Una versión más actualizada de este artículo está disponible como parte del capítulo 2 del libro Perspectivas urbanas: Temas críticos en políticas de suelo de América Latina.

En países subdesarrollados, la mayoría de los programas y propuestas de gestión urbana han requerido adoptar un criterio de orientación social a los derechos de propiedad, lo que garantiza una intervención estatal de amplio alcance sobre el control del uso y desarrollo del suelo. Ése es el caso particular de los programas de regularización del suelo.

Sin embargo, la adopción generalizada de políticas de liberalización y esquemas de privatización ha promovido una interpretación individualista y tradicional de los derechos de propiedad, que dificulta los intentos progresivos de disciplinar el uso y el desarrollo de la propiedad urbana.

Se trata de una paradoja aparente que revela la brecha entre una definición más progresiva de los derechos de propiedad y la tendencia actual en pro de la privatización. ¿Son estas tendencias mutuamente exclusivas, o pueden conciliarse hasta cierto punto?

Estas preguntas fueron el tema central de dos talleres de trabajo que tuvieron lugar en Johannesburgo (República Sudafricana) a finales de julio, dirigidos a legisladores, gestores urbanos y académicos. El Sexto Taller de Trabajo de “Legislación y Espacio Urbano” fue patrocinado conjuntamente por el Grupo Internacional de Investigación sobre Legislación y Espacio Urbano (IRGLUS) y el Centro de Estudios Jurídicos Aplicados (CALS) de la Universidad de Witwatersrand. El Instituto Lincoln contribuyó a la realización de este taller y también patrocinó un seminario sobre seguridad de tenencia del suelo en la República Sudafricana, los países subsaharianos, Brasil y la India.

Marco de trabajo conceptual para la legislación y el espacio urbano

IRGLUS, un grupo de trabajo del Comité de Investigación en Sociología Jurídica de la Asociación Sociológica Internacional (ISA), se propone organizar debates sobre la dimensión jurídica del proceso de urbanización, con la idea de promover ese diálogo tan necesario entre los estudios jurídicos y los estudios ambientales urbanos. La mayoría de los estudios urbanos han reducido el aspecto legal —incluidas las estipulaciones jurídicas, las decisiones judiciales y la cultura jurídica en general— a su dimensión instrumental: una corriente rechaza la ley como si fuera nada más que un simple instrumento político de discriminación social y exclusión política, mientras que otra la da por hecho, como si se tratara de un simple instrumento técnico que puede brindar soluciones fáciles e inmediatas a los crecientes problemas urbanos y ambientales.

Para expertos y profesionales urbanos, no están claras las razones de las crecientes prácticas ilegales identificadas en zonas urbanas, particularmente las que se refieren al uso y desarrollo del suelo. Según los datos existentes, si se toman en cuenta los patrones de acceso al suelo y de construcción, pareciera que entre el 40 y el 70 por ciento de la población de las principales ciudades de los países subdesarrollados está, de uno u otro modo, al margen de la ley, y ese número no está limitado a la población de bajos recursos.

Muy pocos estudios se han preguntado el porqué de este fenómeno de ilegalidad urbana, por qué importa y qué puede hacerse. Los observadores, en general, no han podido visualizar la aparente división que hay entre las llamadas ciudades “legales” e “ilegales” como una intrincada red de relaciones muy cercanas y al mismo tiempo contradictorias entre las reglas oficiales y las no oficiales, y entre los mercados formales e informales de los suelos urbanos.

En la mayoría de los países subdesarrollados, la inexistencia de una política habitacional eficaz, en combinación con fuerzas comerciales descontroladas, despoja de soluciones habitacionales adecuadas a la vasta mayoría de la población urbana. Lejos de ser un fenómeno restringido a los pobres urbanos, la ilegalidad urbana necesita atención urgente, dadas sus graves consecuencias sociales, políticas, económicas y ambientales para la sociedad y la estructura urbana como un todo.

Sin embargo, si bien la ilegalidad urbana es un reflejo de la poderosa combinación de los mercados del suelo y los sistemas políticos, también es resultado del sistema jurídico elitista y de exclusión que impera en los países subdesarrollados. La combinación de instrumentos jurídicos que no reflejan las realidades sociales que afectan el acceso a la vivienda y al suelo urbano, junto con la falta de leyes adecuadas, ha tenido un efecto sumamente nocivo y agravante, si no determinante, del proceso de segregación socioespacial.

Definiciones de los derechos de propiedad

Uno de los mayores problemas de la gestión urbana es la falta de soporte del sistema jurídico vigente para las políticas ambientales urbanas. Ciertamente existen provisiones retóricas, pero las provisiones básicas del sistema —especialmente las de naturaleza constitucional— no ofrecen apoyo jurídico alguno a dichas políticas. En este contexto, el punto central de atención es el de los derechos de propiedad, específicamente de inmuebles urbanos. En muchos países, las políticas urbanas con sesgo progresivo y social que amplían la acción estatal suelen estar reñidas con la definición constitucional de los derechos de propiedad.

En varias ponencias del taller del trabajo de IRGLUS/CALS se habló de cómo el abordaje tradicional a los derechos de propiedad individuales, imperante en muchos países subdesarrollados y típico del liberalismo clásico, ha favorecido intercambios económicos que han menoscabado la función social de la propiedad. Muchos intentos importantes para promover el uso y control del suelo, incluso la protección jurídica del ambiente y la herencia histórico-cultural, se han visto mermados por acciones que reducen fuertemente la intervención estatal en el dominio de los derechos de propiedad individuales. En repetidas ocasiones, los intentos para promover la regularización del suelo han enfrentado la oposición de terratenientes y tribunales conservadores, incluso en situaciones en que la ocupación del suelo ya había estado consolidada durante largo tiempo.

Mientras que la retención excesiva y especulativa del suelo urbano privado ha contado con un beneplácito tácito, la tan esperada ejecución de una política habitacional social eficaz ha sido más difícil debido a la necesidad de indemnizar a los propietarios de tierras vacantes a los precios del mercado. En muchos países, el sistema de derechos de propiedad individuales heredado de la época de la colonia no suele considerar los valores habituales tradicionales en la definición de los derechos de propiedad. Dado que dichos países han fallado considerablemente en reformar los cimientos del liberalismo jurídico-político, la discusión del llamado neoliberalismo no tiene sentido en este contexto.

Los participantes del taller de trabajo hicieron énfasis especial en las condiciones jurídico-políticas para que se reconozca la seguridad de la tenencia. Se hizo notar que agentes tan diversos como movimientos sociales, organizaciones no gubernamentales y de finanzas internacionales han planteado cada vez más argumentos diferentes, si bien complementarios, de tipo humanitario, ético, sociopolítico y, más recientemente, económico para justificar la necesidad de adoptar políticas públicas en esta materia. También es necesario adoptar argumentos jurídicos, entre ellos las viejas provisiones de la ley internacional y los principios fundamentales del estado de derecho referente a los derechos de vivienda y los derechos humanos, de forma de abrir paso a una nueva interpretación de los derechos de propiedad que tenga sesgo social y ambiental.

Gran parte de la discusión se centró en determinar si la seguridad de tenencia puede sólo y/o necesariamente alcanzarse al reconocer los derechos de propiedad individuales. En este sentido, el análisis de varios casos sugirió que la mera atribución de los derechos de propiedad no lleva por sí sola a la meta principal de la mayoría de los programas de regularización, o sea, a la completa integración de las zonas y comunidades ilegales al marco más amplio de la sociedad y estructura urbana. El consenso general fue que debe considerarse una amplia gama de opciones jurídico-políticas, desde la transferencia de propiedades individuales a algunas formas de tenencia absoluta y/o control de alquileres, hasta formas novedosas (aún sin explorar) de propiedad colectiva u ocupación con varios grados de control estatal.

Se argumentó que el reconocimiento de los derechos de tenencia del suelo urbano debe ocurrir dentro de un marco más amplio, integrado y multi-sectoral de planificación de la ciudad y del uso del suelo, y no como una política aislada, a fin de evitar distorsiones en el mercado del suelo que conduzcan al desalojo de los ocupantes tradicionales. Ejemplos de casos de estudios en Brasil, la India y la República Sudafricana han demostrado que, sea cual sea la solución adoptada en un caso particular, sólo funcionará bien si es resultado de un proceso de decisión democrático y transparente que incorpore eficazmente a las comunidades afectadas.

Por encima de todo, se aceptó que es necesario promover la redefinición de los derechos de propiedad, y de allí, el reconocimiento de la seguridad de tenencia, dentro de un contexto más amplio que concilie la reforma urbana con la reforma legislativa. La reforma legislativa es función directa de las autoridades urbanas. Requiere nuevas estrategias de gestión urbana basadas en nuevas relaciones entre el Estado (especialmente a nivel municipal) y la sociedad; relaciones intergubernamentales renovadas; y la adopción de nuevas formas de sociedad entre los sectores público y privado dentro de un marco de trabajo jurídico-político claramente definido.

La reforma legislativa requiere renovar el proceso general de toma de decisiones a fin de combinar mecanismos tradicionales de democracia representativa y nuevas formas de participación directa. En los últimos años, muchas municipalidades de varios países han introducido nuevos mecanismos que fomentan la participación de la población urbana en varias etapas de los procesos de decisión que afectan la gestión urbana. A nivel ejecutivo se observan ejemplos tales como la creación de comités, comisiones, etc., mientras que a nivel legislativo figuran los referendos populares, el reconocimiento de iniciativas individuales y/o colectivas en los procesos de legislación, como también la formulación de enmiendas populares a proyectos de ley. Una de las experiencias más interesantes y promisorias ha sido el “presupuesto participativo” adoptado en varias ciudades brasileñas, que permite la participación de organizaciones comunitarias en la elaboración de los presupuestos municipales.

Para finalizar, no podemos seguir haciendo caso omiso a la necesidad de promover reformas jurídicas y revisiones judiciales globales, especialmente aquéllas que incentiven el reconocimiento de derechos colectivos, amplíen el acceso colectivo a los tribunales y garanticen el cumplimiento de la ley. Países como la India y Brasil ya han incorporado una cierta noción de los derechos colectivos en sus sistemas jurídicos, habilitando la defensa judicial de los llamados “intereses difusos” en materias ambientales y urbanas por ciudadanos y organizaciones no gubernamentales.

En otras palabras, la reforma urbana y el reconocimiento de la seguridad de la tenencia no son cosas que van a conseguirse solamente a través de la ley, sino también a través de un proceso político que apoye el tan aclamado “derecho a la ciudad” como noción política y jurídica. Una función muy importante de este proceso deben ejercerla agentes diversos como abogados, jueces y fiscales del gobierno. No obstante, para poder garantizar la promulgación de leyes con sesgo social, y más importante, su cumplimiento, es imperativa la acción colectiva de organizaciones no gubernamentales, movimientos sociales, organizaciones nacionales e internacionales, y ciudadanos que formen o no parte del entramado estatal.

Si es cierto que vivimos en tiempos democráticos, la época de los derechos tiene también que ser la del cumplimiento de los derechos, especialmente de los derechos colectivos. Sólo a través de procesos participativos podrá la ley convertirse en un escenario político importante para promover la integración espacial, la justicia social y el desarrollo sostenible.

Sobre el autor

Edésio Fernandes es abogado y fellow de investigación del Institute of Commonwealth Studies de la Universidad de Londres. Es coordinador de IRGLUS (Grupo Internacional de Investigación sobre Legislación y Espacio Urbano), y coeditor (junto con Ann Varley) de Illegal Cities: Law and Urban Change in Developing Countries (Zed Books, Londres y Nueva York, 1998).

Water companies and the communities they serve have been grappling for years with complex issues of water treatment and provision, watershed management, public finance and control over regional land use decisionmaking. The federal Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 prompted water providers across America to face a dilemma: “to filter or not to filter.” Some states or regions require filtration to ensure water quality, but elsewhere communities explore alternative strategies to both protect natural filtration processes in their watersheds and avoid the enormous costs of installing water treatment plants.

The hard-fought conversion of the New Haven Water Company from a private, investor-owned company to a public regional water authority provides an informative case study of a partnership strategy. In the process of hammering out agreements on difficult land use and tax issues, the city and surrounding suburbs succeeded in breaking down conventional barriers and recognized that regional solutions can meet shared needs for a safe water supply, open space protection, recreation and fiscal responsibility.

The drama unfolded in 1974, when the Water Company attempted to sell over 60 percent of its 26,000 acres of land in 17 metropolitan area towns to generate capital for filtration plant construction. The announcement of this massive land sale created vehement opposition throughout the state. Residents of the affected towns viewed the largely undeveloped land as an integral part of their community character. They feared losing control of the land as well as environmental damage and increased costs associated with potential new development.

Several New Haven area legislators recognized the critical link between the city and its watershed communities. They introduced legislation imposing a moratorium on the land sale and proposing public ownership of the water works. New Haven Mayor Frank Logue countered with an announcement that the city planned to buy the water company under a purchase option in a 1902 contract. The suburban towns responded by promoting regional ownership as the only viable alternative to city control.

After a lengthy feasibility study, and despite a gubernatorial veto, legislation enabling the creation of the South Central Connecticut Regional Water Authority (RWA) was enacted in 1977. In addition, separate legislation classified all utility-owned watershed land and severely restricted its sale. The sale restrictions combined with standards for source protection, provisions for public recreation and consideration of the financial impact on ratepayers, also diminished the land’s market value, thereby limiting the Water Company’s ability to use the land as a source of capital.

Regionalization of the Water Company also required a regional approach to taxation. This was the most difficult obstacle to overcome in passing the RWA enabling legislation. With New Haven Water Company’s projected capital investments in excess of $100 million, the region’s towns had looked ahead to vastly increased tax revenues from the private utility. However, New Haven, with the majority of consumers, was more concerned with keeping water rates low.

The conflict between city and suburbs was resolved through the principle that the regionalization of the water utility would cause no erosion of the tax base. Under the agreement, each town would receive payments in lieu of taxes (PILOTs) on all property acquired by the RWA, equivalent to the taxes that would be paid by a private owner. However, while these payments would rise and fall with future assessments, the RWA would not be required to make such tax-substitution payments for any new capital improvements.

Lessons of Regional Resource Sharing

In addition to forcing a reconsideration of the balance between suburban tax bases and urban water rates, New Haven’s Regional Water Authority has broadened its own mission. While protecting the water supply is the primary focus of all RWA land use policies, the authority also manages recreational use of the land to meet the needs of both inner city and suburban residents.

The early success of the conservation and recreational use plans depended on public participation in formulating the RWA Land Use Plan. Many types of active recreation would have been unsuitable for water supply land, but it was determined that hiking and fishing, the two most popular activities, could be conducted without threatening water quality.

The RWA’s active program for policing the watersheds was reinforced by establishing a center to educate future consumers on water supply protection. Located at the base of the dam at Lake Whitney, the Whitney Water Center annually teaches thousands of children the basics of drinking water science. It emphasizes the interdependence of source protection and safe drinking water.

Primary among the lessons to be learned from the New Haven Water Company’s ill-advised land sale proposal is that the value of a water supply watershed as a natural and human resource is far greater than its value as a market commodity. Management of the watershed’s natural resource potential must extend beyond the collection and distribution of water to include the needs of the people who live within the watershed. At the same time, limiting watershed land activities to low-risk uses minimizes the water treatment costs that are still necessary for safe drinking water.

Regional cooperation need not begin and end with water. Developing economic and ecological partnerships between cities and their suburbs for tax-sharing, recreation, and education recognizes that the economic and ecological concerns of all residents in a metropolitan region are interdependent. Successfully bucking the trend toward privatization, the RWA demonstrates that regional resource sharing is the most viable way of meeting the needs of New Haven and its suburbs.

Watershed Protection vs. Filtration in Other Regions

The public acquisition of the New Haven Water Company in the 1970s provided a preview of 1990s approaches to managing water resources. Today, water supply management is increasingly becoming watershed management, with plans reflecting the broader ecological functions of watersheds and the importance of partnerships with local residents. Conflict resolution has become an essential skill for today’s watershed managers.

Watershed land acquisition continues to be a key filtration avoidance strategy in many areas. New York City has the nation’s largest unfiltered water supply, and some experts have called on the city to develop programs to filter its drinking water. However, New York Governor George E. Pataki has taken the position he would “do whatever it takes to avoid filtration,” from working with farmers and businesses on mutually beneficial voluntary programs to buying up to 80,000 acres from willing sellers to protect the water supply.

New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman has committed to a “hands across the border” $10 million contribution toward purchasing the New York portion of the two-state metropolitan watershed in Sterling Forest, which is threatened with commercial recreational and housing development. The nonprofit Trust for Public Land and the Open Space Institute are negotiating the purchase on behalf of both states, and recent congressional action has guaranteed funding for the project.

In central Massachusetts, the Metropolitan District Commission’s Quabbin Reservoir has met the Safe Drinking Water Act’s criteria as an unfiltered water supply source for the Boston area, but the MDC’s Wachusett Reservoir has not. A recently approved $399 million state open space bond includes funds for land acquisition in the Wachusett watershed.

Acknowledging the essential function that undeveloped land serves in preventing contaminants from reaching water supplies is long overdue. But is watershed source protection alone a viable alternative to filtration?

In North Carolina, where all surface water supplies are already filtered, state legislation requires local water authorities to develop watershed land use plans that must be approved by the state. Although such legislation can reduce the health risks of watershed development and the cost of water treatment, it cannot prevent future development.

Our conclusion is that the combination of watershed protection and filtration is a proven, cost effective approach to ensure safe drinking water while also building partnerships to implement regional land use policies.

_____________

Dorothy S. McCluskey was a Connecticut State Representative from 1975 to 1982 and chaired the Environment Subcommittee on the Sale of Water Company Land. She subsequently served as director of government relations for The Nature Conservancy Connecticut Chapter. Claire C. Bennitt, secretary-treasurer of the Regional Water Authority since 1977, was a resident of North Branford when the threatened land sale galvanized the New Haven region. She worked with Rep. McCluskey as her administrative assistant in the state legislature. They have written Who Wants to Buy a Water Company: From Private to Public Control in New Haven, to be published in early 1997 by Rutledge Books, Inc., of Bethel, Connecticut.

In recent decades conservation easements—promises to restrict land development—have become enormously popular, but now they are in trouble. News reports have created concern that some easements are little more than tax avoidance schemes with no public benefit. In response, the IRS has stepped up audits, and some members of Congress want to curtail deductions for easements, or even eliminate them altogether.

Neither approach is desirable. Tax laws governing easements are so vague that the IRS seldom prevails against abusive appraisals. The meat-axe approach, meanwhile, would eliminate many beneficial easements yet fail to address serious, long-term problems. Fortunately, there are better answers. A set of simple reforms would ensure public accountability in easement creation, appraisal, and enforcement.

Few anticipated today’s problems when Congress enacted tax benefits for easements in 1980. Then conservation easements were relatively rare. But today there are more than 1,500 local and regional land trusts holding almost 18,000 easements—double the number of five years ago—covering over five million acres. And that doesn’t count thousands of easements held by federal, state, and local governments and by national organizations such as The Nature Conservancy and the American Farmland Trust. The public investment in direct expenditures and in tax deductions is difficult to estimate, but clearly substantial.

Despite this, most states have no standards governing the content of conservation easements. Nobody even knows where all the easements are, let alone their price in lost tax revenue and enforcement costs. Virtually no state ensures that land trusts have the capacity to manage the easements they hold. Few land trusts have the funds to enforce or defend just one easement in court, and challenges are certain to mount as land passes to new owners, economic incentives to develop property grow, and land subject to easements is subdivided.

Almost no states have measures to protect the public interest when land trusts—many created in the last two decades—dissolve, as some inevitably will, or when landowners attempt to terminate or amend existing easements. A recent survey by the Land Trust Alliance, a voluntary standard-setting organization, found that an overwhelming majority of land trust representatives fear that the easements they hold may not withstand the test of time.

The remedy must begin with transparency. Every state should have a comprehensive public registry of easements, and opportunity for public comment on how proposed easements fit overall developmental policies and priorities. Individual appraisals should be public and subject to closer scrutiny. It also would help to standardize easement terms. Their great variability complicates efforts to value them and to determine whether they merit their public subsidy. States should spell out procedures enforcing easements when land trusts fail, and for ensuring a public voice when landowners or easement holders seek to terminate or amend easements. That’s only fair. Conservation easements are financed with public money to achieve a public interest in the long-term preservation of open space. Failure to protect this defeats the very purpose of using public resources to create them in the first place.

These changes may not be politically popular. Some will object to increasing the role of government, and others will protest that transparency may discourage landowners from donating easements. Fortunately, these fears already have been put to an empirical test. Massachusetts has led the nation with a system of mandatory public review and approval of conservation easements at both the state and local levels for nearly four decades. Far from stifling the easement movement, government supervision has strengthened it. In fact, the Bay State has more conservation easements than almost any other state. With easements under close scrutiny in the media and losing support in Congress, this approach offers a model for reform.

For more background and analysis on this topic, see the recently published Lincoln Institute report, Reinventing Conservation Easements: A Critical Examination and Ideas for Reform>/I>, by Jeff Pidot, http://www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/pub-detail.asp?id=1051.

Despite the challenges of overhauling existing policies and implementing a bold agenda for infrastructure investment, the decisive election of a new President on a platform of change presents a real opportunity and sense of momentum for action in Washington.

A large share of national energy consumption takes place in cities—in the United States about three-quarters of energy use is in or related to urban areas. Accordingly, cities offer significant opportunities for energy savings from increased efficiency, but important issues remain: Will market forces produce efficiency gains when appropriate, or will market failures such as imperfect information, unavailable financing, or misunderstood risks impede market solutions? How much do people value energy savings, and how sensitive are they to changes in energy prices? The Lincoln Institute hosted a conference on energy efficiency and cities in October 2012 to address these and related issues, and a few highlights follow.

Valuing Energy Efficiency

Consumers should be willing to pay more for built space that uses less energy. Evidence indicates that users of commercial space value energy efficiency and are willing to pay more for it, and many studies indicate that LEED-certified office and commercial space sells or rents at a premium over traditional space. There is much less evidence of such preferences for residences, in part because it is difficult for most homebuyers to determine the energy efficiency of a dwelling, especially a new one with no operating record.

Some residential developments are now being classified using procedures similar to LEED certification or to the Energy Star ratings such as those used for major appliances. Dwellings in California that have the highest energy efficiency ratings sell at a premium of about 9 percent above units with average energy efficiency. Similar price premiums have been observed in the Netherlands for houses certified at the highest efficiency level using a European certification procedure. Some of these premiums may reflect the improved comfort levels that these buildings provide in addition to energy savings. It also seems likely that the energy efficiency premium observed in California is up to three times greater than the incremental cost of the higher efficiency of these dwellings.

Determining Cost

The cost of integrating energy efficiency into new buildings is less than the cost of improving the efficiency of older buildings. A home built since 2000 uses about 25 percent less energy per square foot than one built in the 1960s or earlier. The technical potential for improved energy efficiency in older homes seems evident, but homeowners face two challenges: to determine which improvements have the highest payoff per dollar spent, and to obtain a contractor and financing for the work.

While many diagnostic tools are available to assess existing dwellings, their accuracy varies widely and depends critically on detailed inputs about both the dwelling’s attributes and the household’s living style. Obtaining a contractor and financing can involve high transaction costs for households in effort, time, and money. Many utility companies are offering both technical and financial support for energy retrofitting, but progress has been slow.

Changing Energy Consumption

It may be easier to change residential living styles than to retrofit old buildings, and many utilities are experimenting with schemes to modify household behavior. The most common program involves “nudging” households toward more efficient habits by providing periodic home energy reports that compare their recent energy use with that of their neighbors. Analysis indicates that these reports have both a short-term impact on household energy consumption and a longer-term cumulative impact that continues after the reports end. The energy savings from these programs are small, ranging from a half to one kilowatt hour per day for a household, but the program’s low cost makes the results as cost-effective as many other policies.

Recognizing John Quigley

This conference was designed with John Quigley, economics professor at the University of California at Berkeley, who passed away before the conference took place. In addition to the original papers on energy and cities, papers on urban economics were presented by some of his former students, colleagues, and coauthors. All of the papers will be submitted for a forthcoming special edition of Regional Science and Urban Economics, which will recognize his contributions over a long and distinguished career.

El desarrollo humano se ilustra, por lo general, como una guerra entre los objetivos contradictorios de la individualidad y la adecuación. Hacemos todo lo posible por distinguirnos del rebaño, pero nos aterramos ante la perspectiva del aislamiento social. Nuestras ciencias sociales, en especial la economía, presentan conflictos similares. El culto al individuo es un ícono social dominante, y esta dominancia se ve exacerbada por el auge del fundamentalismo económico: la fe incuestionable en los mercados no regulados y la desconfianza concomitante hacia el gobierno y los sistemas sociales. Tomando como punto de partida el concepto de “la mano invisible” de Adam Smith, muchos economistas construyeron sus carreras en la concepción de teorías cuyo fundamento era el individualismo metodológico, la idea de que “los fenómenos sociales deben explicarse como resultado de las acciones individuales, que, a su vez, deben explicarse en referencia a los estados intencionales que motivan a los actores individuales”, según lo expresa la Enciclopedia de Filosofía de Stanford. Estos teóricos preconizaban, de forma unánime, que el hecho de tener individuos y mercados sin restricciones era la mejor manera de lograr los objetivos compartidos de prosperidad y justicia, a la vez que promovían (o evitaban) las políticas públicas respaldadas por este punto de vista.

Simultáneamente, otros economistas de la corriente prevaleciente han advertido de la “paradoja del aislamiento”, una categoría de casos en los que los individuos, actuando en un relativo aislamiento y guiados únicamente por sus propios intereses a corto plazo, generan resultados que, a largo plazo, son destructivos para todos. Algunos ejemplos de esta teoría incluyen las pesadillas del maltusianismo sobre hambre y pestes que detienen el crecimiento de la población, el dilema del prisionero o la tragedia de los comunes (descrita por Garrett Hardin en su ensayo de 1968). Hardin advirtió de los peligros del crecimiento de la población utilizando una parábola sobre la explotación no administrada de tierras de pastoreo de uso común. La inevitable utilización desmedida de las tierras de pastoreo por parte de cada uno de los pastores que desean aumentar su ganado destruiría las tierras, convirtiéndolas en terrenos inútiles para todos. Según Hardin y otros pensadores, la solución radica en alguna forma de acotamiento de las tierras comunes, ya sea mediante la privatización o la propiedad pública, con el fin de establecer mecanismos de coerción que garantice que los individuos se comporten de tal manera que protejan el interés común.

Afortunadamente, la mayoría de los seres humanos no está de acuerdo con la teoría económica y, en lugar de ello, desarrollan sus propias maneras de conciliar estas contradicciones entre la individualidad y la adecuación. Ciertos intelectuales conocidos a nivel público, como Elinor Ostrom, la ganadora del Premio Nobel de Economía en 2009 (y la única mujer que obtuvo este galardón), han ampliado nuestros conocimientos respecto a las formas en que intentamos mediar entre estas dos tendencias tan humanas. Lo hacemos a través de las instituciones, descritas como grupos de seres humanos que se organizan voluntariamente para aprovechar los beneficios del esfuerzo individual, a la vez que evitan los inconvenientes provocados por individuos aislados que actúan sin control. Según Ostrom y otros pensadores, los diferentes tipos de acuerdos institucionales (organizaciones formales, normas de trabajo, políticas públicas, para nombrar sólo algunos) surgen orgánicamente para evitar que se produzcan situaciones indeseadas, tales como la tragedia de los comunes. En este número de Land Lines, presentamos las historias de algunas de estas decisiones institucionales que se tomaron para protegernos de nosotros mismos o crear beneficios mutuos. En nuestra entrevista a Summer Waters, del Sonoran Institute (pág. 34), aprendemos acerca de los esfuerzos realizados para promover la economía y proteger la ecología en la cuenca hidrográfica del río Colorado y para reintroducir el flujo de agua dulce en el delta del río.

Recién hemos comenzado a estudiar los sistemas que surgen orgánicamente para administrar los recursos comunes, pero aún sabemos mucho menos sobre la manera de crear dichos recursos. Y esto puede deberse a nuestra tendencia a tratar los recursos comunes como si fueran maná, es decir, como si vinieran del cielo, y no creados por la mano humana. No obstante, según informa Tony Hiss (pág. 26), miles de personas se han unido voluntariamente para crear nuevos recursos comunes: cientos de miles de hectáreas de tierra conservadas para proteger grandes ecosistemas, salvar el hábitat de especies en peligro de extinción, brindar espacios verdes a los habitantes de zonas urbanas muy densas y alcanzar muchos otros objetivos a largo plazo. Desde el punto de vista de los economistas ortodoxos, el mundo se ha vuelto loco. No sólo los individuos que antes actuaban aisladamente ahora lo hacen con el fin de evitar la tragedia de los comunes sino que también están tomando medidas para crear nuevos recursos comunes.

La educación pública es otro de los recursos comunes creados por el hombre, como lo son la mayoría de los bienes públicos. Nos organizamos y autoimponemos tributos para sustentar esta institución de capital importancia y, con el tiempo, debemos revisar las formas como la administramos y mantenemos, al igual que con cualquier otro recurso común. En este número de Land Lines, Daphne Kenyon y Andy Reschovsky ofrecen una mirada a los diferentes tipos de análisis de los desafíos que enfrentan las ciudades para financiar sus escuelas, así como también algunas ideas para abordar dichos problemas (pág. 39). Además, en el artículo sobre las estrategias de las instituciones “ancla” de Beth Dever y otros (pág. 4) también examinamos de qué manera las universidades y los hospitales pueden trabajar junto con los barrios y ciudades a fin de lograr objetivos de colaboración que los beneficie mutuamente.

Para algunos economistas, la creación de nuevos recursos comunes resulta una imposibilidad teórica. En su primer libro, The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups (La lógica de la acción colectiva: Los bienes públicos y la teoría de grupos), Mancur Olson propuso la hipótesis de que las personas soportarán las complicaciones derivadas de actuar conjuntamente sólo si existe un incentivo privado suficiente; además, ningún gran grupo de personas llevará a cabo medidas colectivas a menos que se vea motivado por una ganancia personal significativa (ya sea económica, social o de otro tipo). Evidentemente, se ha producido una colisión entre la teoría y la práctica, y el impacto de la misma es muy profundo y lo seguirá siendo. Tal como señala Hiss en su ensayo sobre conservación de grandes paisajes: “Lo primero que crece no es, necesariamente, el tamaño de la propiedad a proteger, sino la posibilidad de tomar medidas, algunas grandes y otras pequeñas, para marcar una diferencia perdurable en el futuro de la biósfera y sus habitantes, entre ellos la humanidad”.

Sin embargo, esto no termina aquí. En los Estados Unidos, bastión del mercado libre, unos 65 millones de ciudadanos pertenecen a comunidades con un interés común, tales como condominios y comunidades de propietarios, según señala Gerry Korngold (pág. 16). Un 25 por ciento de la nación ha limitado voluntariamente su propia autonomía con el fin de proteger y preservar los intereses comunes. Tal como subraya Korngold, este hecho no hubiera sorprendido a Alexis de Tocqueville, quien describió a los Estados Unidos como “una nación de personas que se agrupan”. En su obra Democracy in America (La democracia en América), de 1831, Tocqueville escribió: “Muchas veces he admirado la gran habilidad con la que los habitantes de los Estados Unidos logran proponerse un objetivo común al esfuerzo de muchos hombres y, como resultado, hacer que dichos hombres se alisten voluntariamente a su concreción”. Tal vez sea el momento de organizar un culto a la acción colectiva para celebrar las cosas increíbles que podemos hacer cuando trabajamos juntos. Es posible que descubramos que las políticas, prácticas, organizaciones e instituciones que creamos con el fin de mediar en nuestra guerra interna entre la individualidad y la adecuación han contribuido más al avance de la humanidad que los logros individuales que solemos celebrar.

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).

Despite the long-term and continuing trend away from central business districts and toward suburban development, a number of factors are motivating recent attention to rail transit. These factors include:

concerns about the negative impact of auto-oriented sprawl desires to reduce air pollution and energy consumption interest in rebuilding urban communities need to provide access and mobility to those without autos desires to save the costs and avoid the impacts of new or widened roadways

Many metropolitan areas in the United States are considering the addition or expansion of light rail and commuter rail systems to link employees with business centers. The land use characteristics of the corridors where transit lines operate have been shown to influence transit ridership, but much of the previous work is more than 20 years old and based on data from a limited number of regions.

Our national research project, conducted for the Transit Cooperative Research Program with Jeffrey Zupan, expands and updates earlier research. We analyzed information on 261 stations on 19 light rail lines in 11 cities, including Baltimore, Cleveland and St. Louis, and 550 stations on 47 commuter rail lines in the six city regions of Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Philadelphia and Washington, DC.

The study shows that light rail and commuter rail serve distinctly different markets and land use patterns. Light rail with its closely spaced stations attracts more riders per station when it is located in denser residential areas. Feeder bus service helps to boost ridership. Light rail can function in regions with a wide range of CBD sizes and employment densities. Commuter rail depends more on park-and-ride lots at stations in low-density, high-income suburban areas farther from the CBDs, which tend to be larger and more dense than those in light rail areas.

Light rail, with its more frequent service, averages about twice as many daily boarders per station as commuter rail, even though light rail is more often found in smaller metropolitan areas. Figure 1 shows that light rail is most effective in attracting passengers close to the CBD. Figure 2 shows that commuter rail attracts the largest number of its riders about 35 miles out from the CBD. In both figures, other factors affecting ridership, except CBD employment density, are held constant.

Because most transit systems emanate from and focus on a region’s CBD, the amount of employment concentrated downtown clearly affects the demand for transit. Figures 1 and 2 also show that ridership increases with CBD density for both light rail and commuter rail. For light rail, the effects of CBD density on ridership are most pronounced for stations within 10 miles of the core, while for commuter rail the larger impacts occur at stations 20 to 50 miles outside the city.

Changes in Employment and Residential Density

CBD employment density (as measured by employment per gross CBD acre) is nearly twice as important for commuter rail ridership as for light rail. Our study shows that a 10 percent increase in CBD employment density produces 7.1 percent more commuter rail riders, but only 4.0 percent more light rail riders. Commuter rail boardings are more strongly influenced by CBD employment density because these systems usually have a single downtown terminal. Higher-density CBDs assure that more jobs are within walking distance of the commuter rail station. Employment density in city centers is less important in light rail regions since they have more stations distributed throughout the CBD.

On the other hand, a 10 percent increase in station area residential density (as measured by number of persons per gross acre within two miles of a station) boosts light rail boardings by 5.9 percent and commuter rail boardings by only 2.5 percent. Throughout the study these effects are measured holding constant transit system characteristics such as parking availability, station distance to the CBD and station area income levels.

Light rail, with its relatively short lines, is most effective in attracting passengers when stations are in higher-density residential areas close to the CBD. Commuter rail ridership rises more slowly with residential density because commuter rail is a high-fare mode, and its higher-income riders tend to live in more expensive, lower-density places. Moreover, the higher speeds and longer distances on commuter rail tend to increase ridership to the CBD from precisely those places outside the city where residential densities tend to be low.

Cost-efficiency and Effectiveness

In this study, cost-efficiency is measured by annual operating costs plus depreciation per vehicle mile. Effectiveness is measured by daily passenger miles per line mile. For light rail, these measures indicate a strong positive relationship with CBD employment size and residential density. A weaker but still significant relationship occurs for CBD employment density and for the line distance from the CBD. This suggests that medium to large cities with higher density corridors work best for light rail. For commuter rail, larger, denser CBDs attract more riders per line mile, but add to the cost per vehicle mile, creating a trade-off between effectiveness and cost-efficiency.

The length of the rail line is important for both light rail and commuter rail. Longer light rail lines are both slightly more cost-efficient and effective, but ridership diminishes beyond 10 miles. Commuter rail lines are much more cost efficient when they are longer, but their effectiveness declines beyond 50 miles.

This summary does not address many other significant factors in rail transit usage and land use patterns, including operating, capital and environmental costs saved as a result of not using other modes of transportation, notably automobiles and buses. Cities considering investment in new or expanded rail systems need to examine carefully all transportation alternatives in a corridor, including site-specific conditions and local preferences. Further, our study makes clear the need to integrate transit planning with land use planning at the earliest possible stage.

___________________________

Judy S. Davis is an urban planner and Samuel Seskin is a senior professional associate with Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas in Portland, Oregon. As a faculty associate of the Lincoln Institute, Seskin also develops and teaches courses linking land use and transportation. This article is derived from a report titled Commuter and Light Rail Transit Corridors: The Land Use Connection. It will be published by the Transit Cooperative Research Program in the summer of 1996 as part of Volume 1 of An Examination of the Relationship Between Transit and Urban Form, TCRP Project H-1.