneficiados: el condado escapa de un contrato con el desarrollador en mora y evita la venta de lotes a muchos propietarios con los que le resultaría muy difícil coordinar la construcción de mejoras en las subdivisiones. El desarrollador, por su parte, evita el costo de instalar servicios y pagar impuestos en propiedades desocupadas zonificadas para desarrollos residenciales.
Ahora, las entidades crediticias en el condado de Mesa por lo general alientan la consolidación de lotes registrados en el catastro, ya que muchos bancos no otorgan créditos ni prorrogan el plazo de los préstamos para construcción sin un porcentaje cierto de preventas que validen la propiedad como una inversión sólida. Por lo general, el propietario también cumple, a fin de evitar el pago de impuestos sobre propiedades residenciales desocupadas, que representan la segunda tasa de impuesto más alta en Colorado. Si la demanda de mercado repunta, el propietario puede entonces presentar los mismos planos de subdivisión para que los revise el condado, para cumplir con las normas vigentes. Si los planos todavía cumplen con las normas, el promotor puede entonces iniciar allí el proceso de subdivisión. El condado de Mesa consolidó parcelas de esta forma unas siete veces en total desde 2008 hasta 2012 para eliminar lotes en los que no se preveía ninguna construcción residencial en un futuro cercano.
De qué manera la ciudad de Maricopa, Arizona, se asoció con el sector privado para convertir parcelas sujetas a ejecución hipotecaria en lotes con fines no residenciales
Maricopa fue declarada municipio en 2003, en los primeros años del auge inmobiliario de Arizona. Esta ciudad es una más de las típicas entre muchas comunidades exurbanas nuevas dentro de las regiones metropolitanas en crecimiento. Al enfrentar una afluencia de nuevos residentes (que debían viajar a sus empleos hasta que pudieran comprar una vivienda cerca de su trabajo), la comunidad destinó rápidamente la mayor parte del suelo disponible a derechos de subdivisión residencial. En el punto álgido del auge inmobiliario, esta pequeña ciudad, ubicada a 60 km del centro de Phoenix y a 32 km del límite urbanizado del área metropolitana de Phoenix, emitía unos 600 permisos de construcción residencial por mes.
El condado de Pinal había aprobado muchas de las subdivisiones residenciales de Maricopa antes de que la ciudad se convirtiera en un municipio, de acuerdo con el código de zonificación de 1967 del condado. De hecho, cumpliendo con la práctica estándar relativa a las nuevas ciudades convertidas en municipios, la ciudad, al principio, adoptó la ordenanza de zonificación del condado de Pinal. Durante un tiempo, la comisión de planificación y zonificación del condado siguió funcionando como el organismo de supervisión de planificación de la ciudad. Sin embargo, este antiguo código de condado rural no tenía en cuenta ni posibilitaba la creación de incentivos para los desarrollos de uso mixto, áreas con un carácter de centro de ciudad, un equilibrio entre empleos y viviendas, usos institucionales o servicios sociales. Esta falta de diversidad dio como resultado una escasez de áreas destinadas a servicios y comercios minoristas, así como también una falta de áreas destinadas a organizaciones sin fines de lucro, tales como iglesias, escuelas privadas, guarderías de niños, centros terapéuticos y servicios de salud. A medida que los nuevos residentes buscaban servicios públicos y empleos locales, esta carencia de terrenos para empleos y servicios públicos se volvió cada vez más problemática.
Cuando la Gran Recesión golpeó al país y ocurrió la caída del mercado inmobiliario, la oferta de lotes residenciales superó ampliamente la demanda, por lo que muchos de estos lotes quedaron sujetos a ejecución hipotecaria. Maricopa enfrentó este desafío y aprovechó la oportunidad para reexaminar sus patrones de crecimiento y, así, abordar el problema de la gran cantidad de subdivisiones sujetas a ejecución hipotecaria que plagaban la comunidad.
La ciudad decidió asociarse con el sector privado (promotores, bancos, agencias afianzadoras y otras agencias gubernamentales) a fin de solucionar el problema de las subdivisiones sujetas a ejecución hipotecaria y la falta de uso del suelo a los fines institucionales y públicos. La primera prueba a este nuevo enfoque se dio cuando una congregación católica estaba buscando un sitio donde construir su iglesia en una zona urbana que ya tuviera la infraestructura para los servicios de agua potable, alcantarillado, etc. La ciudad de Maricopa actuó como facilitadora para poner en contacto a la iglesia con los promotores de Glennwilde, un desarrollo sujeto a ejecución hipotecaria parcialmente construido. La iglesia escogió un lugar que se encontraba en la última fase de la subdivisión y que, en ese momento, era todavía un mero plano catastral. La ciudad desocupó el plano catastral para dicho sitio y luego lo devolvió a una gran parcela que el desarrollador de Glennwilde, a su vez, vendió a la iglesia.
La construcción aún no ha comenzado, pero el proyecto ha servido como modelo para otros desarrollos interrumpidos. Las medidas tomadas en colaboración entre la ciudad, los propietarios de subdivisiones actualmente sujetas a ejecución hipotecaria y otras partes interesadas también ha inspirado la aprobación de propuestas para un centro de la Iglesia de los Santos de los Últimos Días, un centro cívico, un parque regional y una instalación multigeneracional en toda la ciudad.
De qué manera el condado de Teton, Idaho, demandó el rediseño de planos catastrales, la desocupación de lotes o la realización de nuevos catastros
El condado de Teton en Idaho, un condado rural no municipal con una población anual estimada de 10.170 habitantes, tiene un total de 9.031 lotes registrados, de los cuales 6.778 están vacantes. Aunque el índice de crecimiento anual del condado volviera al 6 por ciento al que había llegado entre los años 2000 y 2008, este inventario de lotes refleja una acumulación tal que podría adaptarse al crecimiento en los próximos 70 años. Este exceso extremo de derechos, a razón de tres lotes vacantes con derechos por cada lote desarrollado en el condado, es el resultado de tres malas decisiones tomadas por el consejo de administración entre 2003 y 2005.
En primer lugar, el condado adoptó un procedimiento fácil y rápido para que los propietarios solicitaran el derecho de modificar la categoría zonal de sus propiedades de lotes de 8 hectáreas a lotes de 1 hectárea. Ninguna de estas modificaciones zonales se otorgó junto con una propuesta de desarrollo concurrente: prácticamente todas las modificaciones se otorgaron con el fin de un desarrollo especulativo en el futuro. Era práctica normal del condado modificar las categorías zonales de cientos de hectáreas en una sola noche de audiencias públicas, ya que el orden del día de una de estas audiencias podía incluir hasta diez solicitudes de subdivisión.
En segundo lugar, la Guía de Desarrollo 2004–2010 del condado establecía un crecimiento dinámico enfocado a la construcción residencial a fin de impulsar el desarrollo económico. Sin embargo, las metas y objetivos eran vagos y el plan no especificaba el tipo y ubicación de los proyectos. Debido al rechazo de la comunidad, el documento finalmente se ignoró durante el proceso de aprobaciones y fomentó un desarrollo explosivo y sin patrones, lo que dio como resultado que, durante seis años, se tomaran decisiones sobre el uso del suelo sin ninguna estrategia coherente.
En tercer lugar, el consejo de administración del condado adoptó, en el año 2005, una ordenanza sobre Desarrollo Planificado de Unidades (PUD, por sus siglas en inglés) que establecía bonificaciones por densidad. Según las disposiciones sobre desarrollos en conjunto del PUD, los desarrolladores podían exceder los derechos zonales subyacentes hasta un 1.900 por ciento. Las típicas bonificaciones por densidad para el buen diseño establecidas en el PUD oscilan entre el 10 por ciento y el 20 por ciento. Ahora, aquellas áreas con un sistema central de agua potable clasificadas en una zonificación de 8 hectáreas (con 5 unidades cada 83 hectáreas) podían tener derecho a recibir hasta 100 unidades. Además, las normas sobre subdivisión y PUD del condado de Teton permitieron la venta de lotes antes de la instalación de la infraestructura, lo que proporcionó un gran incentivo para el desarrollo especulativo.
Con posterioridad a la caída del mercado en 2008, algunos propietarios de desarrollos incompletos comenzaron a buscar maneras de reestructurar sus subdivisiones sujetas a ejecución hipotecaria. En 2010, Targhee Hill Estates presentó ante el condado una propuesta para realizar un nuevo plano catastral del centro de recreación que se había construido parcialmente (ver figura 3). No obstante, en ese momento no existía ninguna ordenanza municipal, ley estatal o procedimiento legal que permitiera la realización de un nuevo plano catastral para un desarrollo ya vencido.
La Asociación de Defensores del Desarrollo Responsable del Valle del Condado de Teton (VARD, por sus siglas en inglés) intervino solicitando al condado la creación de un procedimiento que fomentara el rediseño de las subdivisiones sujetas a ejecución hipotecaria y facilitara la realización de nuevos planos catastrales. La VARD comprendió que un rediseño del plano catastral podría reducir la intrusión en áreas naturales delicadas del condado, reducir los costos gubernamentales asociados con el desarrollo disperso y, posiblemente, reducir la cantidad de lotes vacantes mediante la colaboración con los propietarios y los promotores, a fin de agilizar los cambios en los planos catastrales existentes.
El 22 de noviembre de 2010, el consejo de administradores del condado adoptó por unanimidad una ordenanza sobre nuevos planos catastrales, que permitiría realizar de forma rápida y sin grandes costos nuevos planos catastrales de las subdivisiones, los PUD y los acuerdos de desarrollo existentes. Mediante esta ordenanza se creó un procedimiento orientado a las soluciones que permite al condado de Teton trabajar junto con los promotores, los propietarios, las entidades crediticias y otras partes interesadas a fin de resolver los proyectos complicados en los que intervienen muchos intereses de propiedad y, por lo general, implican millones de dólares en infraestructura.
La ordenanza, en primer lugar, establece cuatro categorías de cambios que puede proponer toda solicitud de nuevo plano catastral: (1) un aumento de grandes proporciones en cuanto a la escala y el impacto; (2) un aumento de menor envergadura en cuanto a la escala y el impacto; (3) una reducción de grandes proporciones en cuanto a la escala y el impacto; y (4) una reducción de menor envergadura en cuanto a la escala y el impacto. Todo aumento en el impacto podría requerir audiencias públicas y estudios adicionales, mientras que para las reducciones en el impacto, no son necesarios (en la medida de lo posible) dichos requisitos ni la revisión por parte de la agencia. Además, la ordenanza elimina la innecesaria duplicación de estudios y análisis que hubieran sido requeridos como parte de la solicitud y aprobación inicial del plano catastral. El condado de Teton también eliminó las tarifas que debían pagarse para procesar las solicitudes de nuevos planos catastrales.
El primer caso que obtuvo resultados positivos fue la realización de los nuevos planos catastrales del PUD de Canyon Creek Ranch, completado en junio de 2013. Ubicado a más de 37 km de los servicios urbanos, el proyecto Canyon Creek Ranch se aprobó originalmente en el año 2009 como un centro recreativo de estilo estancia de 350 lotes sobre aproximadamente 1.100 hectáreas, que incluía aproximadamente 25 lotes comerciales, un hipódromo y una cabaña. Después de largas negociaciones entre el equipo de promotores de Canyon Creek y el personal de la comisión de planificación del condado de Teton, el promotor propuso un nuevo plano catastral que reducía drásticamente el impacto y los efectos de este proyecto, ya que sólo incluía 21 lotes sobre la propiedad de 1.100 hectáreas. Para el promotor, este nuevo diseño reduce el precio de la infraestructura en un 97 por ciento: de US$24 millones a aproximadamente US$800.000, lo que permite que la propiedad permanezca dentro del programa de reservas de conservación y genere una fuente de ingresos, a la vez que se reducen las deudas por el impuesto sobre la propiedad. La reducción en la escala y el impacto de este nuevo diseño permitirá preservar este hábitat tan importante y mantener el paisaje rural, lo que representa un beneficio público para toda la comunidad.
Conclusión
Mientras que la recuperación del último ciclo de auge y caída es casi total en algunas áreas del país, otras comunidades seguirán sufriendo el impacto de los lotes vacantes y las subdivisiones sujetas a ejecución hipotecaria por un largo tiempo. Los auges inmobiliarios que se den en el futuro también darán como resultado, inevitablemente, nuevas caídas, por lo que las comunidades vulnerables pueden ahora construir fundamentos sólidos con políticas, leyes y programas para minimizar los nuevos problemas que surjan del exceso de derechos sobre los terrenos. Las comunidades y otras partes interesadas involucradas en el desarrollo inmobiliario harían bien en asegurarse de tener mecanismos que sirvan para adaptarse y ajustarse a las condiciones de mercado en constante evolución. En cuanto a las jurisdicciones que ya están teniendo problemas con las subdivisiones sujetas a ejecución hipotecaria, un ingrediente esencial para lograr el éxito será la disposición a reconsiderar las aprobaciones y proyectos pasados y reconocer los problemas derivados de los mismos. Aquellas comunidades que sean capaces de actuar eficazmente como facilitadoras además de entes reguladores, según lo demostrado en los casos de estudio presentados en este artículo, estarán mejor preparadas para prevenir, responder y solucionar los problemas que pudieran surgir como resultado del exceso de derechos de desarrollo.
Herramientas y recomendaciones adicionales
El presente artículo es una adaptación de un nuevo informe sobre enfoque en políticas de suelo del Instituto Lincoln, titulado Arrested Developments: Combating Zombie Subdivisions and Other Excess Entitlements, de Jim Holway con Don Elliott y Anna Trentadue. Para mayor información (incluidas buenas prácticas, recomendaciones sobre políticas, y una guía paso a paso destinada a las comunidades que enfrentan un exceso de derechos), puede descargar este informe sobre enfoque en políticas de suelo completo o solicitar una copia impresa del mismo (www.lincolninst.edu/pubs). También se encuentra disponible información adicional en el sitio web que acompaña el informe (www.ReshapingDevelopment.org).
Sobre los autores
Jim Holway, Ph.D., FAICP, dirige el proyecto Western Lands and Communities en el Sonoran Institute de Phoenix, Arizona. Holway se desempeña además como funcionario municipal electo en representación del condado de Maricopa en el Distrito de Conservación del Agua de Arizona Central.
Don Elliott, FAICP, es abogado especializado en el uso del suelo, planificador de ciudades y director de Clarion Associates en Denver, Colorado.
Anna Trentadue es abogada de planta de Valley Advocates for Responsible Development en Driggs, Idaho.
Recursos
Burger, Bruce y Randy Carpenter. 2010. Rural Real Estate Markets and Conservation Development in the Intermountain West. Working paper. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Elliott, Don. 2010. Premature Subdivisions and What to Do About Them. Working paper. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Preston, Gabe. 2010. The Fiscal Impacts of Development on Vacant Rural Subdivision Lots in Teton County, Idaho. Fiscal impact study. Teton County, ID: Sonoran Institute.
Sonoran Institute. Reshaping Development Patterns. PFR companion website www.ReshapingDevelopment.org.
Sonoran Institute. Successful Communities On-Line Toolkit information exchange. www.SCOTie.org.
Trentadue, Anna. 2012. Addressing Excess Development Entitlements: Lessons Learned In Teton County, ID. Working paper. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Trentadue, Anna y Chris Lundberg. 2011. Subdivision in the Intermountain West: A Review and Analysis of State Enabling Authority, Case Law, and Potential Tools for Dealing with Zombie Subdivisions and Obsolete Development Entitlements in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming. Working paper. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Valley Advocates for Responsible Development. www.tetonvalleyadvocates.org.
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.
