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.

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.

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:

• La relación entre los asentamientos irregulares en áreas de alto riesgo y la regularización de procesos;
• las actitudes y esfuerzos de las poblaciones locales;
• los avances tecnológicos recientes y su relevancia para diagnosticar riesgos;
• las lecciones aprendidas de desastres anteriores; y
• las experiencias exitosas en la prevención y alivio de desastres.

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:

• Los asentamientos ilegales o irregulares reflejan la incapacidad de los mercados inmobiliarios de proporcionar espacios residenciales apropiados (de bajo riesgo) para familias de bajos ingresos. Los intentos por proporcionar alivio continuarán viéndose frustrados a menos que este ambiente político mejore.
• En los niveles más altos del gobierno las acciones se emprenden casi exclusivamente de manera reactiva, tal es el caso de las medidas de alivio que se dan solamente después de ocurridos los desastres y los esfuerzos limitados para mejorar la planificación y la prevención. Existe una necesidad urgente de que los gobiernos modifiquen sus prioridades para poder evitar parte de los impactos predecibles de los desastres naturales.
• Los datos e instrumentos de dirección para mejorar los enfoques preventivos deben ponerse a la disposición de los ciudadanos y las autoridades locales, quienes han generado la mayoría de los esfuerzos exitosos de alivio en los últimos años y se encuentran en la mejor posición para generar iniciativas en el futuro.
• Es importante comenzar a promover y desarrollar pólizas de seguro que retribuirán a los hogares y localidades por daños y pérdidas y pondrán en su lugar las iniciativas para mejorar prácticas con respecto a los niveles de construcción, el mantenimiento de cursos de agua y otras medidas de prevención.
• Como la urbanización acelerada y mal administrada ha sido una causa importante en aumentar el número de familias en riesgo, así como los niveles de riesgo, una planificación urbana fortalecida debe ser un instrumento cuando se busca reducir los efectos de los desastres.

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.

The lack of affordable serviced land for the urban poor is one of the most important issues on the Latin American land policy agenda.1 This shortage of serviced land and the subsequent illegal occupation of unserviced land are characteristic features of Latin American cities, especially in the urban peripheries and in areas unsuited to or restricted from the formal property market by topographic and environmental conditions.

An immediate consequence of this shortage is the overvaluation of land that is serviced. In effect, the provision of services usually increases the price of land by more than the cost of the services. Typically, raw land at the fringe, when designated as urban, is valued at US$5-10 per square meter. The provision of all services costs about US$20-30 per square meter, but the market price may be as much as US$50-100 per square meter. At this price, a 150-square-meter lot of serviced land is equivalent to at least three times the annual income of the majority of poor urban families. In most Latin American cities at least 25 percent of the population falling below the poverty line can barely survive, let alone pay for overpriced land.

Poor people in illegal settlements thus pay a higher price for land than residents in other parts of the city, and they pay more for services such as water, which they have to acquire from private vendors, as well as food, building materials and other consumer goods. Furthermore, their risk for disease is higher due to poor sanitation and limited access to medical facilities.

The Problem of Irregular Occupancy

It should be no surprise that 60 to 70 percent of land in Latin American cities is occupied irregularly, illegally or even clandestinely, with most housing stock being self-built incrementally over decades. In Mexico, the phenomenon of irregularity in land tenure can be seen as a way of life, given its important political and even cultural context. Low-income families find that the only way they can settle in the cities is by acquiring or invading illegal or irregular land.

The message transmitted to younger generations and others who seek housing has been clear: settle wherever you can, and don’t worry because some day the state will regularize your lot.2 This cultural attitude reinforces the perversity of the vicious cycle: the higher the expectation regarding the eventual regularization of irregular settlements, the higher the price that land sub-dividers may charge to sell unserviced or partially serviced land. The mere act of parceling the land raises the price two or three times, so again the poor pay more for land than buyers in the formal market.

Two important policy corollaries relate to this anticipation of land appreciation resulting from future regularization. First, public actions to regularize land have not solved the problem of access to land for the urban poor; rather, regularization is part of the problem because it feeds into the “industry of irregularization.” We must consider a serious restructuring or even the termination of this perverse policy and create other ways to offer serviced land to those who need it.

Second, this process also exposes a fallacy regarding the (in)capacity of the poor to pay for some urban services. They are already paying for at least part of their services, albeit to the landowner/sub-divider as a private “land tax” that could otherwise be collected publicly. The focus of the discussion is therefore misplaced. The issue is not so much whether the poor should pay or not, but rather how they should pay and the limits of such payments. For example, should low-income families benefiting from regularization programs pay for services directly, or should the land value increment generated by the improvements be captured from the landowners through taxation and other fiscal policies? The latter point sheds new light on the problems with some conventional subsidy schemes.

Challenging Current Regularization Programs

The traditional frameworks for studying the phenomenon of irregularity-regularization of land tenure in low-income urban colonies in Mexico (as for the rest of Latin America) need to be reevaluated. This was the motivation behind the March 1999 Lincoln Institute seminar cosponsored with the Colegio Mexiquense AC in Toluca, State of Mexico. Although the seminar could not resolve the conundrum indicated above, or even provide the means to break the vicious cycle, it generated some important conclusions.

First, it is important to recognize that the problem of how to supply land to the poor in Latin American countries cannot be resolved within the prevailing regularization programs. Besides the perverse feedback effects of these programs, there are serious questions regarding their financial sustainability. Regularization programs tend to be more curative than preventive, and they often depend on extra-budgetary government allocations unless the funds are provided by multilateral agencies, NGOs or other organizations.

In Mexico, CORETT, a federal commission for land tenure regularization of “ejidal” land, and CRESEM, a state commission for land tenure regulation and regularization of private land, have worked mainly on the legal side of the problem. Neither commission has achieved its program objectives of providing serviced land for the poor or creating land reserves. They have not focused on the basic problem of land irregularity but rather on one of its manifestations or consequences: illegal tenure.

Second, the problem with current regularization programs exposes the weakness of dissociating such programs from a broad-based fiscal policy, particularly property taxation, with its obvious implications for a healthier land market. As noted in the seminar, successful urban land management cannot be achieved solely through regulatory means. Greater fiscal discipline of land markets is needed, principally at the local level. This should be a pre-condition for an effective mobilization of land value increments to generate urbanized land, rather than a surrogate for the absence of a more comprehensive tax on land values. The same difficulties in obtaining adequate land value assessments, updated land records and other information usually attributed to the implementation of land value taxes also apply, sometimes even more dramatically, to most value capture instruments.

Third, existing fiscal instruments governing land in Mexico, although quite diverse and rigorous, are quite sensitive politically and thus, in reality, very weak. For example, land property taxes (mainly “impuesto predial”) face serious practical limitations in being able to capture land value increments because they were not designed for that purpose. However, fiscal reform may not be as insurmountable an obstacle as once thought when one considers that changes in other sensitive areas, such as privatization of state-owned assets or of ejido lands, have been accomplished.

Over and above these technical and political constraints, one should not neglect the importance of cultural and managerial obstacles. Planners must work with the fiscal administrators to overcome the lack of communication that has long characterized these two groups. Some promising steps have already been taken, and many public employees are aware of the urgent need to integrate fiscal policies and urban planning within the framework of a global strategy.

Finally, there is the broader context in which the issue must be placed. The government and the private sector have to understand that land has become the strategic issue in the dynamic process of urbanization. The main concern is the need to regulate land markets to meet the huge demand for serviced land in new ways and to make significant changes in the priority of this issue within Mexican politics and urban policy.

In sum, the seminar exposed the multifaceted need for a more effective policy to provide serviced land for the poor, including better coordination of existing policies relating to finance, territorial reserves, regularization and land market dynamics. We have also learned that many fiscal and regulatory instruments are sufficient in theory but not in practice. The problem is not so much a lack of resources as the capacity to mobilize the resources that do exist into a comprehensive program that links regularization with fiscal policy, including the exploration of value capture mechanisms.

While we studied various proposals and offered alternatives for future working agendas on the topic, several issues must be addressed before we can begin to understand the phenomenon in a different way. One key question is, If servicing the land adds so much value, why is it so hard to find private agents or developers in the formal market who are willing to invest in the informal market? Why is it deemed unprofitable in spite of such handsome mark-ups?

There is no easy answer, other than imprecise indications regarding risks due to complicated judicial and legal problems, unclear rules of the game, the high cost of approval licenses, lack of information about procedures, and concerns about low profitability over time. Because of the complex institutional issues involved in this dilemma, it will continue to be the focus of attention in collaborative efforts by the Lincoln Institute and its cosponsors in Mexico and other countries of Latin America.

Martim O. Smolka is senior fellow and director of the Latin American Program at the Lincoln Institute.

Alfonso Iracheta Cenecorta is president of El Colegio Mexiquense AC, an institution of research and postgraduate education in social sciences and the humanities, in the State of Mexico.

Notes

1. Serviced land is land designated for urban use and provided with basic public services (water, sewerage, paved roads, electric and telephone utilities, and the like), and with access to municipal functions such as employment, education and public transport.

2. Regularization means not only the provision of legal title but, more importantly, the provision of the urban infrastructure, services and other changes needed to integrate the “informal/illegal yet real” settlement into the fabric of the “legal” city.

Some Definitions

Illegal – land occupation that expressly contradicts existing norms, civil codes and public authorization

Informal – economic activity that does not adhere to and is not protected by institutional rules, as opposed to formal activity that operates within established procedures

Irregular – subdivisions that are officially approved but are not executed in accordance with the law

Clandestine – subdivisions that are established without any official recognition

Una versión más actualizada de este artículo está disponible como parte del capítulo 4 del libro Perspectivas urbanas: Temas críticos en políticas de suelo de América Latina.

Bajo condiciones de rápido crecimiento urbano, la concentración de la propiedad de la tierra y las leyes que regulan su uso contribuyen con frecuencia a la escasez de tierras dotadas de servicios públicos. Esta escasez, a su vez, lleva a grandes aumentos de los precios de la tierra e increíbles ganancias especulativas. Cuando los marcos legales y administrativos no se pueden cambiar fácilmente (para permitir que los mercados operen ajustes graduales del precio que puedan ser tasados por medio de los impuestos existentes a la propiedad y las ganacias de capital) la captura de la plusvalía es una intervención apropiada para obtener un desarrollo urbano sostenible, eficiente y equitativo.

A principios de la década de 1990, dos ciudades colombianas, Bogotá y Cali, adoptaron reglamentos del uso de la tierra orientados a la expansión de la oferta de tierras para el uso residencial. Bogotá abrió al mercado el acceso a una zona reservada en el medio de la ciudad, llamada “El Salitre”, con el propósito de proveer servicios urbanos y establecer normas especiales para asegurar el desarrollo de viviendas para la población de bajos y medianos ingresos. Cali extendió su perímetro urbano para incluir un área de tierras pantanosas conocida como la “Ciudadela Desepaz”, la cual necesitaba grandes inversiones en servicios públicos. La ciudad planeaba suministrar los servicios básicos como incentivo para que su propio departamento de vivienda y los promotores privados construyeran viviendas para grupos de bajos ingresos.

El simple anuncio de que los respectivos concejos estaban a punto de promover desarrollos aumentó significativamente los precios de las tierras. En el caso de Cali, las transacciones registradas en la Ciudadela Desepaz reflejaron aumentos de los precios de más del 300 por ciento, aun antes de que el Concejo Municipal tomara una decisión formal. La tierra pasó rápidamente de manos de un grupo disperso de hacendados de ganado relativamente desconocidos (y, según fue documentado posteriormente, algunos traficantes de drogas extranjeros y locales) a manos de especuladores y promotores urbanos. Una serie de decisiones administrativas durante un período de 30 meses impulsó el valor prácticamente nulo en el mercado de ciertas tierras a precios de más de 14.000 pesos colombianos por metro cuadrado (aproximadamente 18 dólares estadounidenses en 1995). Tales decisiones dieron como resultado ganancias generales de más de 1.000 veces el precio original de la tierra, una vez considerada la inflación.

El Salitre, en Bogotá, siguió un proceso similar de toma de decisiones por parte de la administración urbana que aumentó sustancialmente el precio de la tierra. No es sorprendente que los proyectos de vivienda en ambos casos se encuentren ocupados por grupos de medianos y altos ingresos, en lugar de los sectores de bajos ingresos anticipados originalmente.

Puesto que casos como los de Desepaz y El Salitre ocurren regularmente en las principales ciudades colombianas, el gobierno nacional preparó una propuesta de ley para permitir que las ciudades capturen la mayor parte de los aumentos en el precio de la tierra que puedan atribuirse primordialmente a cambios de uso autorizados. Tales cambios incluyen zonificación, variaciones de densidad o conversión del uso de la tierra de agrícola a urbano. La propuesta –inspirada por medidas de las leyes españolas y brasileñas, similares aunque menos estrictas– fue aprobada por el Congreso Colombiano como la Ley No 388 de 1997.

Las leyes colombianas del impuesto sobre la renta –incluyendo la exitosa Contribución de Valorización, una tasa a las mejoras de la propiedad limitada a la recuperación del costo de la inversión pública– no resultan eficaces para capturar el tipo de ganancias de capital extremas registradas en Desepaz o El Salitre. La Ley No 388 de 1997, conocida como la Ley de Desarrollo Territorial, ofrece varias opciones para que las autoridades locales puedan “participar de las plusvalías” a través de la recaudación de una nueva “contribución al desarrollo territorial”. Las ciudades y los propietarios pueden negociar pagos en efectivo, en especie (por medio de la transferencia de parte de las tierras), o a través de la combinación de pagos en especie (tierras) y la formación de una sociedad de desarrollo urbano entre los propietarios, la ciudad y los promotores, por ejemplo.

La implementación de este nuevo instrumento de captura de la plusvalía constituye un desafío formidable para los administradores urbanos colombianos, quienes se ven obligados a identificar los aumentos del valor que se deben primordialmente a decisiones administrativas. Entre las dificultades a superar se incluyen la medida del aumento relevante del valor de la tierra, la negociación de las formas de pago y el establecimiento de sociedades de desarrollo urbano.

Como parte de su programa de investigación y educación en Latinoamérica, el Instituto Lincoln ha estado colaborando con representantes oficiales colombianos desde 1994 a fin de suministrar el entrenamiento y apoyo técnico durante etapas sucesivas de preparación e implementación de la Ley No 388 de 1997. El Instituto contempla trabajar con otros países que experimenten problemas con los precios de la tierra y deseen considerar medidas de captura de la plus-valía similares a la ley colombiana.

Fernando Rojas, abogado de Colombia, fue visitante asociado del Instituto Lincoln en 1997-1998. Junto con Víctor M. Moncayo, actual Presidente de la Universidad Nacional de Colombia, preparó la propuesta que posteriormente se convirtió en la Ley No 338. También participó en ella Carolina Barco de Botero, miembra de la Directiva del Instituto Lincoln, quien en ese entonces se encontraba dirigiendo el Programa de Desarrollo de las Naciones Unidas, entidad que supervisó la preparación de la propuesta de ley para el gobierno colombiano. Martim O. Smolka es Senior Fellow y director de programas Latinoamericanos y del Caribe del Instituto Lincoln.

* La captura de la plusvalía se refiere a medidas fiscales o de otro tipo utilizadas por los gobiernos para identificar y asignar la parte de los aumentos del valor de la tierra atribuíble al esfuerzo comunitario más que a las acciones de los propietarios. En Latinoamérica, estos aumentos en el valor de la tierra se denominan con frecuencia plusvalías.

Lavea Brachman is a lawyer and a city planner who has worked and taught in the area of community involvement in brownfields redevelopment projects for the last decade. She is currently director of the Ohio office and associate director of the Chicago-based nonprofit, the Delta Institute, which engages in the policy and practice of improving environmental quality and promoting community and economic development in the Great Lakes region. She is also an adjunct professor at The Ohio State University in the City and Regional Planning Department. Last year, pursuant to passage of legislation and approval of a statewide bond bill, Ohio Governor Bob Taft appointed Brachman to serve on the Clean Ohio Council, which is charged by the legislature with selecting and disbursing $200 million for brownfield projects throughout the state.

Brachman developed and taught a new course at the Lincoln Institute last spring, called “Reusing Brownfields and Other Underutilized Land: A Seminar for Senior Staff of Community-Based and Non-profit Development Agencies,” and she will teach a similar course in 2003. She also wrote an article on “Key Success Factors in Brownfield Property Redevelopment” for a forthcoming Lincoln publication on redevelopment of vacant land.

Land Lines: How did you become involved in and concerned about brownfield redevelopment?

Lavea Brachman: Brownfield redevelopment was just emerging as a special focus of urban planning in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when I was working on my master’s degree in city planning at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). As a student, I joined a student-professor team on an early brownfields project for the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) to determine what it could do with some previously utilized property it owned in Quincy, Massachusetts, just south of Boston. We assessed three primary aspects (social, legal and physical) to determine the site’s redevelopment potential.

That experience and the challenge of dealing with multiple parties and multiple issues that brownfield redevelopment entails peaked my interest intellectually, and I recognized that changing land uses could have profound and positive implications for social change. Previously, as an attorney with a Washington, DC, law firm, I had practiced in the environmental and land use areas, so the interdisciplinary nature of brownfields redevelopment seemed to bring together my legal and planning training with my professional skills and areas of knowledge and expertise.

LL: What are the primary obstacles to brownfield redevelopment and how have these changed over time?

LB: Contrary to general public misperceptions, the primary obstacle to brownfield redevelopment today is not environmental contamination per se, even though the prior use and associated environmental conditions of these properties distinguish them from other underutilized properties. The primary obstacle to redevelopment remains the threat of liability that by statute arises from acts that cause or contribute to contamination and/or to those with an ownership interest in the property. A second major obstacle is financing, since brownfields are many times more expensive to redevelop than regular real estate projects. The liability threat also has dampened interest from investors or banks that might be perceived as being in the chain of title.

A third obstacle can be lack of local support. The need for public involvement in brownfield redevelopment, from financing, to regulatory oversight, to local zoning and planning, means that community support is instrumental to making brownfield redevelopment work. The potential fear and lack of understanding about the impact of contamination on a community can also interfere with local support. A fourth obstacle is obtaining site control or clear title to the property. Many brownfield properties are tax delinquent or burdened with liens, and the title may remain in the name of a defunct company. Of all the obstacles, the solutions to title problems vary most widely from state to state.

A final obstacle is location, because many of these properties are found in areas that are littered with multiple vacant properties or they are not readily accessible to all-important interstate highways or rail networks. Sometimes brownfield sites with a long history of use were at one time accessible to key transportation lines, but those roads or rails have been superseded by new highways located several miles or more away, leaving the abandoned sites isolated from current development activity.

LL: How has the brownfield redevelopment practice evolved over the last decade?

LB: A decade ago, brownfields were not identified or defined as such. They were the legacy of a manufacturing and industrial economy that left behind vacant properties and blighted urban areas and the remnants of laws that, through the nature of the liability schemes, provided disincentives for cleanup. The federal government had not formally recognized the value of redeveloping these properties, and those of us who were involved in the field early on worked with regulators to convince them to pay more attention. Also, the fear of another Love Canal (that is, illness among residents arising from property contamination) was still fresh, so there was little flexibility in cleanup standards. Brownfields were redeveloped, if at all, outside the regular, legal constructs or under special agreements between owner and regulator, or by using special contracts such as prospective purchaser agreements, which prevented a future buyer from being held liable for previous contamination.

Now brownfield redevelopment has been increasingly streamlined, approached by developers as a real estate deal with a twist—the environmental cleanup. Many of the primary obstacles mentioned above remain, although they have been somewhat diminished over time, as new state and federal policies, laws and regulations have been passed and implemented to address the specific issues with brownfields liability, provide new funding sources, alter title processes for expunging tax delinquent and other liens, and even require community involvement. Last December, for example, Congress passed the “Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act of 2001,” which provides for additional grants and loans for certain activities as well as clarifications on liability.

Brownfields offer an interesting case study of how informal processes that originally emerged out of necessity outside the legal, policy and financing mainstream have been increasingly institutionalized. For instance, where once a property would remain unremediated and fenced off because the cleanup was too burdensome and expensive, or the cleanup would be the subject of years of litigation, now a property that is marketable can act as an incentive for all parties to proceed rapidly.

In the strong market of the 1990s, the real estate pressures allowed even some hard-to-develop properties, like long-abandoned brownfields, to be redeveloped, although it was primarily the “low hanging fruit” or the brownfields that were already either well-located, had minimal contamination, or were not complicated by multiple parties contributing to past contamination. The liability on these properties could be capped and financial institutions thus could reduce their risk. Also the regulatory climate has become less aggressive with the passage of “voluntary cleanup statutes,” which allow cleanups to be accomplished without regulatory oversight in many states. The ultimate carrot is a government agreement not to hold future owners liable (that is, a covenant not to sue) if they meet certain standards. To date, fewer cleanups that predicted have actually been accomplished under these new state laws, but they create a climate ultimately more conducive to redevelopment. Nevertheless, in the weaker economic market of 2002, with greater risk, more uncertainty and less development generally, there will be less brownfield redevelopment, particularly of those sites that do not have the easily marketable attributes.

LL: Who are some of the key players involved in successful brownfield redevelopment projects?

LB: Like most real estate deals, brownfield redevelopment inherently involves multiple parties. Public-private partnerships are particularly crucial to the success of brownfield redevelopment projects, because of the quasi-regulated nature of the cleanup and the complicated financing arrangements. The list of potential key players is a long one. It includes state and or federal regulators, elected community officials and other community leaders, private developers (both for-profit and not-for-profit), past and future property owners, private financial institutions or investors and public funding sources. Often those essential parties are traditional adversaries. For instance, designating the future use of a brownfield property must involve a state (and sometimes federal) regulatory agency, which can approve the cleanup standard for the particular use (normally higher for residential and lower for industrial) and plan to remove the contamination, as well as previous and/or future owners who under previous legal standards would have been held liable by the regulatory agency.

Funding for the cleanup and redevelopment inevitably comes from a variety of sources. Notably, up to 70 to 80 percent of funding for brownfield projects can be from public funding sources, but usually those public monies are predicated on private (often local) institutional financing as well, making the public-private nexus very important.

LL: What is the role of community-based organizations in brownfield redevelopment and to what extent is this type of redevelopment an extension of broader community planning efforts facing many urban neighborhoods?

LB: Community support and leadership from the local government are essential to the successful redevelopment of a brownfield property. For instance, localities often must be the applicant for the essential public (state or federal) funds needed to accomplish the project. If zoning or subdivision changes must be made through local boards, local support and leadership is crucial. Community-based organizations such as community development corporations should play an active role in brownfield redevelopment as well, particularly in areas that are not as naturally attractive to private market actors, either due to location and limited access of the properties or to general neighborhood blight and lack of economic activity. In these areas, broader community planning efforts undertaken by community groups, such as community-wide master plans, are often productive starting points if multiple brownfield and other underutilized properties need to be addressed. Master plans encompassing these properties should take into account neighborhood and community needs, such as local stores, recreational areas, and other facilities. The biggest barrier to brownfield redevelopment in these areas is the market and the physical and economic condition of the surrounding area.

Nevertheless, to many community groups these sites remain intimidating for several reasons: the technical aspects of the contamination; the stigma attached to the properties by their condition; their negative impacts on surrounding properties; and, as mentioned, their location in generally blighted and hard-to-market areas. Furthermore, brownfield sites present more upfront barriers not present in the kinds of housing development projects traditionally undertaken by community-based organizations, such as site remediation, title issues, the assembly of multiple parcels, and the complex financing that is necessary from multiple sources. Getting community organizations past these threshold issues through capacity building and training in technical skills will position them to address more strategic brownfield redevelopment challenges.

Given recent state and federal statutory changes and multiple sources of public funding, the redevelopment of single brownfield properties in stable or improving markets now involves fewer legal and financial barriers. It also requires a very different strategy from developing properties in declining markets where there are other non-brownfield barriers to be overcome. The challenge for addressing brownfield properties in these latter areas remains to be solved, but community involvement is certainly a key aspect to its resolution.

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.

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.

In recent years, Latin America has suffered from many natural disasters that have had especially serious impacts on irregular settlements in densely urbanized areas. Drawing on the findings of research in Mexico funded by the World Bank and other institutions, the Lincoln Institute cosponsored a seminar in November 2000 in the port city of Veracruz, focusing on ways to mitigate the risks and results of natural disasters. The seminar explored such issues as:

• the relationship of irregular settlements in high-risk areas to regularization processes;
• the attitudes and efforts of the local populations;
• recent technological advances relevant to diagnosing risks;
• lessons learned from previous disasters; and
• successful experiences with disaster prevention and mitigation.

Representatives from municipal authorities and community organizations shared experiences and learned technical and practical methodologies to identify high-risk zones, implement policies to reduce illegal settlements in those zones, and establish prevention and mitigation measures. Participants also identified the importance of social participation in the process. The principal findings are summarized below:

• Irregular or illegal settlements reflect the inability of land markets to provide suitable (low-risk) residential locations for low-income families. Mitigation efforts will continue to be frustrated unless this policy environment is improved.
• Actions at higher levels of government are almost exclusively reactive, such as relief measures only after disasters strike and limited efforts to improve planning and prevention. There is an urgent need for governments to revise their priorities to avoid some of the predictable impacts of natural disasters.
• Data and management tools to improve preventive approaches need to be made available to citizens and local authorities, who have been the source of most successful mitigation efforts in recent years and are in the best position to originate future initiatives.
• It is important to begin promoting and developing insurance policies that will both reimburse households and localities for damage and losses and put in place incentives to improve practices with respect to building standards, maintenance of watercourses, and other preventive measures.
• Since rapid and poorly managed urbanization has been a major culprit in increasing the number of families at risk, as well as the levels of risk, strengthened urban planning should be a vital tool in the quest to reduce the effects of disasters.

The Institute has been working on this issue with State, Urban and Municipal Services (SUME), an institution established in late 1999 to raise the quality and efficiency of governance and management at state and local levels in Mexico. SUME aims to accomplish these objectives through consulting, technical assistance and training of government officials. Its activities have been supported by the United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat), which cosponsored this seminar, and by the World Bank and the Interamerican Development Bank.

Douglas Keare is a fellow of the Lincoln Institute and Luis Javier Castro Castro is director general of State, Urban and Municipal Services (SUME) in Mexico City.

Una versión más actualizada de este artículo está disponible como parte del capítulo 4 del libro Perspectivas urbanas: Temas críticos en políticas de suelo de América Latina.

Uno de los aspectos más importantes del estudio de políticas de suelo en América Latina es la falta de tierra urbanizada al alcance de los habitantes de bajos recursos1. Esta carencia, y la consiguiente ocupación ilegal de terrenos carentes de infraestructuras, son características de las ciudades latinoamericanas, especialmente en las periferias urbanas y en áreas no aptas para el mercado inmobiliario (o excluidas del mismo) debido a sus condiciones topográficas o ambientales.

Una consecuencia inmediata de esta escasez es la sobrevaloración de la tierra urbanizada. En efecto, usualmente la provisión de servicios aumenta el precio de la tierra en una cantidad superior al costo de los servicios. Típicamente, los solares designados como urbanos se cotizan en US$ 5-10 por metro cuadrado. La provisión de todos los servicios cuesta alrededor de US$ 20-30 por metro cuadrado, pero el precio de mercado puede llegar hasta US$ 50-100 por metro cuadrado. Así, el precio de un lote de tierra urbanizada de 150 metros cuadrados equivale como mínimo al triple del ingreso anual de la mayoría de las familias de escasos recursos. En la mayoría de las ciudades latinoamericanas, al menos el 25 por ciento de la población por debajo del umbral de pobreza puede escasamente sobrevivir, y mucho menos pagar el precio de tierra sobrevalorada.

Esta población pobre que vive en asentamientos ilegales termina pagando un precio superior por el suelo que los habitantes de otras partes de la ciudad, y pagan más por servicios tales como agua, los cuales deben obtener de empresas privadas, así como también por alimentos, materiales de construcción y otros artículos de consumo. Lo que es peor, su riesgo de contraer enfermedades es mayor debido a las deficientes condiciones higiénicas de sus entornos habitacionales y a su limitado acceso a servicios médicos.

El problema de la ocupación irregular

No es sorpresivo que entre un 60 y un 70 por ciento de las tierras de las ciudades latinoamericanas estén ocupadas de manera irregular, ilegal o incluso clandestina, y que la mayor parte del inventario de viviendas consista en edificaciones autoconstruidas que incrementan con el paso del tiempo. En México, la irregularidad de la tenencia de la tierra es una forma de vida dado su importante contexto político e incluso cultural. Para las familias de bajos ingresos, la única manera de vivir en las ciudades es adquiriendo o invadiendo predios ilegales o irregulares.

El mensaje está muy claro para las generaciones más jóvenes: “Instálense donde quieran y sin preocuparse, porque algún día el Estado regularizará sus lotes”2. Esta actitud cultural refuerza lo perverso del círculo vicioso: mientras más expectativas existen sobre la eventual regularización de los asentamientos irregulares, mayor es el precio cobrado por subdivisores o gestores inmobiliarios por la venta de terrenos parcialmente urbanizados o carentes de servicios. El simple acto de parcelar la tierra dobla o triplica su precio, de manera que nuevamente, el pobre paga más por la tierra que los compradores del mercado formal.

Esta anticipación de la revalorización del suelo como resultado de la regularización futura se relaciona con dos corolarios importantes: Primero , las acciones públicas para regularizar la tierra no han resuelto el problema del acceso a la tierra para la población urbana de pocos ingresos; en cambio, la regularización es parte del problema porque alimenta la “industria de la irregularización”. Es fundamental pensar seriamente en reestructurar o incluso acabar con esta política perversa, y crear otras formas de ofrecer tierra urbanizada a quienes la necesitan.

Segundo, este proceso expone también una falacia referente a la (in)capacidad de los pobres de pagar por algunos servicios urbanos. Ellos ya están pagando al menos por una parte de sus servicios, aunque los están pagando al propietario de la tierra/gestor inmobiliario como un “tributo territorial” que, en otras circunstancias, se hubiera recaudado públicamente. La discusión no está bien encaminada: el problema no es tanto si el pobre debe pagar o no, sino más bien cómo debe pagar y cuáles deben ser los límites de tales pagos. Por ejemplo, ¿deberían las familias de bajos ingresos, beneficiadas por los programas de regularización, pagar directamente por los servicios? o ¿debería capturarse el incremento del valor del suelo generado por las mejoras, y pechar al propietario de la tierra por dicho aumento mediante impuestos y otras políticas tributarias? Este último punto arroja una nueva luz sobre los problemas resultantes de algunos esquemas convencionales de subsidio.

Problemas de los programas de regularización actuales

Es necesario reevaluar los marcos tradicionales del estudio del fenómeno de la irregularidad-regularización de la tenencia de la tierra en colonias urbanas de bajos ingresos en México (al igual que en el resto de América Latina). Con esta idea en mente, en marzo de 1999 se celebró un seminario del Instituto Lincoln en cooperación con el Colegio Mexiquense AC en Toluca, México. Aunque el seminario no pudo resolver el enigma indicado anteriormente ¾ni siquiera proporcionar los medios para romper el círculo vicioso¾, sí generó algunas conclusiones importantes.

Primero que todo, es importante reconocer que el problema de suministro de tierra a los pobres de América Latina no puede resolverse a fuerza de los programas de regularización imperantes. Además de los efectos dañinos de los mismos, existen serias inquietudes sobre su capacidad de sustentación financiera. Los programas de regularización tienden a ser “más cura que prevención”, y a menudo dependen de asignaciones gubernamentales extrapresupuestarias, a excepción de cuando los fondos provienen de agencias multilaterales, organismos no gubernamentales u otros medios.

En México, CORETT, una comisión federal para la regularización de la tenencia de la tierra de predios ejidales, y CRESEM, una comisión estatal para la regularización de la tenencia de la tierra y la regularización de la tierra privada, se han dedicado principalmente al aspecto legal del problema. Ninguna de las dos comisiones ha logrado sus objetivos de proporcionar tierra urbanizada para los estratos bajos de la población o de crear reservas de tierras. En vez de dedicarse al problema básico de la irregularidad de la tierra, ambas se han concentrado en una de sus manifestaciones o consecuencias: la tenencia ilegal.

Segundo, los programas de regularización vigentes adolecen de las fallas resultantes de desvincularlos de una política tributaria amplia, particularmente de la tributación de la tierra (con sus implicaciones obvias para un mercado de suelos más saludable). Como se indicó en el seminario, el manejo exitoso de la tierra urbana requiere, más que métodos regulativos, una mayor disciplina fiscal de los mercados de suelos, principalmente en el ámbito municipal. Esta disciplina debería ser una precondición para captar eficazmente los incrementos del valor de la tierra a fin de generar tierra urbanizada, en vez de ser el sustituto de un tributo más completo sobre el valor de la tierra. Las mismas dificultades en obtener tasaciones adecuadas del valor de la tierra, registros del suelo actualizados, y otras informaciones usualmente atribuidas a la aplicación de impuestos sobre el valor de la tierra, se aplican también (y en ocasiones de manera más dramática) a la mayoría de los instrumentos de captura de plusvalía.

En tercer lugar, los instrumentos fiscales por los cuales se rige la tierra en México, si bien se caracterizan por su diversidad y rigurosidad, son también bastante sensibles desde el punto de vista político y por tanto, tienen una utilidad escasa. Por ejemplo, los impuestos a la propiedad inmobiliaria (principalmente el impuesto predial) se enfrentan a serias limitaciones prácticas para capturar los incrementos del valor de la tierra, sencillamente porque no fueron diseñados para tal fin. Sin embargo, es posible que una reforma fiscal no sea un obstáculo tan insuperable como antes se creía… después de todo se han instituido cambios en otras áreas controversiales, tales como la privatización de activos del estado o de tierras de ejido.

Más allá de estas restricciones técnicas y políticas, no debemos olvidarnos de la importancia de los obstáculos culturales y gerenciales. Es necesario que los planificadores trabajen en cooperación con los administradores fiscales para solventar el problema de la falta de comunicación que desde siempre ha caracterizado a estos dos grupos. Ya se han dado ciertos pasos promisorios, y muchos empleados públicos están conscientes de la urgente necesidad de integrar las políticas fiscales y la planificación urbana dentro del marco de una estrategia global.

Finalmente, hay que visualizar este dilema dentro de un contexto más amplio. Es necesario que tanto el gobierno como el sector privado entiendan que la tierra se ha convertido en el asunto estratégico del dinámico proceso de urbanización. La cuestión principal es la necesidad de regularizar los mercados de tierra, no sólo para satisfacer de otras maneras la enorme demanda por tierra urbanizada, sino también para instituir cambios profundos en la prioridad que tiene este asunto dentro de la política y las normativas urbanas mexicanas.

En suma, el seminario expuso la necesidad multifacética de instaurar políticas eficaces que faciliten tierras urbanizadas a los estratos bajos de la población, y de poner en marcha una mejor coordinación de las políticas existentes relacionadas con los aspectos de finanzas, reservas territoriales, regularización y dinámicas del mercado del suelo. Durante el seminario se demostró que aunque muchos instrumentos fiscales y regulativos son adecuados en teoría, no lo son en la práctica. El problema no es tanto la falta de recursos, sino más bien la capacidad de movilizar los recursos existentes y encaminarlos hacia un programa extenso que enlace la regularización con la política fiscal, así como con la exploración de mecanismos de captura de valores.

Si bien se han estudiado varias propuestas y ofrecido alternativas para futuras agendas de trabajo en el tema, es preciso analizar varias cuestiones para comenzar a entender el fenómeno de una manera diferente. Una pregunta clave es, si la dotación de infraestructuras aumenta el valor de la tierra de una manera tan explosiva, ¿por qué es tan difícil encontrar agentes o gestores privados del mercado formal que estén dispuestos a invertir en el mercado informal? ¿por qué, a pesar de los aspectos atractivos mencionados, se considera que el mercado informal es improductivo?

Hay un cúmulo de respuestas, pero ninguna es fácil: la incertidumbre sobre los riesgos asociados a los problemas judiciales y legales, las confusas reglas del juego, el alto costo de las licencias de aprobación, la falta de información sobre los procedimientos, y las inquietudes sobre la baja rentabilidad a lo largo del tiempo. Debido a los complejos asuntos institucionales involucrados en este dilema, el mismo continuará siendo el centro de atención de los esfuerzos del Instituto Lincoln y de sus copatrocinadores en México y en otros países de América Latina.

Martim O. Smolka es Senior Fellow y Director del Programa para América Latina del Instituto Lincoln. Alfonso Iracheta Cenecorta es presidente del Colegio Mexiquense AC, una institución de investigación y educación de postgrado en ciencias sociales y humanidades, en México.

Notas

1. El término “tierra urbanizada” se aplica a suelos designados para uso urbano, dotados de servicios públicos básicos (aguas, alcantarillado, caminos pavimentados, electricidad y teléfonos, etc.), y con acceso a funciones municipales tales como empleo, educación y transporte público.

2. Por regularización se entiende no sólo la entrega de títulos de propiedad, sino aún más importante, la dotación de infraestructura urbana, servicios y otros cambios necesarios para integrar el asentamiento “informal/ilegal pero al mismo tiempo real” en la red de la ciudad “legal”.

Algunas definiciones

Ilegal. Ocupación de la tierra que contradice expresamente las normas existentes, los códigos civiles y la autorización pública.

Informal. Actividad económica que no se adhiere a las reglas institucionales (ni está protegida por ellas), en oposición a la actividad formal que opera dentro de los procedimientos establecidos.

Irregular. Subdivisión que está aprobada oficialmente pero que no ha sido ejecutada de acuerdo con la ley.

Clandestina. Subdivisión establecida sin reconocimiento oficial.