In Latin American cities, especially in the larger ones, location is critical for vulnerable groups. In Buenos Aires, the population of shantytowns in the central area doubled in the last inter-census period (1991–2001), even though total population declined by approximately 8 percent. In Rio de Janeiro during the same decade, the fastest growing informal settlements were those considered to be in the best locations, generally near the beach in middle- and upper-income neighborhoods, although they were already the most crowded and congested slums.

Limited access to land is a substantial hindrance to economic development in many transition economies. Additionally, when the ability to gain appropriate permits to use the land is subject to delays, bribes, or corruption, the efficiency of the land allocation mechanism is compromised and overall economic growth is constrained.

In this article I summarize findings from empirical models of land access, permit activity, time costs, and corruption, using both country and firm characteristics as explanatory variables. Data come from the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD)–World Bank Business Environment and Enterprise Performance Survey (BEEPS 2009) for business enterprises in transition economies of Europe and Central Asia, supplemented with country-specific economic measures and EBRD indices of reform. Results indicate that limited access to land and difficulty in obtaining permits are substantial impediments to economic development, and these conditions clearly create an environment in which bribery flourishes.

Land Markets in Transition Economies

The context of this study is analysis of firm-level performance in transition economies where access to land has been subject to varying types of land privatization regimes in the past 20 years since independence. Stanfield (1999, 1–2) provides a helpful strategy for thinking about how land markets have been created in such economies, recognizing that “Markets in land linked to markets in capital and labor are central to market economies.”

Indeed, land market liberalization must be linked to liberalization of capital and labor markets simultaneously if transition countries are to advance their economies. Stanfield also suggests that many existing institutions of land administration must make radical changes to support the privatization of land rights. Defining and enforcing property rights and providing transparent and efficient land registration mechanisms free of bribery and corruption are essential to supporting economic development (Estrin et al. 2009).

Boycko, Schleifer, and Vishny (1995) suggest two ways that access to land and real estate is critical to restructuring a transition economy and promoting economic development in general. First, land and buildings are complementary to plants and equipment, which typically have already been privatized in these countries. Until land and buildings are also privatized, control of these productive assets continues to be held jointly by local politicians and managers, leading to an inefficient ownership structure. Second, privatization of land and real estate provides firms with a source of capital for restructuring their business investments. For example, a former state-owned enterprise that has surplus land and buildings can sell those assets to raise funds for other investments. However, Boycko, Schleifer, and Vishny (1995, 136) conclude, “Because it serves local governments so well, politicization of urban land and real estate persists, and slows down the restructuring of old firms and the creation of new ones.”

Deininger (2003) makes the case that well-functioning land markets foster general economic development, citing four key tenets. First, in many developing economies the distribution of land ownership prevents operational efficiency. If land ownership cannot be transferred easily, or if land use is not separable from land ownership, then there may be a mismatch between the owners and the most efficient land users. If land markets are allowed to transfer land use from less productive to more productive uses, then overall economic efficiency is enhanced. Second, transferable land use rights can allow rural residents to move into the nonagricultural sector of the economy, which can help boost the output of that sector and the overall economy. Third, by making land use rights transferable the ownership and use of land can be separated, facilitating more efficient land use. Fourth, a well-developed land market allows land transfers to occur with low transaction costs, which frees up credit in the economy.

Economic Consequences of Limited Access to Land

Firms use a combination of land, labor, and capital inputs to produce a given quantity of output. Consider a situation where the first input is land, for which the firm faces a constraint on the quantity available, but the other two inputs are freely available in any quantity needed. In a competitive market, a profit-maximizing firm uses additional units of any freely available input until the value of the additional product derived from the last unit of the input used equals its market price. In this case, however, if the available land is constrained, the firm would purchase a less than optimal amount. Consequently, the firm would not achieve an optimal input combination, leading to an inefficient allocation of resources.

Even if the quantity of land is not constrained, obstacles to obtaining building, construction, or use permits may impede the conduct of business. In such circumstances, the amount of land may be accessible, but the permitting process increases its effective price. Once again, the firm is forced to operate inefficiently.

In either situation one could ask, “What would the firm be willing to pay in order to be able to operate most efficiently?” Clearly, the land constraint or permit restriction imposes a cost on the firm and reduces its efficiency, and the firm presumably would be willing to pay a bribe to a government official to gain access to additional land or obtain a permit to use the available land. Hence, limited access to land and permits can encourage informal payments or bribes. Carlin, Schaffer, and Seabright (2007) have suggested that managers’ responses to survey questions regarding the business environment in which they operate and the constraints they face can measure the hidden implicit cost of those constraints.

Country and Firm Data and Survey Results

The primary data for this study are 15 country-specific characteristics from various sources and 13 firm characteristics from the 2009 round of the EBRD-World Bank BEEPS, which is conducted every three years. The survey covers a broad range of topics related to the business environment and performance of firms as well as questions on business-government relations. A total of 11,999 business enterprises in 30 transition economies of Europe and Central Asia are represented. These data have been used extensively in the transition and development literatures, most recently in Commander and Svenjar (2011). Table 1 lists the country and firm characteristics and indicates their effects on five aspects of economic development.

Access to Land as an Obstacle to Economic Development

The BEEPS questionnaire asks firms about a number of potential obstacles to efficient operation, including access to land. A key question asks, “Is access to land No Obstacle, a Minor Obstacle, a Moderate Obstacle, a Major Obstacle, or a Very Severe Obstacle to the current operations of this establishment?” Survey respondents may also respond “Do not know” or “Does not apply.” Overall, 43 percent of the firms surveyed reported land access as an obstacle to some extent. There is wide variation in firm responses across the countries in the sample, however, with the share of firms reporting land access as an obstacle ranging from a low of 6 percent in Hungary to a high of 62 percent in Kosovo (figure 1).

Nine of the 15 possible country-specific explanatory variables have a statistically discernable effect on the likelihood that a firm will report land access as an obstacle (table 1, column 1). Firms were more likely to report land access obstacles in CIS countries (Commonwealth of Independent States, or former Soviet republics) and in faster growing countries. The CIS effect is particularly important, with firms in those countries approximately 28 percent more likely to report land access obstacles than comparable firms in non-CIS transition countries. In countries with a high VAT rate, firms were less likely to report access to land as an obstacle.

Among the EBRD indices of reform listed in table 1, the mixed likelihood of increases and decreases on these measures may indicate that uneven reforms across sectors of the economy can have opposing effects on firms’ experiences. If land privatization and policies providing land access are not moving in tandem with financial market reforms and broader privatization reforms, such a pattern of mixed signs may emerge.

Firm characteristics associated with a greater likelihood of land access obstacles include competition against unregistered or informal firms, subsidization of the firm by the government, the number of employees, and limited partnership legal status. Of particular note are the firms that report they compete against informal market firms and those that are subsidized by the government. These two characteristics increase the reported probability of land access obstacles by 8 and 6 percent, respectively.

Presumably, state-subsidized firms also report that they compete against unregistered or informal market firms, so the combined increase in probability may be approximately 14 percent. On the other hand, characteristics associated with lower probabilities of reporting land access as an obstacle include operating in the manufacturing sector or having a more experienced manager.

Beyond merely stating that land access is an obstacle, firms were asked to report on the severity of the obstacle (figure 2). On a scale from zero to 4 (with zero indicating no obstacle and 4 indicating a very severe obstacle), the overall mean for the 5,206 firms responding to this question is 2.47. When we correct for sample selection bias, we take into account that firms reporting land access as an obstacle may be systematically different from those not reporting an obstacle. Country and firm characteristics with statistically significant positive and negative effects of severity are shown in table 1, column 2.

The BEEPS also includes a way for the interviewer to respond to concerns about truthfulness in the survey responses: “It is my perception that the responses to the questions regarding opinions and perceptions (were): Truthful, Somewhat truthful, Not truthful.” Interviewer suspicions are associated with a greater likelihood of reporting land access as an obstacle (about a 3 percent greater probability). For example, among firms reporting land access as an obstacle, interviewer suspicions were associated with a significantly less intense reported obstacle. Apparently, suspicions are raised in the mind of the survey recorder when the firm representative is being overly optimistic relative to the recorder’s expectations.

Permit Seeking

In order to use the land to which it has access, a firm must be able to obtain relevant permits that can be crucial to the production process. By impeding land use, construction, or business occupancy permits, government officials may limit effective access to land. The BEEPS includes questions regarding the number of permits the firm obtained during the previous two years, the number of working days the staff spent on procedures related to obtaining those permits, formal and informal payments for permits, and waiting periods from application to receipt of permits. One question asks, “How many permits did this establishment obtain in the last two years?” Another asks, “How many working days were spent by all staff members on the procedures related to obtaining the permits applied for over the last two years?”

Responses to these questions are used in modeling both the number of permit applications and the related time costs (figures 3 and 4). About 34 percent of the businesses in the survey applied for permits, with a mean number of 3.9 applications, a mean number of 38.0 working days of effort, and a mean waiting time of 45.9 days. There is a very high variance among countries in the number of permits applied for, the days of effort expended, and the waiting time for permits.

The model of the number of permit applications reflects the interaction of supply and demand factors. A firm demands permits as it plans to develop its property while the government supplies permits according to its rules. Nine country characteristics have a significant effect on the number of permit applications requested, with four factors increasing the number and five factors decreasing it (table 1, column 3).

To understand time costs involved for firms seeking permits, the modeling approach involves a first-stage model to control for the selection bias that may exist with systematic differences between firms applying for permits and those that do not apply. The second-stage model results for permit time cost show that ten country-specific variables have statistically discernable effects—four factors increase staff time expended and six factors reduce staff time (table 1, column 4). Two firm-specific factors significantly increase days of effort, while six reduce the number of days of effort.

Bribes to Government Officials

The BEEPS also asks a question about informal payments to government officials: “Thinking about officials, would you say the following statement is always, usually, frequently, sometimes, seldom or never true?… It is common for firms in my line of business to have to pay some irregular ‘additional payments or gifts’ to get things done…” Responses are coded on a scale of 1 to 6, with 1 being never and 6 being always (figure 5). In a simple regression model of the frequency of bribes, ten country-specific explanatory variables and five firm-specific variables have statistically discernable effects (table 1, column 5).

Summary and Conclusions

Limited access to land and permits to use that land can contributes to economic inefficiency and corruption in transition countries. In this research I have estimated empirical models of firms reporting limited access to land and permits and instances of bribery as obstacles to economic development. Those models indicate that both country and firm characteristics affect land access, permit access and effort, and bribery.

At the country level, higher per capita GDP systematically reduces the likelihood of firms seeking permits, the number of permits, and the time cost to obtain them. That implies that more developed economies require fewer permits and present lower permit obstacles, thereby reducing costs. Furthermore, the higher the GDP growth rate the greater the likelihood that firms experience limited access to land and the need to apply for permits, as well as the likelihood that firms are asked to pay bribes. This may indicate bottlenecks in the development process as firms in CIS countries are much more likely to report that access to land is an obstacle. They also are required to apply for more permits, and they incur much larger time costs related to permit applications.

Higher corporate tax rates do not affect access to land or permits, but do increase the likelihood of being asked to pay bribes. Firms in more highly privatized economies report fewer problems with access to land and fewer permits needed, but more problems related to bribery. Indices of privatization and reform are often significant, but have both positive and negative impacts. This may reflect uneven reform processes in which liberalization in one sector of the economy does not have full impact due to constraints in other sectors.

Firms competing against others that are unregistered or operate in the informal market are more likely to report limited access to land, more likely to seek permits and incur time costs related to permits, and more likely to be asked to pay bribes. Firms subsidized by the government or those with larger numbers of employees also are more likely to report limited access to land, seek more permits, and incur larger permit time costs.

The primary lesson to be learned from this research is that limited access to land is a serious obstacle to economic development in transition countries. Furthermore, the ability to obtain permits to effectively use that land is crucial. Limited access to land and permits not only hinders economic development, but also contributes to a culture of bribery and corruption. Countries wishing to speed their development process should therefore remove impediments to land access by fostering markets for land and land use rights, and should also remove unnecessary obstacles in the permit process. The result will be a more efficient use of land and a more dynamic economy.

About the Author

John E. Anderson is the Baird Family Professor of Economics in the College of Business Administration at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln. He has served as an advisor to public policy makers in the fields of public finance, fiscal reform, and tax policy in the United States and in transition economies.

References

Boycko, Maxim, Andrei Schleifer, and Robert Vishny. 1995. Privatizing Russia. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Business Environment and Enterprise Performance Survey. 2009. Washington, DC: World Bank. http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/BEEPS

Carlin, Wendy, Mark E. Schaffer, and Paul Seabright. 2007. Where are the real bottlenecks? Evidence from 20,000 firms in 60 countries about the shadow costs of constraints to firm performance. Discussion Paper Number 3059. Bonn, Germany: Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).

Commander, Simon, and Jan Svenjar. 2011. Business environment, exports, ownership, and firm performance. The Review of Economics and Statistics 93: 309–337.

Deininger, Klaus. 2003. Land markets in developing and transition economies: Impact of liberalization and implications for future reform. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85: 1217–1222.

Estrin, Saul, Jan Hanousek, Evzen Kocenda, and Jan Svenjar. 2009. Effects of privatization and ownership in transition economies. Journal of Economic Literature 47: 699–728.

Stanfield, J. David. 1999. Creation of land markets in transition countries: Implications for the institutions sof land administration. Working Paper Number 29. Madison: University of Wisconsin Land Tenure Center.

Alan Mallach is a nonresident senior fellow at the Metropolitan Policy Program of the Brookings Institution and a senior fellow at the Center for Community Progress, both in Washington, DC; and a visiting scholar at the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia. He has been engaged as a practitioner, advocate, and scholar in the fields of housing, planning, and community development for nearly 40 years, during which time he has made contributions in many areas including affordable and mixed-income housing development, neighborhood revitalization, and urban regeneration. In 2003 he was named a member of the College of Fellows of the American Institute of Certified Planners in recognition of his lifetime achievements as a leader in the city planning profession.

Mallach is also a visiting professor in the graduate city planning program at Pratt Institute, in New York, and has taught at Rutgers University and the New Jersey School of Architecture. He has published numerous books and articles on housing, community development, and land use; his book Bringing Buildings Back: From Abandoned Properties to Community Assets is recognized as the standard work on the subject. His most recent book, Rebuilding America’s Legacy Cities: New Directions for the Industrial Heartland, was published in 2012 by the American Assembly at Columbia University. He is a resident of Roosevelt, New Jersey, and holds a B.A. degree from Yale College.

Land Lines: How did you become involved with the Lincoln Institute?

Alan Mallach: I have known about the Lincoln Institute for many years, and initially became involved in the 1990s through my work on brownfields redevelopment. Since then, I have served as faculty in a number of training sessions sponsored by the Institute and participated in meetings and conferences at Lincoln House. About seven years ago, Nico Calavita, professor emeritus in the Graduate Program in City Planning at San Diego State University, and I undertook research on inclusionary housing. This project led to the Institute’s 2010 publication of our co-edited book, Inclusionary Housing in International Perspective: Affordable Housing, Social Inclusion, and Land Value Recapture. Most recently, I have been working with Lavea Brachman, executive director of the Greater Ohio Policy Center, on a policy focus report that looks at the issues associated with regenerating America’s legacy cities.

Land Lines: What do you mean by legacy cities?

Alan Mallach: “Legacy cities” is a term that has come into use increasingly to replace “shrinking cities” as a way to describe the nation’s older industrial cities that have lost a significant share of their population and jobs over the past 50 or more years. Iconic American cities such as Pittsburgh, Detroit, and Cleveland are typically mentioned in this context, but the category also includes many smaller cities like Flint, Michigan; Utica, New York; and Scranton, Pennsylvania.

Land Lines: How do the issues of legacy cities engage the Lincoln Institute’s central policy concerns?

Alan Mallach: They do so in many different respects, but I think the strongest connection is around the question of how land is to be used in these cities. All of these cities have had a significant oversupply of both residential and nonresidential buildings relative to demand, at least since the 1960s. As a result of extensive demolition over decades, they have accumulated large inventories of vacant or underutilized land. Detroit alone contains over 100,000 separate vacant land parcels and another 40,000 to 50,000 vacant buildings. While this inventory is a burden, it could also become an enormous asset for the city’s future. How to develop effective strategies to use this land in ways that both benefit the public and stimulate economic growth and market demand is one of the central issues facing these legacy cities.

Land Lines: How would you compare this challenge to your work on inclusionary housing?

Alan Mallach: From an economic standpoint, it’s the other side of the coin. Inclusionary housing is a way of using the planning approval process to channel strong market demand in ways that create public benefit in the form of affordable housing—either directly, by incorporating some number of affordable housing units into the development gaining the approval, or indirectly, through off-site development or cash contributions by the developer. As such, it involves explicitly or implicitly recapturing the incremental land value being created by the planning approval process. Inclusionary housing presupposes the presence of strong market demand and cannot happen without it.

Land reuse strategies in legacy cities seek to create demand where it doesn’t currently exist or alternatively find ways to use the land that benefit the public and can be implemented even under conditions where market demand cannot be induced, at least for the foreseeable future. These approaches are often called “green” land uses, such as urban agriculture, open space, wetlands restoration, or stormwater management. It can be difficult to get local officials and citizens to recognize that the traditional forms of redevelopment, including building new houses, shopping centers, and so forth, require the existence of a market for those products. However, the demand simply does not exist in many of these devastated areas. Moreover, the demand cannot be induced artificially by massive public subsidies, even though public funds can, under certain conditions, act as a stimulus to build demand.

Land Lines: Is lack of demand evident everywhere in legacy cities?

Alan Mallach: No, and that’s one of the most interesting things about these cities. Some cities are seeing demand grow far more than others, but in most cases the revitalization is limited to certain parts of the city. One noticeable trend is that downtown and near-downtown areas, particularly those with strong walkable urban character, such as the Washington Avenue corridor in St. Louis or Cleveland’s Warehouse District, are showing great dynamism, even while many other parts of those two cities are continuing to see population loss and housing abandonment.

Part of this dynamism is driven by walkability and strong urban form (see the new Lincoln Institute book by Julie Campoli, Made for Walking: Density and Neighborhood Form (2012), which examines 12 such walkable neighborhoods and the forces behind their recent popularity). A second important factor is that these areas appeal to a particular demographic—young single individuals and couples. This group is not only increasingly urbanoriented, but is growing in terms of its share of the overall American population.

Land Lines: What other issues are you exploring in your work on legacy cities?

Alan Mallach:I am focusing on two research areas, one more quantitative and one more qualitative. In the first area, I am looking at how many of these cities are going through a pronounced spatial and demographic reconfiguration—a process that is exacerbating the economic disparities between different geographic areas and populations within these cities. While many older city downtowns, such as those of St. Louis, Cleveland, Baltimore, and even Detroit, are becoming increasingly attractive, particularly to young adults, and are gaining population and economic activity, many other neighborhoods in these cities are losing ground at an increasing rate. In many places these trends are accentuating already problematic racial divides.

My second area of research revolves around the question of what it takes to foster successful, sustained regeneration. Lavea Brachman and I touch on this challenge in our policy focus report, but I am hoping to delve into it much more deeply, including looking at some European cities that have found themselves in situations similar to those of American legacy cities. I think the experiences of cities in northern England, for example, or Germany’s Ruhr Valley, parallel changes in our own former industrial cities quite closely.

Land Lines: What do you mean by successful regeneration?

Alan Mallach: That’s a very important question. I think there’s often a tendency to see a particular event—the Olympics in Barcelona or a major building like the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, Spain, for example—as evidence of regeneration, rather than, at best, a discrete spur to more substantial change. I believe that regeneration has to be a function of change in three fundamental areas: first, the well-being of the population, reflected in such measures as higher educational attainment and income or lower unemployment; second, a stronger housing market and greater neighborhood strength; and third, the creation of new export-oriented economic sectors to replace the lost industrial sector. Population growth alone (that is, reversal of historic population decline) may or may not be evidence of regeneration. It is more likely to follow these three changes rather than lead them.

Land Lines: What do you see as the future of America’s legacy cities?

Alan Mallach: I see a very mixed picture. As shown in the policy focus report, certain cities are doing far better than others. Pittsburgh and Philadelphia are showing strong signs of revival, while Cleveland, Detroit, and Buffalo are still losing ground. I think legacy cities are facing two daunting challenges as they look to the future.

The first issue is what the new economic engines of these cities will be. The cities that have been more successful up to now tend to have the most significant clusters of major national research universities and medical centers. These institutions tend to dominate their cities’ economies. While they have helped cities like Pittsburgh and Baltimore rebuild in the post-industrial era, I think a lot of questions remain about their sustainability as long-term economic engines.

The second question is demographic. Downtowns may be drawing young, single people and couples, but many of these cities’ residential neighborhoods were built around 100 years ago as communities mainly for married couples to raise children. Now they are falling apart, including many neighborhoods that have remained stable until relatively recently. This demographic of married couples with children is shrinking across the country and even more so in our older cities. Today, only 8 percent of the households in Baltimore, for example, fit this description. I believe that the future of these neighborhoods is very important to the future of their cities, and I am very concerned about their prospects.

Land Lines: In spite of these challenges, how do you think your work is making a difference?

Alan Mallach: The fact is, many cities are making progress. Pittsburgh has done an excellent job building on its assets to develop new economic engines, while Baltimore and Philadelphia are making impressive strides in reorganizing many of their governmental functions to better deal with their vacant and problem property challenges. Baltimore, for example, has initiated a program called Vacants to Value, which integrates code enforcement and problem property work with larger market-building strategies. I have been fortunate to be directly involved in this work in some cities, including Philadelphia and Detroit; elsewhere, I’m always gratified when local officials or community leaders tell me that they use my work, or that they have been influenced by my thinking. It makes all the effort very much worthwhile.

A pesar de la creciente popularidad de la agricultura urbana, muchas granjas urbanas siguen enfrentando el desafío de la inseguridad respecto de la posesión del suelo y de políticas públicas demasiado restrictivas. Algunos investigadores y responsables de diseñar políticas han identificado la necesidad de un marco actualizado para este movimiento que apoye a los granjeros urbanos en temas relacionados con las reglamentaciones sobre el uso del suelo, zonificación e impuestos a la propiedad. Los fideicomisos de suelo comunitarios (CLT, por sus siglas en inglés) se dedican a apoyar este tipo de estructura, ya que su abordaje del uso del suelo tiene que ver con ejercer un control a nivel local que fomente el activismo y la participación comunitaria, a la vez que responden a las condiciones del mercado y las necesidades de los barrios en constante evolución.

El estado de la agricultura urbana

El término “agricultura urbana” se refiere tanto a las actividades comerciales como no comerciales que se llevan a cabo dentro de un centro urbano o cerca del mismo con el fin de elaborar productos alimenticios o no para su utilización en un área urbana (Mougeot 2000). Aunque las granjas urbanas y las huertas comunitarias son, por lo general, la cara visible de la agricultura urbana, los espacios de cultivo a pequeña escala y los huertos que se encuentran en los jardines traseros de las casas también representan una parte significativa de la producción.

La agricultura urbana ha permitido a las comunidades obtener diferentes tipos de beneficios ambientales, económicos y sociales, tales como una mejor alimentación, una mayor seguridad en el abastecimiento de alimentos, la restauración ecológica, la creación de espacios abiertos y oportunidades de educación y capacitación en habilidades para el trabajo (Bellows, Brown y Smit 2004; Kaufman y Bailkey 2000; Smit, Ratta y Nasr 1996). Las granjas urbanas tienen además la capacidad única de unir diferentes tipos de poblaciones, generar un capital social y promover la atribución de responsabilidades mediante la construcción de la comunidad (Staeheli y otros 2002). En las ciudades tradicionales (es decir, aquellos antiguos centros industriales que han sufrido el impacto de la pérdida continua de empleo y población y los consiguientes cambios económicos, sociales y políticos), la agricultura urbana se ha utilizado en gran manera como una herramienta de desarrollo tanto provisional como permanente a fin de fortalecer la cohesión social y catalizar el progreso en barrios que carecen de inversión. El proceso de convertir lotes vacantes y abandonados en espacios para cultivo puede resultar una estrategia relativamente rápida y económica que produzca un gran impacto visible y mejore la seguridad pública.

A raíz de los mencionados beneficios en diversas áreas, la agricultura urbana ha gozado de un renacimiento como movimiento social. En los últimos años, algunas ciudades y municipios han actualizado sus políticas públicas con el fin de apoyar en mayor medida las prácticas agrícolas urbanas. No obstante, este movimiento presenta sus propios desafíos, tales como la preocupación en cuanto a la seguridad ambiental y la seguridad en la posesión del suelo (Brown y otros 2002). En particular, la inseguridad en cuanto al suelo es el motivo de preocupación más citado como el mayor obstáculo para la implementación y sustentabilidad de las granjas urbanas (Lawson 2004; Yuen 2012). Según una encuesta nacional realizada en 1998 a más de 6.000 granjas urbanas, el 99,9 por ciento de los horticultores consideraban el tema de la posesión del suelo como un desafío y, a la vez, como un elemento vital para el éxito futuro del movimiento (ACGA 1998).

En estos casos, la inseguridad en cuanto al suelo surge cuando el costo de los terrenos a precio de mercado excede los ingresos derivados de las actividades agrícolas. Básicamente, la mano escondida del mercado hace presión sobre la asignación de terrenos según el mejor y óptimo uso que se le pueda dar. Debido a dicha conceptualización dominante, los planificadores y responsables de diseñar políticas históricamente han considerado la agricultura urbana como una medida provisional para mantener un lugar en actividad hasta que se puedan desarrollar usos mejores y óptimos. Sin embargo, los académicos señalan que las granjas urbanas pueden producir muchos efectos secundarios positivos relacionados con la salud pública y el bienestar de la comunidad, y que resulta difícil monetizar dichos beneficios (Schmelzkopf 1995). Las valuaciones de cambio tradicionales relacionadas con el suelo casi nunca reflejan los aportes que realizan las huertas comunitarias a la educación sobre alimentación saludable y al bienestar físico de los residentes. Esta desconexión entre el valor social y los valores de mercado ha sido el impulso para intervenciones tanto públicas como privadas.

En general, los gobiernos municipales responden comprando parcelas de terrenos agrícolas urbanos, aislándolas así de las fuerzas especulativas del mercado y evitando su inclusión en los registros tributarios. Aunque este abordaje del sector público ha sido sumamente importante, a veces no logra otorgar una seguridad a largo plazo, especialmente cuando los cambios administrativos en los gobiernos municipales dan como resultado modificaciones en las prioridades y estrategias, tal como ocurrió en 1999 cuando el alcalde de la Ciudad de Nueva York, Rudy Giuliani, propuso subastar 850 huertas comunitarias de toda la ciudad. Por lo tanto, los investigadores se han enfocado en la necesidad de buscar estrategias alternativas que puedan complementar las medidas llevadas a cabo por el sector público a fin de apoyar la seguridad del suelo para la agricultura urbana.

————————

Recuadro 1: Encuesta 2012 de CLT en los Estados Unidos de América

En el otoño de 2012, la Red Nacional de Fideicomisos de Suelo Comunitarios (NCLTN), junto con el Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, encargó realizar un estudio de proyectos comerciales y agrícolas urbanos llevados a cabo por CLT en los EE.UU. (Rosenberg y Yuen 2012). Mediante este estudio, se analizó el papel que representan los CLT al implementar proyectos no residenciales y se evaluaron los beneficios y desafíos derivados de dichos proyectos. Los investigadores distribuyeron una encuesta por Internet a las 224 organizaciones que aparecen en la base de datos de la NCLTN: 56 CLT (25 por ciento) respondieron el cuestionario y 37 CLT informaron que se dedicaban a actividades agrícolas. Se seleccionaron 12 CLT para recopilar información más detallada, lo cual mostró una variedad de proyectos con diferentes niveles de éxito en distintos lugares. Para levantar los datos se utilizó un enfoque de estudio de casos, mediante la recopilación de documentos organizacionales y fuentes secundarias, así como también entrevistas al personal de las CLT. El documento de trabajo definitivo tiene su sustento en otro recurso conformado por un listado de proyectos que resalta los proyectos y organizaciones involucradas en el estudio (Yuen y Rosenberg 2012).

En el presente artículo tomamos en cuenta dicha investigación a fin de analizar los beneficios, desafíos y consideraciones derivadas de las actividades agrícolas urbanas llevadas a cabo por las CLT. Además, se examina de qué manera dichas intervenciones son capaces de apoyar las actividades integrales de desarrollo comunitario, particularmente en las ciudades tradicionales.

————————

Los CLT como marco para la agricultura urbana

Un CLT es una sociedad anónima comunitaria sin fines de lucro cuyos miembros provienen del mismo lugar, posee un directorio elegido democráticamente y tiene un compromiso con fines benéficos basado en el uso y la administración del suelo a favor de la población local. Los CLT, por lo general, conservan la propiedad permanente del suelo y lo arriendan a personas u organizaciones que tienen la propiedad sobre las mejoras del suelo, tales como viviendas, edificios comerciales e instalaciones agrícolas o recreativas. El modelo del CLT ofrece una forma de conservar la propiedad del suelo administrada por y para la comunidad, por lo que el mejor u óptimo uso de la propiedad puede permanecer definido y controlado por la comunidad y puede adaptarse a las condiciones cambiantes.

Aunque en las últimas décadas los CLT se han enfocado en el desarrollo y la administración de viviendas accesibles económicamente, el movimiento se originó en respuesta a ciertos problemas relacionados con los terrenos con fines agrícolas en el área rural de Georgia durante la década de 1960. Otras influencias aun anteriores son los kibutz en Israel, los barrios Gramdan en la India y las ciudades jardín de Ebenezer Howard (Davis 2010). La solidez del modelo del CLT se fundamenta en su capacidad de equilibrar el control del suelo a nivel local y el desarrollo administrado a largo plazo que trata las necesidades de la comunidad siempre cambiantes. Así, los CLT se encuentran en la mejor posición para abordar diferentes usos del suelo mediante estrategias de desarrollo integrales. Las ciudades tradicionales son, tal vez, las más aptas para la participación de un CLT, ya que la disponibilidad generalizada de suelo vacante ha dado como resultado un floreciente movimiento agrícola urbano, aunque el énfasis sea menor respecto a la seguridad del suelo a largo plazo.

Nuestra investigación encontró que los CLT había dado apoyo a los proyectos de agricultura urbana de tres formas diferentes: garantizando el acceso al suelo para fines agrícolas, proporcionando apoyo programático y participando directamente en la producción de alimentos.

Cómo garantizar el acceso al suelo para fines agrícolas

Las competencias fundamentales de los CLT se prestan mejor a la tarea de acceder a espacios con fines agrícolas. Una de las misiones centrales de los CLT es garantizar el acceso al suelo para oportunidades de desarrollo comunitario. Con el fin de llevar a cabo esta tarea, los CLT han utilizado diversos tipos de posesión del suelo, tales como la propiedad en pleno dominio, el arrendamiento de terrenos, las servidumbres y las restricciones en los títulos de propiedad (tabla 1). Estos tipos de acuerdo no se excluyen mutuamente: las organizaciones pueden emplear diferentes técnicas con el fin de garantizar el acceso al suelo tanto dentro de un mismo proyecto agrícola como para diferentes proyectos.

Propiedad en pleno dominio

La propiedad en pleno dominio permite al CLT conservar la mayor cantidad de derechos de propiedad y brinda un alto nivel de seguridad en cuanto al suelo, siempre que cumpla con todos los pagos de hipotecas y obligaciones fiscales. Por ejemplo, Dudley Neighbors Incorporated (DNI), un CLT de Roxbury, Massachusetts, llevó a cabo el redesarrollo de un sitio contaminado donde anteriormente funcionaba un taller mecánico de automóviles para transformarlo en el vivero Dudley de 930 metros cuadrados, que funciona como una granja comercial y, a la vez, como un espacio de cultivo comunitario. DNI obtuvo la seguridad del terreno mediante la propiedad en pleno dominio, y arrienda la estructura del vivero a una tasa nominal a una entidad alimentaria sin fines de lucro que administra la totalidad de la programación y el mantenimiento agrícola. Harry Smith, director de sustentabilidad y desarrollo económico de DNI, señala: “El cultivo de alimentos es algo totalmente diferente, por lo que no intentamos encargarnos de esa tarea”.

Arrendamiento del terreno

Aunque la propiedad en pleno dominio es una herramienta simple y con un nivel de seguridad alto, por lo general resulta demasiado costosa para que los CLT puedan comprar suelo urbano directamente para la producción de alimentos. En vista de este desafío, algunos CLT han utilizado el arrendamiento de terrenos para tener acceso al suelo con fines agrícolas. Por ejemplo, el CLT de Southside (SCLT) posee un contrato de alquiler por 10 años con el estado de Rhode Island sobre una granja de 8 hectáreas en Cranston. A su vez, el CLT de Southside administra la granja en calidad de arrendatario principal y subarrienda lotes a siete granjeros noveles a tasas nominales. Debido a que el arriendo del terreno es accesible y seguro, se generan oportunidades para que los jóvenes granjeros puedan comenzar sus incipientes negocios y participar en el sistema de producción de alimentos local. Un contrato de arrendamiento de terrenos sólido que presente rigurosos estándares de rendimiento y condiciones de renovación puede proporcionar una seguridad igual o mayor que una propiedad en pleno dominio. No obstante, los arrendamientos de terrenos a largo plazo pueden resultar difíciles de elaborar e implementar, especialmente cuando la entidad que posee el título de propiedad tiene la intención de establecer una flexibilidad a largo plazo.

Servidumbres de conservación

Los CLT también garantizan el acceso al suelo mediante servidumbres de conservación o restricciones voluntarias que limitan de forma permanente el uso que se puede dar al suelo. Por lo general, el CLT posee una servidumbre donada por un propietario particular. Este propietario particular conserva el título de propiedad y hasta puede vender los terrenos a un tercero sin comprometer la seguridad del suelo, ya que la servidumbre de conservación garantiza el acceso a largo plazo al espacio con fines agrícolas. Las servidumbres también pueden reducir la carga administrativa del propietario, ya que el receptor de la servidumbre por lo general brinda servicios de administración del suelo como parte del intercambio. Esta estrategia puede beneficiar económicamente a los propietarios, quienes reciben beneficios fiscales tanto a nivel federal como municipal por donar servidumbres de conservación. Aunque las servidumbres pueden efectivamente garantizar el acceso al espacio con fines agrícolas, el costo legal puede llegar a ser muy alto, especialmente en lo que respecta a las parcelas más pequeñas.

Restricciones en el tÍtulo de propiedad

Las restricciones en el título de propiedad pueden limitar efectivamente los usos del suelo y, por lo general, están relacionadas con fuentes de financiamiento específicas. Aunque una restricción en el título de propiedad puede garantizar que el suelo se reserve para un uso específico, no necesariamente ofrece al granjero o agricultor particular una posesión segura. Además, las restricciones en el título de propiedad son efectivas sólo cuando todas las partes y agentes externos deciden poner en vigencia el contrato. Cada uno de los diferentes acuerdos de posesión del suelo posee ventajas y desventajas relativas, por lo que la mejor manera de utilizarlos es en el contexto de un proyecto específico. Por ejemplo, en Wisconsin, el CLT del área de Madison tuvo que otorgar una restricción en el título de propiedad a la ciudad de Madison como condición para recibir fondos destinados al desarrollo de uso mixto Troy Gardens. La restricción en el título de propiedad se estableció sobre una parte del terreno para limitar su uso a los proyectos agrícolas y de conservación. Sin embargo, si el CLT no cumpliera con los términos de la restricción en el título de propiedad, esto desencadenaría la inmediata devolución de la totalidad del subsidio otorgado por la ciudad.

Apoyo mediante programas

Debido a que la tarea de garantizar el acceso al suelo con fines agrícolas puede presentar muchos desafíos, tal vez no sea el emprendimiento adecuado para cualquier organización o comunidad. Algunos CLT han apoyado las tareas agrícolas urbanas de otras maneras, tales como la gestión de programas, la asistencia técnica y otros servicios de índole agrícola. Por ejemplo, en Georgia, el Athens Land Trust es un fideicomiso de suelo con una doble misión —viviendas y espacio abierto— que se ha involucrado en la agricultura urbana exclusivamente a través de un programa de apoyo. El Athens Land Trust decidió aceptar este rol debido a los altos costos de propiedad asociados a las políticas sobre el impuesto a la propiedad vigentes en Georgia, según las cuales el suelo de un CLT se valúa al valor de mercado sin restricciones. El Athens Land Trust se asocia con propietarios del sector público y privado a fin de proporcionar apoyo para proyectos agrícolas a nivel local. Por ejemplo, el personal del Athens Land Trust trabajó junto con la congregación de la iglesia bautista Hill Chapel a fin de diseñar una huerta comunitaria en terrenos de propiedad de la iglesia, y brindó servicios de apoyo tales como prueba y cultivo del suelo, organización del cronograma de trabajo y entrega de materiales sobre plantas y realización de talleres educativos sobre horticultura.

Producción agrícola

Finalmente, algunos CLT han participado en la producción agrícola mediante el cultivo directo y activo del suelo. Por ejemplo, el CLT de Southside administra una granja comercial de 3 kilómetros cuadrados en Providence, Rhode Island, donde se cultivan y venden verduras directamente a los restaurantes de la zona. Muchos CLT también apoyan la producción agrícola de forma indirecta, entregando propiedades residenciales a personas que cultivan productos alimenticios en las huertas de sus patios traseros. De esta manera, sin saberlo, muchos CLT han apoyado la agricultura urbana durante años, simplemente por haber proporcionado un acceso económico y seguro a terrenos cultivables en las ciudades. Algunos grupos, como DNI, diseñan específicamente lotes de propiedad residencial de mayores dimensiones a fin de ofrecer la oportunidad de plantar huertas urbanas en los patios traseros. Harry Smith, de DNI, explica: “A medida que realizábamos nuestra planificación comunitaria, la gente dejó muy claro que quería ver espacios abiertos y que se tuviera en cuenta la calidad de vida de los residentes. Estamos tratando de incorporar [la agricultura] a las propias viviendas”. De esta manera, la producción agrícola del CLT también puede abarcar características innovadoras de diseño, tales como huertas, agroforestería y otros conceptos derivados de la permacultura que se incorporan de manera intencional y sistemática en el plan de desarrollo.

Beneficios de la agricultura urbana sustentada por los CLT

En última instancia, según nuestro estudio, se han observado beneficios mutuos entre la agricultura urbana y los CLT. Las granjas urbanas aumentan el valor de los CLT, ya que ayudan a las organizaciones a expandir su visión de desarrollo hacia necesidades y prioridades más integrales de los barrios. Todas las comunidades tienen diferentes necesidades además de la necesidad de viviendas accesibles, por lo que los proyectos agrícolas pueden generar conexiones a otros problemas clave, como la seguridad en el abastecimiento de alimentos, la educación en temas de salud, la recuperación de terrenos vacantes y la seguridad de los barrios. Los proyectos agrícolas, además, pueden considerarse atracciones del barrio, lo que puede aumentar la demanda de propiedades o viviendas de CLT de los alrededores en el mercado convencional. Por ejemplo, Church Community Housing Corporation (CCHC) desarrolló el proyecto de granjas de Sandywoods en Tiverton, Rhode Island, que incluye diferentes tipos de programas de viviendas, agricultura y artísticos. Al principio, CCHC comercializó el desarrollo solamente como una comunidad artística, pero los posibles residentes expresaron un fuerte interés en las huertas comunitarias y en la preservación de terrenos agrícolas. En consecuencia, CCHC renombró el proyecto como un desarrollo “artístico y agrícola”. Brigid Ryan, gerente principal de proyectos de CCHC, explica: “La agricultura ha despegado mucho más de lo que hubiéramos pensado. La huerta realmente atrae a algunas personas [a las unidades de vivienda para arrendar]. Nunca pensaron que sus hijos serían capaces de cultivar sus propios alimentos”.

En el vivero Dudley de DNI también se observaron conexiones beneficiosas entre la agricultura y la vivienda. Harry Smith, de DNI, señala: “El proyecto realmente ayuda a la comercialización de nuestras viviendas. Las personas no sólo obtienen una vivienda sino también una comunidad que está basada en alimentos frescos cultivados en el lugar”.

Desafíos de la agricultura urbana sustentada por los CLT

A pesar de los beneficios, los CLT que implementan proyectos agrícolas todavía enfrentan muchos desafíos. En particular, la rentabilidad económica continúa siendo una de las principales luchas en todo el sector de la agricultura urbana, ya que los ingresos generados por las ventas de productos son relativamente modestos, aun en los establecimientos comerciales. El CLT de Southside cubre solamente el 8 por ciento de sus gastos operativos a través de la venta comercial de sus productos a restaurantes locales. Gracias a otras fuentes de ingresos, tales como las cuotas de membresía y las ventas de plantines, los ingresos del CLT sólo llegan a cubrir el 20 por ciento de sus gastos. Los CLT siguen dependiendo en gran manera de los subsidios para poder compensar la diferencia entre costos y beneficios.

Un segundo posible desafío tiene que ver con que algunos proyectos requieren un alto nivel de conocimientos agrícolas, por lo que pueden poner a prueba la capacidad y la experiencia del personal del CLT. Incluso Athens Land Trust, que posee un personal con experiencia en la preservación de suelos agrícolas y técnicas de cultivo, reconoció las dificultades que tuvo al principio para aprender los detalles específicos derivados de los códigos de zonificación municipal relacionados con la agricultura comercial. Como resultado, algunos proyectos principales del CLT tuvieron que demorarse hasta que se encontraran soluciones de zonificación que funcionaran. El riesgo es aun mayor para aquellos proyectos agrícolas comerciales que requieren un gran nivel de comprensión de los sistemas de procesamiento y distribución y de las condiciones del mercado local. Por ejemplo, en la granja Sandywoods, CCHC había planificado inicialmente utilizar el suelo de cultivo preservado para la alimentación del ganado. Sin embargo, finalmente se enteraron de que el único matadero de ganado de Rhode Island había cerrado. El matadero más cercano se encontraba cruzando la frontera, en Massachusetts, por lo que el procesamiento de carne resultaba demasiado costoso. Brigid Ryan, gerente principal de proyectos de CCHC, señala: “Cuando uno debe aprender acerca de estos sectores especializados, resulta muy importante conseguir socios que sepan de lo que están hablando”. Debido a los desafíos y posibles inconvenientes, los CLT deben considerar las siguientes cuestiones a fin de mejorar la factibilidad y sustentabilidad de los proyectos agrícolas.

Participación de la comunidad

En su calidad de organización basada en la comunidad, el impulso de un CLT debería estar determinado siempre por las necesidades y preocupaciones del barrio. No obstante, resulta particularmente vital que existan sólidos procesos de planificación comunitaria para que la agricultura urbana sea exitosa, y en estas planificaciones los CLT por lo general dependen de los residentes y socios locales para llevar a cabo la producción agrícola. Harry Smith, de DNI, hace hincapié en este punto: “Diría que el trabajo de un CLT no consiste sólo en administrar las propiedades y obtener más terrenos para el fideicomiso, sino también en involucrar realmente a la comunidad en lo que esta desea además de la vivienda, ya sean emprendimientos comerciales, un vivero o terrenos de cultivo”. Además, la participación de un CLT en proyectos agrícolas puede catalizar mayores medidas de organización de la comunidad y ayudar a los residentes a hacer presión para exigir más políticas públicas de apoyo.

Evaluación de la organización

Los CLT pueden apoyar los proyectos no residenciales de diferentes maneras, y las organizaciones deberían evaluar sistemáticamente sus capacidades internas, así como también a las partes interesadas que podrían llegar a ser posibles socios en los proyectos. De esta manera, los CLT pueden generar colaboraciones complementarias y desarrollar aún más los activos y capacidades existentes en la comunidad. Si el CLT carece de experiencia en temas de cultivo, bien puede apoyar la agricultura urbana en otras formas a fin de alinearse en mayor medida con los socios locales, por ejemplo, garantizando el acceso al suelo, ayudando a desarrollar los códigos de zonificación agrícola urbana o actuando en calidad de agente fiscal en lo relacionado con los subsidios.

Gestión de riesgos

Los CLT deberían minimizar su riesgo económico en los proyectos agrícolas, especialmente en vista de los modestos ingresos y la futura incertidumbre en cuanto a la obtención de subsidios para la producción de alimentos. En respuesta a esto, algunos CLT concentran desde un inicio los gastos previstos de capital relacionados con los proyectos agrícolas. De manera similar, los CLT pueden gestionar la exposición al riesgo evitando el financiamiento de la deuda de los proyectos agrícolas. Varios CLT consideran que cubrir el servicio de deuda representa un desafío demasiado grande debido a los modestos ingresos derivados de la venta de productos y a las tasas de arrendamiento nominales que los CLT en general cobran por los terrenos agrícolas. Por ejemplo, DNI logró adquirir terrenos y construir el vivero Dudley sin incurrir en una deuda a largo plazo, a la vez que su condición de entidad exenta del impuesto municipal a la propiedad le permitió tener costos de posesión mínimos. La estructura financiera de bajo riesgo que se generó a raíz de esto resultó muy importante cuando DNI no pudo conseguir a su primer arrendatario del vivero. Aunque con posterioridad el vivero estuvo vacante durante aproximadamente cinco años, DNI fue capaz de absorber la pérdida derivada de este inesperado período en que la propiedad estuvo vacante.

Conclusión

Aunque el movimiento de agricultura urbana ha experimentado un gran impulso en los últimos años, aún necesita estrategias coherentes a largo plazo para proteger los espacios de cultivo de las fuerzas especulativas del mercado. La relación fundamental entre el suelo y la comunidad está en juego. Dentro del movimiento de agricultura urbana, la inseguridad en cuanto al suelo resalta la urgente necesidad de reconceptualizar requerimientos de las comunidades tanto presentes como futuras. Además, la noción del “mayor y mejor uso” debe ampliarse con objeto de incluir los resultados no económicos y las diferentes formas de participación comunitaria efectiva. Los CLT son entidades ideales para tratar estos problemas críticos y, al hacerlo, pueden lograr que los procesos de desarrollo económico sean más inclusivos, justos y capaces de responder a las condiciones locales siempre cambiantes.

Sobre el autor

Jeffrey Yuen, M.S., es un investigador, profesional y entusiasta en temas relacionados con los CLT y es miembro del directorio del Fideicomiso de Suelo Comunitario de Essex. Se desempeña como gerente de evaluación de impactos en New Jersey Community Capital, en New Brunswick, Nueva Jersey.

Recursos

ACGA (American Community Gardening Association). 1998. National Community Gardening Survey: 1996. http://www.communitygarden.org/docs/learn/cgsurvey96part1.pdf

Bellows, A., K. Brown y J. Smit. 2004. “Health Benefits of Urban Agriculture.” Community Food Security Coalition’s North American Initiative on Urban Agriculture. http://community-wealth.org/content/health-benefits-urban-agriculture

Brown, K., M. Bailkey, A. Meares-Cohen, J. Nasr y P. Mann (editores). 2002. “Urban Agriculture and Community Food Security in the United States: Farming from the City Center to the Urban Fringe.” Urban Agriculture Committee of the Community Food Security Coalition.

Davis, J. E. 2010. “Origins and Evolution of the Community Land Trust in the United States.” En The Community Land Trust Reader, editado por J. E. Davis, 3–47. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Kaufman, J. y M. Bailkey. 2000. “Farming Inside Cities: Entrepreneurial Urban Agriculture in the United States.” Documento de trabajo. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Lawson, L. 2004. “The Planner in the Garden: A Historical View of the Relationship of Planning to Community Garden Programs.” Journal of Planning History 3(2): 151–176.

Mougeot, L. 2000. “Urban Agriculture: Definition, Presence, Potentials and Risks.” En Growing Cities, Growing Food, Urban Agriculture on the Policy Agenda, editado por N. Bakker, M. Dubbeling, S. Guendel, U. Sabel Koschella y H. de Zeeuw. DSE, Feldafing.

Rosenberg, G. y J. Yuen. 2012. “Beyond Housing: Urban Agriculture and Commercial Development by Community Land Trusts.” Documento de trabajo. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Schmelzkopf, K. 1995. “Urban Community Gardens as Contested Space.” Geographical Review 85(3): 364–381.

Smit, J., A. Ratta y J. Nasr. 1996. Urban Agriculture: Food, Jobs and Sustainable Cities. Nueva York: United Nations Development Programme. http://jacsmit.com/book.html

Staeheli, L., D. Mitchell y K. Gibson. 2002. “Conflicting Rights to the City in New York’s Community Gardens.” Geojournal 58(2–3): 197–205.

Yuen, J. 2012. “Hybrid Vigor: An Analysis of Land Tenure Arrangements in Addressing Land Security for Urban Community Gardens.” Masters’ Thesis, Columbia University. http://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac:147036

Yuen, J. y G. Rosenberg. 2012. National Community Land Trust Network. Non-Residential Project Directory. National Community Land Trust Network. http://www.cltnetwork.org/doc_library/FINAL%20Non-residential%20project%20directory%204-26-13.pdf

Allá por la edad de bronce, cuando yo era un estudiante de posgrado, la Asociación de Economía de los Estados Unidos me invitó a presentar un trabajo en su reunión anual. En ese momento, como era un inconformista, me debatía entre asistir o no a la reunión de saco y corbata. Mi tutor del doctorado me dio un excelente consejo: “No te voy a decir si tienes que usar saco o no, pero ten en consideración si deseas que la audiencia te recuerde por lo que dijiste o por lo que vestiste”. Fue un recordatorio muy útil de que, si tenemos un mensaje que dar, lo mejor es envolverlo de tal manera que aumente las probabilidades de que se reciba y se comprenda. Al final fui de saco y corbata, y aprendí una lección útil acerca de la interacción entre forma y contenido que, a veces, es sutil y, otras, no tanto.

De vez en cuando, los centros de estudio e investigación como el Instituto Lincoln deben considerar si están envolviendo su contenido de manera que atraiga al público para leerlo y utilizarlo. Durante el año pasado, hemos analizado detenidamente de qué manera presentamos y difundimos nuestras investigaciones y análisis de políticas. Comenzamos en enero de 2015 con una nueva imagen de Land Lines, diseñada con el fin de que la revista fuera más atractiva para una audiencia más amplia. Nuestro primer número con el nuevo diseño tuvo como portada una impresionante fotografía aérea del delta del río Colorado, donde, en 2014, un “flujo de impulsos” liberados de diques ubicados río arriba permitió que el agua circulara a lo largo del lecho seco del río hacia el mar de Cortés por primera vez en varias décadas, lo que estimuló un renovado esfuerzo por restaurar el ecosistema nativo que había existido bajo diferentes patrones de uso del suelo en la cuenca del río. Además, comenzamos a contratar los servicios de periodistas para redactar artículos atractivos que conectaran nuestras investigaciones y análisis de políticas con las personas cuyas vidas mejorarían por la utilización de mejores prácticas en el uso del suelo.

El nuevo diseño de Land Lines y nuestros informes sobre enfoques en políticas de suelo son sólo una pequeña parte del gran esfuerzo que el Instituto Lincoln está realizando para difundir más ampliamente nuestro formidable arsenal de investigaciones e ideas. Una acción continua, clara e incisiva para alcanzar al público facilitará el impacto que deseamos que tenga nuestro trabajo en las políticas y en las personas. En agosto de 2015, lanzamos una campaña de varios años para promover la salud fiscal municipal como base sobre la cual los municipios pueden proporcionar bienes y servicios que definan una alta calidad de vida para sus residentes. Nuestros investigadores, personal y contrpartes trabajan en forma interdisciplinaria a fin de otorgarle mayor importancia a este tema, a la vez que generan nuevas acciones de carácter transversal para tratar las cuestiones de cambio climático y resiliencia, desarrollan herramientas de última generación para la planificación de casos posibles, e investigan la relación existente entre las políticas de suelo y el agua o entre el uso del suelo y el transporte.

Este mes damos un paso más para la difusión de nuestras ideas de manera más efectiva mediante la presentación de un nuevo logo, un nuevo eslogan y una nueva declaración de misión del Instituto Lincoln:

Descubriendo respuestas en el suelo: Colaborar en la solución de los desafíos económicos, sociales y medioambientales en todo el mundo, con el fin de mejorar la calidad de vida mediante enfoques creativos en cuanto al uso, la tributación y la administración del suelo.

El logo conserva la “L” de Lincoln dentro del delineado simbólico de una parcela de suelo, con un diseño más moderno y abierto que invita a las nuevas audiencias a descubrir nuestro trabajo. El eslogan y la declaración de misión explicitan lo que siempre ha sido verdad: que una buena política de suelo puede ayudar a solucionar algunos de los desafíos mundiales más acuciantes, como el cambio climático o la pobreza y las tensiones financieras en las ciudades de todo el mundo.

No estamos reinventando al Instituto Lincoln, sino que apuntamos a difundir nuestro trabajo entre una audiencia más amplia y descubrir las líneas que conectan temas aparentemente disímiles, como la relación entre la conservación del suelo y la mitigación del cambio climático. Esta “renovación” culminará este año, cuando presentemos el nuevo diseño de nuestro sitio web con un formato que nos permitirá transmitir nuevos mensajes sobre la manera en que las políticas de suelo pueden dar forma a un mejor futuro para miles de millones de personas.

En este número de Land Lines se anticipan dos nuevos e importantes libros que actualizan nuestra presentación de los temas que hemos estado investigando durante varias décadas. En A Good Tax (Un buen impuesto), Joan Youngman presenta claros y sólidos argumentos a favor del impuesto a la propiedad, la fuente de ingresos municipales más importante e incomprendida. Este magistral análisis de un tema tan difícil es presentado en una lúcida prosa por la directora de Valuación y Tributación del Instituto Lincoln. En el capítulo sobre financiamiento escolar, que presentamos en este número de la revista, se hace una defensa del impuesto —que a la gente le encanta odiar— al servicio de un bien público que define la suerte de las futuras generaciones.

En el libro Nature and Cities (La naturaleza y las ciudades), editado por George F. Thompson, Frederick R. Steiner y Armando Carbonell (este último, director del Departamento de Planificación y Forma Urbana del Instituto Lincoln), se analizan los beneficios económicos, medioambientales y de salud pública derivados del diseño y la planificación urbana ecológica. Nature and Cities contiene ensayos de James Corner, diseñador del espacio verde denominado High Line, en la ciudad de Nueva York, y de otros referentes en el ámbito del paisajismo, la planificación y la arquitectura en todo el mundo, por lo que ofrece un tratamiento erudito y visualmente cautivador de un tema que se presenta como urgente en vista del cambio climático y el crecimiento de la población urbana.

Como verán, continuaremos ofreciendo a nuestros colegas y amigos artículos rigurosamente documentados y óptimamente redactados. También expandiremos nuestra red de investigadores, gestores de políticas y profesionales quienes aplicarán las conclusiones de nuestras investigaciones de un modo que sólo podemos imaginar. Al fin y al cabo, nuestro esfuerzo colectivo tiene como fin mejorar las vidas de todos aquellos que consideran a este planeta como su hogar. Y sabemos que todo comienza con el suelo.

Harvey M. Jacobs is on the faculty of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, where he holds a joint appointment as professor in the Department of Urban and Regional Planning and the Institute for Environmental Studies and serves as director of the Land Tenure Center. His research and teaching investigate public policy, theory and philosophy for land use and environmental management. During the last decade he has focused his domestic work on the impact of the private property rights movement. He wrote the book Who Owns America? Social Conflict over Property Rights and the Lincoln Institute policy focus report State Property Rights Laws: The Impacts of Those Laws on My Land, and his work has been published in academic and professional journals in the U.S. and Western Europe. Jacobs also has investigated international issues of land use policy formation by national ministries and new local governments in Eastern Europe and southern Africa, with a specific focus on peri-urban (urban fringe) land management and the definition of private property rights. He is particularly interested in how societies define property and the policy structures they develop to manage the public-private property relationship.

Jacobs is a faculty associate of the Lincoln Institute, where he teaches courses for policy makers and practitioners in land use planning and management. He developed a Lincoln course titled “Land Use in America,” originally designed for staff of the Environmental Protection Agency and now available through open enrollment, which he has taught several times in Cambridge. As part of his current education and research project with the Institute, he will lead a seminar in Cambridge in May on the future of private property rights in America, and he is working on another book to be titled Private Property in the 21st Century. This essay outlines his views on the uncertain future of the American ideal of private property rights.

Property Rights and Environmental Planning

Social conflict over property rights is at the center of all U.S. land and environmental planning and policy. One key source of this conflict is the differing interpretations of the so-called Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment in the Constitution’s Bill of Rights: “. . . nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

Those who support the integrity of private property rights and stand against land use and environmental regulation by state and local governments can be understood as participants in one of the most significant U.S. land use and environmental movements of recent times. This movement is referred to by a variety of labels, including the private property rights movement, the land rights movement, the wise use movement and, by the environmental community, the anti-environmental movement. This movement’s leaders have succeeded in keeping their agenda before the U.S. Congress since the early 1990s, though as yet no action has resulted from their efforts. More significantly, they have succeeded in having bills reflecting their agenda introduced in all 50 states, and they have secured the passage of significant legislation in over half of the states. In addition, they have promoted significant parallel activity in over 300 counties. Perhaps most important, they have reshaped public debate on how the media communicates to the American public about issues of land and environmental management, and the balancing of the public good with individual property rights.

The potential power of the property rights movement became even more important after the 2000 elections. While governor of Texas, George W. Bush exhibited strong sympathies to the arguments of the property rights movement and supported state-based legislation in accordance with the movement’s goals. Among his most prominent initial appointments as president were the selection of a secretary of the interior and a solicitor general with explicit ties to the property rights movement and commitments to the property rights issue. These developments, together with renewed activity at the state level, indicate that the property rights movement seems to be alive and well in America. The passage of Measure 7 in the state of Oregon in the fall of 2000 is of particular interest, since this measure is one of the most stringent state property rights laws in what is considered one of the most progressive states in its land use and environmental management policies. The measure, passed by initiative, requires landowners to be compensated if the value of their property is reduced by a state or local law or regulation. It is under state constitutional challenge by land use and environmental groups, and its implementation is being held back until this challenge is settled by the Oregon courts.

Historical Context

Underlying the policy agenda of the property rights movement and the conflict with the land use and environmental movements is a fundamental debate about U.S. history, the cultural myths that inform our understanding of ourselves as a nation, and the intended meanings of selected provisions of the Bill of Rights. From the perspective of the property rights movement, strong individual private property rights are an integral component of our democratic society. Drawing from the writings of the nation’s founders such as John Adams, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, these proponents argue that liberty, equality and citizenship in a democracy, in fact democracy itself, can not be secured and sustained without a robust set of property rights essentially unassailable by the power of the state. From this perspective, land use and environmental laws become a threat to the very nature of democratic way of life. Richard Epstein, one of the leading legal scholars articulating this view, has suggested that “the [entire] system of land use planning is a form of socialism in microcosm” (Epstein 1992, 202).

In opposition, the land use and environmental movements also draw from the writings of the founders, including Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, to argue that property rights are created by the public sector to serve social ends, and that citizens’ rights in property have to bend and flex with society’s changing needs over time. Land use and environmental proponents tend to make arguments about rights and responsibilities in property, rather than to see individual rights as preexisting or standing before the rights of society, as expressed through the actions of government.

The historical challenge for this debate is the that private property has been subject to substantial local regulation even since colonial times, and it has been fundamentally reshaped at several times in American history, to reflect changing social values and changing technology. For example, in the 1860s the property ownership rights of slave-owning plantation farmers in the South and in the 1960s the commercial trespass rights of lunch-counter owners were significantly reshuffled to reflect changing social values about race relations. In the early part of the twentieth century it was necessary to reconceptualize the property rights bundle as a function of the invention of the airplane and the seeming nonsense of allowing individual owners to claim trespass for air travel above their property.

Changing Conditions

Social reformulation of private property to reflect changing conditions continues. During the 1990s resistance by male-only membership clubs and male-only colleges to the admission of women was prominent in the media and the courts. Like the prior slavery and civil rights situations, here, too, individuals lost their rights in property, absent compensation, to reflect changing social values.

Thus, we know that private property is not a static concept or entity. In America it has changed since its creation during colonial times, and there is every reason to believe it will continue changing in the future. In fact, for over fifty years some ecologists and land ethicists—most prominently and enduringly Aldo Leopold (1949)—have called for a fundamental reinvention of property, based on new scientific knowledge that is less individual-rights oriented and more oriented toward social and ecological responsibilities.

It is reasonable to say that both sides to this debate have legitimate concerns and perspectives on the issue. Some property rights reforms through land use and environmental planning and policy, when taken too far, do seem to violate fundamental American understandings about the social contract that underlies national life. On the other hand, unassailable bundles of private property rights seem to leave society in a place that does not allow for change through the integration of new technologies, new social values, or new concepts of ourselves and the land on which we live.

Social conflict over property rights is at the center of all U.S. land and environmental planning and policy. However, much of the current scholarly inquiry and legislative and judicial debate that occurs now is formalized posturing, with little real communication around an issue that is one of the most central to our democratic society. Too often, the well-known players trot out their already settled analyses and opinions and wave them at one another. Little real progress occurs, either in intellectual understanding of these matters or in policy innovation.

The goal of my current work is to get key actors to put aside their rancor and agree to talk with one another instead of at one another. Is it possible to move beyond the broad rhetoric in this debate to a determination of clear, specific areas of agreement and disagreement about the place and role of the property rights bundle and the concept of property rights in our American democratic-legal schema? The challenge is twofold: accepting that private property is fundamental to the American character and the design of American democracy, and acknowledging that private property has changed significantly through the centuries and thus will continue to change. The issue is not if private property will evolve, but how it will evolve.

As we seek to address this issue, many questions present themselves. How much will new ecological knowledge and social values transform our sense of what is mine to use (and misuse and abuse) as I please? Is the evolutionary transformation of private property a slippery slope that eventually undermines the viability of contemporary democratic forms of governance? Are the ideals and principles of the founding fathers about the relationship of land ownership to liberty and democracy irrelevant in a world of urban wage earners, in contrast to the world of farmers, foresters and ranchers for which they were formulated? These are among the challenges we face in trying to untangle a puzzle that is the key to the future of American (and increasingly global) land use and environmental planning.

References

Epstein, Richard. 1992. Property as a Fundamental Civil Right, California Western Law Review 29(1):187-207.

Jacobs, Harvey M. 1998. Who Owns America? Social Conflict over Property Rights. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

——. 1999. Fighting Over Land: America’s Legacy . . . America’s Future? Journal of the American Planning Association 65(2):141-149.

——. 1999. State Property Rights Laws: The Impacts of Those Laws on My Land. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Leopold, Aldo. 1968 [1949]. A Sand County Almanac. London and New York: Oxford University Press.

An apparent paradox exists in developing countries between a more progressive definition of property rights and current trends toward privatization. On one hand, most proposals and programs of urban management have required the adoption of a socially oriented approach to property rights, which guarantees broader scope for state intervention in controlling the process of land use and development. This is particularly the case with land regularization programs. On the other hand, the widespread adoption of liberalization policies and privatization schemes has reinforced a traditional, individualistic approach to property rights, thus undermining progressive attempts to discipline the use and development of urban property. Are these trends mutually exclusive or can they be reconciled to some extent?

Two related workshops for policymakers, urban managers and academics were held in Johannesburg, South Africa, in late July to address this paradox. The Sixth “Law and Urban Space” Workshop was cosponsored by the International Research Group on Law and Urban Space (IRGLUS) and the University of the Witwatersrand’s Centre for Applied Legal Studies (CALS). The Lincoln Institute supported that workshop and also sponsored a seminar on “Security of Land Tenure in South Africa, Sub-Saharan Countries, Brazil and India.”

The Conceptual Framework for Law and Urban Space

IRGLUS, a Working Group of the Research Committee on Sociology of Law of the International Sociological Association (ISA), seeks to discuss critically the legal dimension of the urbanization process, thus promoting a long-needed dialogue between legal studies and urban environmental studies. Most urban studies have reduced law-including legal provisions, judicial decisions and the overall legal culture-to its instrumental dimension. Law is dismissed by some as if it were just a political instrument of social discrimination and political exclusion. It is taken for granted by others as if it were merely a technical, unproblematic instrument that can provide immediate solutions to escalating urban and environmental problems.

Among urban scholars and professionals alike, there is little understanding of the reasons for the growing illegal practices identified in urban areas, particularly those concerning the use and development of land. Existing data suggests that if both access to land and construction patterns are taken into account between 40 and 70 percent of the population in the major cities in developing countries are somehow disobeying the prevailing legal provisions. And this figure is not confined to low-income land users.

Few studies have asked why this phenomenon of urban illegality has happened, why it matters and what can be done about it. Most observers fail to see the apparent divide between the so-called legal and illegal cities as an intricate web in which there are intimate though contradictory relationships between the official and the unofficial rules, and between the formal and the informal urban land markets.

The combination of the lack of an efficient official housing policy in most developing countries and the actions of largely uncontrolled market forces does not provide adequate housing solutions for the vast majority of the urban population. Far from being restricted to the urban poor, urban illegality needs to be addressed with urgency, given its grave social, political, economic and environmental consequences to the overall urban structure and society.

However, if urban illegality is but a reflection of the powerful combination of land markets and political systems, it is also the result of the often elitist and exclusionary nature of the legal system prevailing in many developing countries. Both the adoption of legal instruments, which do not reflect the existing social realities affecting access to urban land and housing, and the lack of proper legal regulation have had a most perverse role in aggravating, if not determining, the process of socio-spatial segregation.

Definitions of Property Rights

One the most significant problems affecting urban management in this context is that, despite the existence of rhetorical provisions, urban environmental policies frequently lack legal support in the basic provisions of the legal system in force, especially those of a constitutional nature. The central issue to be addressed in this regard is property rights, specifically urban real property. Indeed, in many countries the progressive, socially oriented assumptions of urban policies, implying as they do a broad scope for state action, are frequently at odds with the constitutional definition of property rights.

Several presentations in the IRGLUS/CALS Workshop discussed how the traditional approach to individual property rights prevailing in many developing countries, typical of classical liberalism, has long favored economic exchange values to the total detriment of the principle of the social function of property. Many significant attempts at promoting land use planning and control, including the legal protection of the environment and historical-cultural heritage, have been undermined by a dominant judicial interpretation that significantly reduces the scope for state intervention in the domain of individual property rights. Attempts to promote land regularization have also been frequently opposed by both landowners and conservative courts, even in situations where the land occupation has been consolidated for a long time.

Whereas the excessive, speculative hoarding of privately owned urban land has been tacitly encouraged, the effective implementation of a long-claimed social housing policy has been rendered more difficult due to the need to compensate the owners of vacant land at full market prices. In many countries, the individual property rights system inherited as a result of colonial rule often fails to take into account traditional customary values in the definition of property rights. Since these countries have largely failed to reform the foundations of legal-political liberalism, the discussion of so-called neo-liberalism is a false question in this context.

The Workshop participants placed special emphasis on the legal-political conditions for the recognition of security of tenure. It was noted that agents as diverse as social movements, NGOs and international finance organizations have increasingly made use of different though complementary humanitarian, ethical, sociopolitical and, more recently, economic arguments to justify the need to adopt public policies on this matter. Legal arguments also need to be adopted, including long-standing provisions of international law and the fundamental principles of the rule of law concerning housing and human rights, so that a new, socially oriented and environmentally friendly approach to property rights is recognized.

Much of the discussion focused on whether security of tenure can only and/or necessarily be achieved through the recognition of individual property rights. In fact, the analysis of several experiences suggested that the mere attribution of property rights does not entail, per se, the achievement of the main goal of most regularization programs-that is, the full integration of illegal areas and communities into the broader urban structure and society. The general consensus was that a wide range of legal-political options should be considered, from the transfer of individual ownership to some forms of leasehold and/or rent control to more innovative forms, still unexplored, of collective ownership or occupation with varying degrees of state control.

It was argued that the recognition of urban land tenure rights has to take place within the broader, integrated and multi-sectoral scope of city (and land use) planning, and not as an isolated policy, to prevent distortions in the land market and thus minimize the risk of evicting the traditional occupants. Examples from case studies in Brazil, India and South Africa have shown that, whatever the solution adopted in a particular case, it will only work properly if it is the result of a democratic and transparent decision-making process that effectively incorporates the affected communities.

Above all, it was accepted that the redefinition of property rights, and therefore the recognition of security of tenure, needs to be promoted within a broader context in which urban reform and law reform are reconciled. Law reform is a direct function of urban governance. It requires new strategies of urban management based upon new relations between the state (especially at the local level) and society; renewed intergovernmental relations; and the adoption of new forms of partnership between the public and the private sectors within a clearly defined legal-political framework.

Law reform fundamentally requires the renovation of the overall decision-making process to combine traditional mechanisms of representative democracy and new forms of direct participation. Indeed, many municipalities in several countries have recently introduced new mechanisms to allow the participation of urban dwellers in several stages of the decision-making process affecting urban management. Examples are at the executive level through the creation of committees, commissions, etc., or the legislative level through popular referendums or by recognizing individual and/or collective initiatives in the law-making process, as well as the formulation of popular amendments to proposed bills. A most interesting and promising experience is that of the “participatory budgeting” adopted in several Brazilian cities, in which community-based organizations participate in the formulation of the local investment budgets.

Finally, the need to promote a comprehensive legal reform and judicial review can no longer be neglected, especially in order to promote the recognition of collective rights, to broaden collective access to courts and to guarantee law enforcement. India and Brazil, for instance, have already incorporated the notion of collective rights in their legal systems to some extent, thus enabling the judicial defense of so-called “diffuse interests” in environmental and urban matters by both individuals and NGOs.

In other words, urban reform and the recognition of security of tenure are not to be attained merely through law, but through a political process that supports the recognition of the long-claimed “right to the city” not only as a political notion, but as a legal one, too. There is a fundamental role to be played in this process by lawyers, judges and prosecutors for the government. However, the collective action of NGOs, social movements, national and international organizations, and individuals within and without the state apparatus is of utmost importance to guarantee both the enactment of socially oriented laws and, more importantly, their enforcement.

If these are truly democratic times, the age of rights has to be also the age of the enforcement of rights, and especially of collective rights. It is only through a participatory process that law can become an important political arena to promote spatial integration, social justice and sustainable development.

Edesio Fernandes is a lawyer and a research fellow at the Institute of Commonwealth Studies of the University of London. He is coordinator of IRGLUS-International Research Group on Law and Urban Space and coeditor (with Ann Varley) of Illegal Cities: Law and Urban Change in Developing Countries (Zed Books, London and New York, 1998).

Changes in the global economy, telecommunications and transportation systems are causing cities throughout the world to look at large-scale development projects as a way to restructure land uses and stimulate the local economy. For example, large, well-located areas previously occupied by railroad facilities and related transportation and industrial uses have been left abandoned in many mid-sized cities as more goods are now shipped in containers from a small number of major ports and terminals.

Statutory restrictions on state-owned enterprises have limited options to release these underutilized lands to the private market or to develop them as public projects. With increased privatization and the removal of restrictions, these properties would appear to be ideal locations for successful public/private development partnerships. However, while such monumental urban developments may seem like a panacea, they also raise many concerns about implementation and unanticipated impacts on other neighborhoods of the city, as well as competition with other cities.

Cordoba is representative of cities engaged in strategic planning to restructure local land uses under conditions of a changing macroeconomic and institutional environment. One of the key questions for these cities is to what extent can a major new development, in this case a teleport, effectively stimulate economic diversity and revitalize a neglected area.

Conditions in Cordoba

The City of Cordoba, with a population of approximately 1.3 million people, is strategically located in the geographic center of Argentina and has well-established linkages to the capital of Buenos Aires and to major cities in Chile, Brazil and Uruguay. Cordoba has long been an industrial center focusing on the production of cars, planes, trains and machinery, as well as consumer goods such as food, shoes, clothing and leather products. More recently, the city has expanded its service sector for both local and regional needs.

As Argentina has experienced economic stabilization and restructuring of its economy, Cordoba has gained greater potential to become a thriving center of Mercosur, the regional business district of south central South America. However, one of the city’s most vexing obstacles remains its competition with Buenos Aires.

Like many Latin American cities, Cordoba is also experiencing increased decentralization, movement toward a polycentric urban structure, and related socio-economic problems. Several years ago the city embarked on a strategic planning process that involved a broad cross-section of constituencies and resulted in a 1996 plan that identified some immediate economic development needs and other matters requiring further analysis and implementation.

As part of an ongoing collaboration between city officials and the Lincoln Institute, a seminar held in Cordoba in April 1997 examined the regulation and promotion of the land market. (1) One high-priority idea that emerged from those discussions related to the development of a teleport on underutilized central-city land. A committee formed to address the planning and implementation of such a facility included municipal officials, private sector business interests and members of the local university community.

The teleport envisioned for Cordoba is a mixed-use development comprising office space, convention facilities and hotels along with other ancillary land uses. The provision of state-of-the-art office facilities is considered a key objective to meet the city’s needs as both a regional center and a national location for some firms. These facilities will have elaborate telecommunications infrastructure and will be developed with a combination of public and private sector investment. One of the first projects is to be a hotel developed by the municipality within an historic structure.

The proposed location for the teleport is a 40-hectare site in the center of the city adjacent to the Suquia River. The site includes old railway lines and has good access to major roads linking the Mercosur region. The land is currently in both public and private ownership, and it is anticipated that some land transfers will be required to undertake the project.

Observations and Recommendations

To help the committee finalize its plans for the teleport, the city of Cordoba and the Lincoln Institute organized a second seminar in April 1998 to discuss concerns about implementation of the project. Comparative case studies of large-scale public/private developments in Toronto, Canada, and Sao Paulo, Brazil, provided useful perspectives on the problems and challenges faced by those cities and offered lessons for examining the design and likely prospects for the proposed teleport.

A key consideration is the teleport’s large scale relative to the existing local market, which suggests, at the very least, that the project needs to be phased in to ensure orderly development. Related to the project’s size are its impacts on other land in the city, including sites that have the potential for similar types of development. The relative attractiveness of the chosen site may adversely affect development of non-residential land uses in other designated growth areas of the city. At the same time, it is important to understand the depth and strength of the market for the specific uses intended for the proposed teleport site.

A related concern is the project’s potential negative impacts on existing and expanding residential neighborhoods in the area. On the other hand, the success of the teleport development could benefit the neighborhood if the residents are integrated into the planning and implementation process.

Among the lessons to be learned from other cities’ experience is the value of having a manageable set of objectives, and some seminar participants feared that the Cordoba committee was being overly ambitious. A second lesson regards the need for extreme care in selecting the location for a major new development. While the target location for the teleport was not considered deficient in any specific respect, it had not been selected as the result of a systematic analysis. Rather, this is a case where the city is trying to take advantage of an opportunity to develop a plan for an available site that urgently calls for reuse.

A third admonition came from the private sector, which has special needs in terms of access, infrastructure and costs. Some qualified market research can shed light on a host of issues including the extent to which Cordoba could hope to compete with Buenos Aires as a local or regional headquarters for domestic or international firms. Clearly the intended private sector beneficiaries must be involved directly in the conceptual development and planning of the project.

Several weeks after the seminar, the city commissioned a study to aid the implementation strategy for the teleport based on these concerns and recommendations. The study will also investigate potential instruments to effect land value capture to provide infrastructure financing and mechanisms to structure the kinds of public/private partnerships that appear to be necessary for the success of the teleport project.

A final general observation is that officials in Cordoba, or any city considering large-scale urban development, need to move rapidly beyond the study phase and establish training and other support systems for local leaders and practitioners to enhance their capacity to manage the project. Skills and experience are needed to assess the functioning of land markets, develop requisite technical capabilities, negotiate with the private sector, and oversee financial management, utility regulation, property taxation, land regulations and their complex interactions. The challenge in any such undertaking is to balance sufficient planning and research with the need to take advantage of development opportunities as they arise and to learn from the process as it evolves.

David Amborski is professor in the School of Urban and Regional Planning at Ryerson Polytechnic University in Toronto. Douglas Keare, a senior fellow of the Lincoln Institute, has experience with strategic planning for large cities in developing countries.

1. See “Strategic Planning in Cordoba,” Douglas Keare and Ricardo Vanella, Land Lines, September 1997.

Figure 1: Questions for Large-scale Developments

These topics and questions guided the seminar discussions in Cordoba, and they may be useful to other cities considering large-scale development projects on underutilized urban lands.

Understanding the Land Market: How will the local land market respond to large-scale public interventions such as the proposed teleport? What is the demand capacity for state-of-the-art office buildings in the region? What are the potential mechanisms for intervening in the land market to enhance the chances of success for this type of project?

The Urban Impacts of Large Projects on Underutilized Land: What are the impacts of this type of large-scale project on adjacent lands and competitive locations within the metropolitan area? How can infrastructure use be optimized? What alternatives could be explored to change the existing zoning structure?

Instruments of Promoting and Financing Private Investments in Urban Regeneration Projects: What financial instruments can be used in this type of development in conjunction with private sector participation? What instruments for private investments have been most successful? How can these be used with public/private partnerships? What benefits, disadvantages or complications might result from these partnerships?

Mechanisms of Redistribution and Land Value Capture: How can incremental land value be identified and estimated? How can land value capture schemes be used up front to finance the infrastructure for this project? What alternative instruments may be used for this purpose? What institutional reforms or partnerships might be necessary to implement these schemes and to serve as incentives for further development?

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

México está comenzando a crear un entorno propicio para utilizar las plusvalías para fines del desarrollo. Las recientes reformas constitucionales y jurídicas han permitido un proceso más claro para la adjudicación y comercialización de la tierra. Los mercados de bienes raíces están suplantando gradualmente los rígidos arreglos para la tenencia de la tierra que hicieron surgir los mercados informales caracterizados por acuerdos confusos, a menudo arbitrarios, y por los altos costos de las transacciones. El sector privado se está enfocando hacia las áreas de viviendas de bajos ingresos y los arreglos entre el sector público y privado que buscan un desarrollo urbano equilibrado y sostenible.

El Estado de México ha lanzado un programa integral, llamado PRORIENTE, para promover la interacción entre el gobierno, las empresas y la comunidad con el fin de administrar y financiar conjuntamente el desarrollo urbano en la región oriental del estado. PRORIENTE tiene como visión la creación de “nuevas ciudades” alrededor de la megalópolis de Ciudad de México, que se caractericen por un crecimiento equilibrado entre la densificación demográfica, las actividades generadoras de ingresos y la protección del medio ambiente. La creación de empleos en los mismos asentamientos nuevos y en sus alrededores es un objetivo social y económico primordial del programa.

Dado el patrón intrincado de intereses involucrados, PRORIENTE ha adoptado un enfoque intersectorial e interjurisdiccional. De hecho, PRORIENTE requiere que el Estado de México tome la iniciativa para coordinar las políticas e instrumentos fiscales y de tierras entre el gobierno federal, el gobierno de oposición del Distrito Federal recién elegido y los numerosos municipios que en su mayoría están en control de los partidos de oposición.

PRORIENTE enfrenta enormes desafíos:

• Se calcula que el crecimiento de la población en la región para el período que va desde el presente hasta el año 2020 será de cinco millones de habitantes.
• La deforestación y urbanización desorganizada de áreas agrícolas producen una mayor desertificación de la región.
• Es necesario aplicar políticas innovadoras y acuerdos contractuales para crear mercados inmobiliarios eficaces.
• La urbanización descontrolada ha sido provocada tanto por los promotores inmobiliarios privados que especulan con el precio de la tierra, ignoran la planeación urbana y los cuantiosos aumentos de las plusvalías, así como por los asentamientos de inmigrantes de bajos ingresos. Los nuevos mecanismos para la recuperación pública de plusvalías que surgen de las nuevas políticas o decisiones administrativas tendrán que medirse con una resistencia feroz.
• Hay mucha deficiencia en materia de impuestos inmobiliarios y la estructura del impuesto a la propiedad está plagada de muchas excepciones. Los catastros suelen estar desactualizados y no tienen suficiente conexión con el sistema de transferencia y registro de bienes raíces.
• En un país que siempre ha tenido un gobierno federal fuerte, prácticamente son desconocidas las alianzas entre el sector público y privado que rindan cuentas ante las comunidades y operen con transparencia.
• Las relaciones fiscales intergubernamentales y los acuerdos interjurisdiccionales han estado marcadas por la voluntad y el abrumador poder fiscal del gobierno federal que controla el 80 por ciento de los ingresos públicos, en comparación con el 4 por ciento para los municipios y el 16 por ciento para el estado. Los gobiernos local y regional apenas comienzan a experimentar con las coaliciones políticas y los gobiernos multipartidistas capaces de subsistir más allá de la corta duración de cada mandato.

En vista de estos obstáculos y desafíos, los dirigentes de PRORIENTE han adoptado un enfoque participativo y negociador cuyos resultados empiezan a ser visibles. Las empresas han integrado conglomerados a gran escala capaces de cubrir las enormes necesidades de capital y tecnología de gestión que tiene la región. El gobierno federal, el Distrito Federal, los municipios y las comunidades son bienvenidos en la mesa de negociación para participar en un proceso continuo que nutre un programa en expansión y no una política o meta institucional específica.

El Instituto Lincoln reconoce que este proyecto constituye una excelente oportunidad para estudiar la compleja función de la tierra como factor estratégico para el desarrollo urbano en toda América Latina. En abril pasado, el Instituto coordinó un seminario sobre mercados urbanos en la ciudad de Toluca y sigue ejerciendo su función como caja de resonancia para los legisladores y oficiales ejecutores de políticas del Estado de México y demás actores públicos y privados que participan en PRORIENTE.

Además, un equipo del Instituto Lincoln coopera actualmente con otras instituciones y profesionales para intercambiar experiencias internacionales en lo que refiere al proceso de creación de políticas y el aspecto operativo del programa PRORIENTE. Se presta atención especial a la sustentabilidad y posibilidad de duplicación de las estrategias que facilitan la transición desde sistemas restrictivos de tenencia de la tierra, gestiones con deficientes impuestos a la propiedad y recursos fiscales sumamente centralizados, hacia mercados inmobiliarios competitivos e iniciativas locales para el uso de la tierra que fomenten el desarrollo. El Instituto utilizará esta experiencia en México para diseñar cursos en otros países que se encuentran en situaciones semejantes.

Fernando Rojas, docente invitado del Instituto Lincoln, es académico en el campo jurídico y analista de políticas públicas en Colombia. Anteriormente ha sido docente invitado en el Centro David Rockefeller para Estudios Latinoamericanos de la Universidad de Harvard. Alfonso Iracheta es secretario técnico de PRORIENTE y director de planeación del Estado de México.

Driven by an awareness of population expansion and the difficulties that follow growth, Oregon’s Departments of Transportation and of Land Conservation and Development created the “Smart Development” program. The state retained Leland Consulting Group and Livable Oregon to define the goals of Smart Development, to identify obstacles to its execution and to enjoin the development community in discussions about how to implement its goals.

Smart Development is land use that:

• Lowers automobile use;
• Provides nearby services;
• Lowers commuting time;
• Reduces congestion;
• Encourages and makes possible alternate modes of transit;
• Provides better neighborhoods for walking and living;
• Is environmentally sound;
• Maintains Oregon’s historic affordability; and
• Enhances the quality of life and sense of community.

In examining over 60 projects across the country that attempt comprehensive solutions to problems of urban growth, the consultant team looked at examples of “new urbanism,” as well as infill development, subdivisions, affordable housing, adaptive re-use and neighborhood revitalization. While common factors exist among all projects, none of the ones that are successful for their developers satisfy all Smart Development goals at once. The good news is that careful attention to local market conditions and demographics can result in successful projects that do satisfy many of these goals.

Why Smart Development Raises Financing Questions

Projects that satisfy some goals are unlikely to satisfy others because the goals may have different land use solutions which—when built in current markets—are in conflict. Proponents of neotraditional, transit-oriented, small-lot, pedestrian-oriented, mixed-use and grid-platted development have bundled these styles as a single concept. Developers and lenders do not understand the markets, values and risks for these hybrid products.

When we surveyed lenders about the factors that affect their decision to finance Smart Development projects, they explained unequivocally that financing of innovation required clear limits on the risk the lender could accept. While factors such as preleasing and on-site management were considered important, lenders strongly preferred working with a developer who had a track record, financial capacity and experience in the product type.

Lenders also expressed doubts about the willingness of the secondary market to lend on innovative projects. The problem is not innovation in physical design itself, but lenders’ anxieties about FannieMae’s “pass-through” requirement: the bank is financially responsible for the project through foreclosure of the asset. FannieMae support does not insulate the bank from the risk of default. Since banks do not want to own real estate, innovative project types that cannot show strong track records cause anxiety that is not allayed by securitization.

Overcoming the Obstacles

There are three technical obstacles to financing Smart Development:

• appraisal and comparables;
• lack of market and demographic research; and
• lack of clarity in presenting project aims, risks and mitigation to lenders.

A fourth obstacle is financial, relating to the first phase provision of new infrastructure.

Appraisal and Comparables: Standard appraisals usually focus on the housing product without accounting for the economic value produced by higher quality infrastructure, adjacent services, pedestrian amenities, and access to transit. By comparing only housing units, appraisals allot them the value that they would have in adjoining subdivisions that contain none of the amenities. Yet, new projects that we reviewed were often higher in price than the surrounding market. The quality of new designs may justify pricing, but appraisals based on the local area did not support the same percentage of purchase price as for nearby units. Smart Development projects also required proportionately higher cash down-payments, making the units harder to buy (and harder for the developer to sell).

It must be emphasized that Smart Development features are positive attributes that have long-term effects on value. Appraisal is regularly performed involving regression equations to model the economic value of positive externalities and could be applied to this area to produce new standards for evaluation of Smart Development. This process needs research but is well within the professional purview of the appraisal community.

New Market Studies: Smart Development, with its sophisticated land use and concepts such as inclusion of retail into subdivision development, attracts different demographic groups than standard development. Income levels per capita are higher, household sizes are smaller, and the use of transit and other services per person is often greater.

To overcome feasibility and appraisal obstacles, it is useful to consider Smart Development not as a single market concept but as a series of land use solutions that incorporate traditional real estate products in innovative ways. The market for the products can then be assessed in the same way as existing similar land uses that have attracted the demographic groups noted above—older neighborhoods with the sort of land use proposed in these projects. Through this method it is possible to avoid the pitfalls of “trend” studies that are unable to assess the market for new products.

Presentation of Smart Development to Lenders: The business plan for new products describes how products were arrived at in response to market niches and supporting demographics and sales potential. Every aspect of the business is revealed: project principals and roles; financial structure; applied start-up capital; reserves for operational deficits; and projections of revenues, cash flows and profits. The plan illustrates potential risks and suggests mitigations for risk should conditions not meet expectations.

Presentation of real estate development is typically done through market trend studies and architectural drawings. Neither of these modes addresses the issues raised in a business plan. It may be worthwhile for proactive lenders to consider offering assistance with business planning and presentation of innovative projects to alleviate the anxieties of capital investors and loan boards.

First Phase Financial Feasibility: In many western U.S. cities, grid street plans were built by the city and then builders provided the houses. After World War II, American cities stopped creating streets and the developers began providing the local infrastructure. The major public infrastructure dollars were funneled through federal agencies into regional infrastructure improvements (freeways) which sped private development into fringe areas.

It is now understood that highways and major arterials do not eliminate congestion but rather act as a subsidy for congestion-producing development. New requirements for grid streets, pedestrian amenities, sidewalks and parking strips with trees can make development either unaffordable to median buyers or financially infeasible, and there are no local support mechanisms equal to the magnitude of highway funding.

If the goals of Smart Development are serious social goals, then some level of first phase credit enhancement in exchange for fulfillment of social goals is appropriate. Such credit enhancement would serve to produce land use with the long-term benefits of lowered social cost through reduction of congestion and auto use and a better quality of life.

_____________________________

Edward H. Starkie, principal, and Bonnie Gee Yosick, associate, conduct economic analysis and research on downtown redevelopment for Leland Consulting Group, 325 Northwest 22nd Street, Portland, OR 97210; 503/222-1600.