SHARE
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.
Actualmente se está llevando a cabo en La Habana, Cuba, un programa de estudio de aprovechamiento del suelo y de su valor para fines de facilitar la revitalización física y el desarrollo económico en Cuba. Participan en dicho estudio investigadores del Instituto Lincoln y del Grupo para el Desarrollo Integral de la Capital (GDIC).
Durante la era soviética, la economía cubana estaba caracterizada por un modelo económico de decisiones tomadas “desde arriba”, en el cual los organismos estatales eran los principales actores de la economía y del desarrollo. La planificación era autocrática e inflexible; el comercio dependía principalmente de los países del bloque socialista; la capacidad financiera estaba centralizada en el presupuesto nacional; y no existía un sistema tributario. Las reformas legales, financieras y económicas puestas en marcha desde 1990 han ayudado a crear un entorno institucional conducente al aumento de la eficiencia económica y de la participación cubana en el mercado mundial (ver tabla 1).
Así y todo, la economía de Cuba sigue tropezando con enormes dificultades que han afectado seriamente la sustentación del estándar de vida de sus habitantes, la calidad de los servicios sociales y públicos, y los programas de desarrollo económico en general. Para citar un ejemplo, en 1995 el producto interior bruto (PIB) de la isla se había reducido a la mitad de su valor de 1989, mientras que la capacidad de importación había caído de manera precipitosa, desde unos US$ 8 mil millones a US$ 2 mil millones anuales.
Tabla 1: Resumen de las principales reformas
Apertura del mercado agropecuario a partir de mecanismos de oferta y demanda
El gobierno cubano ha tratado de promover el turismo como la fuente principal de generación rápida de esas divisas tan necesarias. Siendo una isla del mar Caribe, Cuba ofrece atracciones turísticas significativas que abarcan desde magníficas playas hasta el patrimonio arquitectónico del Centro Histórico de La Habana (declarado “Patrimonio de la Humanidad” por la UNESCO), así como otras áreas naturales, históricas y culturales ubicadas a lo largo y ancho del país. Sin embargo, para estimular la industria turística se precisan socios internacionales que emprendan el desarrollo de hoteles, tiendas, restaurantes y la ampliación del aeropuerto. El hecho de que la mayoría de las tierras disponibles para el desarrollo está en manos del Estado, es un elemento crítico de la estrategia cubana para atraer promotores y turistas extranjeros.
El plan gubernamental de poner en marcha su propia industria turística ha mostrado resultados alentadores. Por ejemplo, en el año 1967 la isla recibió a unos 2.000 visitantes, mientras que en 1998 fue visitada por más de 1,4 millones de turistas. Sólo durante los últimos cinco años, un grupo de inversionistas extranjeros ha aumentado sus operaciones en varios sectores económicos de Cuba, particularmente en el sector turístico. Como resultado, se han construido 2.000 nuevas habitaciones hoteleras en La Habana, con lo cual la capacidad total actual alcanza más de 10.700 habitaciones. A nivel nacional hay 31.600 habitaciones hoteleras, y se planea aumentar la capacidad a 40.000 en el transcurso de los próximos dos años. Aproximadamente el 80 por ciento de las nuevas construcciones cubanas están directa o indirectamente relacionadas con el sector turístico. Ciertos estimados indican que la tierra y los inmuebles estatales ya destinados a estos nuevos proyectos representan unos US$ 500 millones. Cabe destacar que este desarrollo se ha logrado en ausencia de un mercado formal del suelo.
Políticas orientadas al suelo para estimular el desarrollo
El suelo ha sido utilizado de varias maneras para incentivar el desarrollo y generar ingresos públicos. Primero que todo, el gobierno cubano lo ha utilizado como su contribución capital en asociaciones conjuntas con promotores internacionales. Por ejemplo, la empresa canadiense VanCuba Holdings, S.A. se asoció a medias con el gobierno cubano en un proyecto de construcción de once hoteles. La participación cubana del 50 % consiste en el aporte del suelo; por su parte, se espera que la compañía canadiense invierta US$ 400 millones. Similares operaciones conjuntas se han llevado a cabo con promotores canadienses, españoles, italianos e israelíes en proyectos variados, principalmente inmobiliarios y turísticos.
Dado que la principal contribución cubana a estas asociaciones internacionales es el suelo, es fundamental verificar que su valor financiero represente el 50 por ciento del capital social del proyecto. Cuando el valor monetario de la tierra aportada ha sido inferior al 50 por ciento, el socio extranjero frecuentemente ha desempeñado un papel crítico para ayudar a su contraparte cubana a solicitar crédito de bancos internacionales o instituciones financieras a fin de compensar la diferencia. Más recientemente, el crédito para asegurar el 50 por ciento de la participación cubana ha provenido directamente del Banco Central de Cuba (a bajas tasas de interés), en vez de entidades bancarias internacionales.
Un segundo mecanismo para estimular el desarrollo, cuyo uso va en aumento, son los arriendos de tierras (leasing) para proyectos comerciales y de oficinas. Esta modalidad cuenta con muchos adeptos puesto que la venta directa de la tierra estatal es posible únicamente en situaciones muy especiales. Los alquileres se negocian según el valor específico de la tierra, y se establecen por 25 años previo acuerdo de las partes negociantes. Además, es posible revisar los contratos de alquiler y prolongarlos por otros 25 años si las partes involucradas en las renegociaciones están de acuerdo sobre los nuevos criterios. Actualmente existen varios proyectos de este estilo con inversionistas extranjeros, y el área estimada de desarrollo en La Habana sobrepasa las 100 hectáreas.
Tercero, el gobierno cubano ha celebrado acuerdos de alquileres directos en tierras estatales en zonas francas que en algunos casos generan alta rentabilidad. Ya unas 120 empresas privadas extranjeras y públicas-privadas se han establecido en dos zonas comerciales de La Habana.
Tanto los arriendos como los alquileres directos del suelo del Estado son importantes fuentes de nuevos fondos que, a su vez, se inyectan en la economía local para mejorar la calidad de vida de las comunidades locales mediante la prestación de servicios sociales (educación y salud), el desarrollo de proyectos económicos, la modernización y ampliación de la infraestructura básica, y la generación de empleos. Como ejemplos del impacto positivo generado por estos ingresos para la ciudad y la comunidad figuran el nuevo Aeropuerto Internacional de La Habana, la creación y el mejoramiento de un sistema telefónico digital, y los proyectos del parque metropolitano en la región del río Almendares.
Otro mecanismo interesante de captura de la plusvalía resultante de las inversiones públicas, es el establecido por la Oficina del Historiador, la entidad pública encargada de promover, financiar y desarrollar el programa de revitalización de La Habana Vieja. Esta oficina ya comenzó a recaudar impuestos directos e indirectos que suman el 35 por ciento de los ingresos de empresas privadas no relacionadas con la Oficina, tales como hoteles, establecimientos comerciales y restaurantes que se han beneficiado de las labores de rehabilitación del distrito histórico. Tales ingresos externos, así como también las entradas generadas por proyectos iniciados por la oficina misma, se utilizan en una especie de fondo rotativo para financiar no sólo inversiones adicionales en el ambiente construido, sino también una variedad de programas sociales entre los que figuran viviendas, hogares para ancianos y actividades educativas y culturales en La Habana Vieja. En 1998 los ingresos totales de la Oficina sobrepasaron los US$ 40 millones, y excedieron de US$ 50 millones en 1999. El gobierno también está negociando otras clases de programas de generación de ingresos para capturar los incrementos del valor del suelo, con el fin de financiar la rehabilitación de las áreas del Paseo del Prado y Rampa en La Habana, así como el proyecto de desarrollo Boca de la Chorrera, en la boca del río Almendares.
Dificultades de aplicación
La aplicación de estas diferentes herramientas de captura de plusvalía no ha sido una tarea fácil. En lo que se refiere a los gravámenes indirectos y directos introducidos en La Habana Vieja, muchos dueños de negocios aducen que sus fuentes de ingresos no son resultado de las labores de mejoramiento de la Oficina del Historiador, y que por tanto no deberían estar obligados a pagar impuestos. Por ejemplo, la empresa petrolera cubana (CUPET) tiene su sede en un área valiosa en el corazón del centro histórico, pero no paga el impuesto. La compañía argumenta que sus fuentes de ingresos (es decir, sus instalaciones y redes de distribución) están situadas fuera del centro, y que por tal motivo no se benefician del proceso de remozamiento.
Los acuerdos de alquiler por 25 años ilustran otro problema que surge del dilema implicado por las “metas a corto plazo” frente a las “metas a largo plazo”, porque los acuerdos no incluyen una actualización periódica de pagos de alquiler. Por una parte, si los pagos se establecen sobre la base del valor y uso existente, las autoridades públicas corren el riesgo de perder considerables recursos financieros que podrían derivarse de estas inversiones y otros cambios en el valor del suelo a lo largo del período de alquiler de 25 años. Sin embargo, si las autoridades intentan capturar el esperado aumento del valor inmediatamente, tendrán dificultades para vender esos costosos proyectos a inversionistas cautelosos.
La falta de un adecuado sistema legal para el desarrollo de bienes raíces y préstamos hipotecarios en Cuba es un obstáculo principal para la puesta en práctica de todos estos instrumentos. Si bien ya existen borradores de nuevas propuestas de leyes inmobiliarias, aún no se han adoptado las leyes que se esperaban introducir el año pasado. Esta situación incierta e impredecible puede entorpecer la formación de sociedades comerciales serias, que por lo general requiere estabilidad, transparencia y visión a largo plazo. Además, esta falta de protección legal puede alejar a promotores de calidad que podrían tener la capacidad de realizar proyectos más sofisticados y de mayor envergadura. Como resultado, el gobierno cubano ha recibido menos propuestas sólidas y ha estado aceptando proyectos menores con promotores internacionales menos establecidos.
Estos proyectos menores son a veces problemáticos por varias razones. Primero que todo, frecuentemente se destinan a las zonas más deseables de La Habana, aun cuando no sean necesariamente apropiados para dichas zonas. Segundo, están obligados a depender de infraestructura existente, dado que no son lo suficientemente grandes como para aportar esa inversión adicional. Tercero, la calidad estética e incluso los servicios básicos de estos nuevos hoteles o apartamentos son algunas veces cuestionables. Dado que estas edificaciones afectan la imagen general de la ciudad, pueden hasta ejercer un efecto negativo y contribuir a la desvalorización de la zona.
Otro problema relacionado es la incertidumbre que deben afrontar los promotores al tratar con nuevas instituciones y políticas que se están negociando dentro del gobierno cubano al mismo tiempo que se están implementando en la calle. Mientras las políticas están siendo objeto de revisión, el gobierno ha introducido una moratoria para nuevos proyectos de desarrollo en ciertas áreas de La Habana y ha retrasado el proceso de negociación de bienes inmobiliarios en general. La inestabilidad y falta de confianza en los organismos y políticas gubernamentales pertinentes conllevan riesgos que desalientan a los inversionistas privados de proyectos comerciales o residenciales a largo plazo. Obviamente, ello perjudica los costos de desarrollo y las tasas de rentabilidad esperadas.
Finalmente, la ausencia de mercados formales dificulta efectuar avalúos del suelo y enturbia las transacciones. Los organismos gubernamentales involucrados en proyectos de desarrollo tienen dos opciones: 1) utilizar los precios administrativos para determinar el valor de alquileres o aportes financieros, aun cuando la base de estos precios puede no reflejar el valor real de los atributos del suelo; o bien, 2) negociar el precio con promotores extranjeros sobre la base de la dinámica de la región en particular. Ambas opciones están limitadas por la carencia de transacciones comerciales continuas e independientes sobre las cuales evaluar los precios reales.
Dilemas de la política del suelo
Si bien es cierto que Cuba ha hecho avances significativos, también es cierto que se está enfrentando a muchos problemas para utilizar la tierra de una manera eficaz para estimular el desarrollo y generar recursos financieros. Por ejemplo, muchos proyectos pequeños y “convenientes” pueden acelerar los desarrollos y la generación de ingresos, pero no tienen la capacidad de crear una visión más amplia para usos futuros del suelo y frecuentemente causan daños a la infraestructura histórica y al ambiente natural. Por otra parte, los proyectos mejores financiados y de más envergadura pueden crear tal visión y mejorar el ambiente, pero son mucho más difíciles de negociar y exigen más tiempo.
Más aún, los proyectos más grandes pueden requerir inversiones cuantiosas en la infraestructura básica dada la deficiente calidad de las condiciones existentes. El gobierno ha carecido de los recursos necesarios para apoyar estas inversiones, lo cual amenaza la sustentación de las nuevas intervenciones urbanas, y los proyectos pequeños no son capaces de afrontar tales cargas. Además, incluso si los proyectos grandes pueden financiar las inversiones en infraestructura, corren el riesgo de convertirse en enclaves exclusivos separados de la comunidad vecina al proporcionar la infraestructura sólo como parte de su propio proyecto. El problema que se plantea aquí es cómo financiar la infraestructura de una manera no excluyente a fin de alentar otros proyectos de desarrollo de menor escala. Para ello se están estudiando tres opciones que actualmente son objeto de un acalorado debate:
Otro aspecto del debate entre los expertos cubanos de planificación y desarrollo se refiere a las ventajas y desventajas de introducir mercados libres de tierras acompañados de un fuerte sistema tributario, en contraposición a seguir manteniendo el manejo público de la tierra estatal. Aquellos que abogan por la idea de introducir los mercados libres de tierras opinan que es un paso necesario al desarrollo, para que así Cuba pueda beneficiarse de los vínculos con la economía mundial y con diferentes clases de inversiones extranjeras. Estos expertos también defienden la idea de desarrollar mecanismos de captura de las plusvalías urbanas.
Por su parte, el grupo que defiende la continuación del sistema actual señala el éxito cubano en aspectos tales como la reducción de la segregación espacial, el equilibrio de los servicios sociales y urbanos, la conservación del patrimonio histórico y otros valores patrimoniales de la ciudad, y la reservación de suficiente tierra para los proyectos de desarrollos futuros. También apunta a la reciente experiencia latinoamericana con los mercados libres, que han redundado en mayor segregación entre ricos y pobres, falta de servicios sociales en las zonas pobres de las ciudades, y aumentos de la violencia urbana, la especulación, y los problemas ambientales.
En resumen, la agenda cubana de desarrollo de suelo tiene dos prioridades: establecer un sistema legal con parámetros claros, e introducir mecanismos rigurosos y transparentes para efectuar los avalúos de inmuebles y suelos. Además, la diversificación de los socios cubanos disponibles para participar en proyectos de desarrollo internacionales ayudará a establecer criterios para una perspectiva de planificación a largo plazo que alentará la realización de proyectos de infraestructura de gran escala y la provisión continua de beneficios a la comunidad. En realidad, todos estos asuntos e inquietudes no son muy diferentes a los desafíos que enfrentan otros países en vías de desarrollo en lo que se refiere a las políticas del suelo. El continuado estudio del valor de la tierra como un instrumento de desarrollo en Cuba ofrece lecciones importantes para investigadores y funcionarios públicos de toda América Latina.
Ricardo Núñez es investigador del Grupo para el Desarrollo Integral de la Capital (GDIC) en La Habana, Cuba. H. James Brown es Presidente y Jefe ejecutivo del Instituto Lincoln, y Martim Smolka es Senior Fellow y Director del Programa para América Latina y el Caribe del Instituto Lincoln. También contribuyó a este artículo Laura Mullahy, asistente de investigación del Programa para América Latina y el Caribe.
En la Web
En la página Web del Instituto Lincoln, www.lincolninst.edu, hay artículos relacionados sobre Cuba, los cuales están disponibles para bajarlos sin costo alguno.
“Participatory Planning and Preservation in Havana: Q & A with Mario Coyula”. Land Lines 9:4 (julio de 1997). (Sólo en inglés.)
Ricardo Núñez. “El suelo urbano como factor de inclusión económica y social: La experiencia de La Habana.” Artículo. 1999. (Sólo en español.)
Ricardo Núñez. “La ciudad de La Habana: Prácticas y perspectivas de captura de plusvalía urbana.” Artículo. 1999. (En inglés y en español.)
Ricardo Núñez y Carlos García Pleyán. “La regeneración en La Habana Vieja: ¿Un modelo de gestión que moviliza las plusvalías urbanas?”. Artículo. 1999. (En inglés y en español.)
Peter Pollock. “Exploring Cuba’s Urban and Environmental Heritage.” Land Lines 10:5 (septiembre de 1998). (Sólo en inglés)
SHARE
From the earliest days of the Republic, civic boosters have prodded American governments to develop large-scale physical facilities—mega-projects, we label them—ranging from canals and railroads in the nineteenth century to rail transit systems and convention centers today. Until the mid-twentieth century, such projects tended to involve modest public expenditures by contemporary standards and they rarely caused significant disruption of the existing urban fabric.
This pattern altered abruptly in the 1950s and early 1960s. Central city economies had, with rare exceptions, stagnated through the Great Depression and World War II, and they continued to do so in the early postwar years. Local business and political leaders concluded that if central cities—particularly those developed prior to the auto age—were ever to thrive again, they would require major surgery. Specifically, they needed to clear slums to provide large downtown sites for redeveloped office districts; to facilitate high-speed automotive movement between suburban and central city locations; and to provide larger airfields with attractive terminals for the nascent commercial aviation industry.
Recognizing that they could not finance these expensive projects with locally generated funds, urban leaders campaigned aggressively for federal assistance, and they were successful in obtaining considerable amounts of funding. We attribute their success mainly to the following factors: (1) public confidence in government was unusually high in the postwar period; (2) business leaders generally accepted the need for government activism to sustain prosperity; and (3) although cities lacked the political clout to secure expensive programs on their own, they were able to participate in much broader coalitions—most notably, those focused on housing (which expanded to include urban renewal) and highways. Urban aviation advocates were less successful, but as aviation traffic boomed they were able to fund new airports and expand old ones by relying primarily on revenues from landing fees and terminal leases.
During the late 1950s and the 1960s these efforts combined to produce an unprecedented wave of urban public investment. While often successful on their own terms, these projects tended to be highly disruptive as well, destroying in particular vast amounts of low-income housing and urban parkland. Project advocates maintained that the public should accept such impacts to advance the greater good. Robert Moses, New York’s famed master builder, never tired of citing a French proverb: “You can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs” (Caro 1974).
During the late 1960s and early 1970s, however, neighborhood activists allied with those involved in the emerging environmental movement against the full panoply of mega-project programs that had come into being during the 1950s. They succeeded not just in blocking large numbers of planned expressways, renewal schemes and airport projects, but also in securing the adoption of numerous statutes, regulations and judicial doctrines, thus strengthening the hands of critics in urban development controversies. For a time it seemed to most observers that the era of mega-project investment in cities was over.
“Do No Harm” Planning
The forces committed to mega-projects have proven highly resilient and adaptive, however. While the character of such investment has changed dramatically since the 1970s, its volume has remained high. Nevertheless, mega-project advocates have had to work within new constraints; they have had to learn the art of making omelets without leaving a residue of broken eggs. We label this art, as exercised in the domain of urban land use, “do no harm” planning. Its essential components are the selection, siting and design of projects to minimize disruptive side effects, and the aggressive mitigation of any harmful impacts that cannot be avoided entirely. Most obviously, governments have ceased clearing slums and building expressways through developed neighborhoods, and only one major new passenger airport—in Denver—has been constructed since the early 1970s.
Public investment in facilities such as rail transit systems, festival retail markets, sports stadiums and arenas, and convention centers has surged. Within the transportation sector, moreover, investment priorities have shifted toward the reconstruction of existing highways, new construction on suburban fringes and airport terminals rather than runway improvements. The great advantage of such projects is that they are relatively easy to site either at some distance from existing development or in older commercial districts that have few preservationist defenders.
Where cities and states have gone forward with major highway and airport projects, they have taken extraordinary steps to minimize social and environmental impacts. The new Denver airport, for example, is on a previously rural 53-square-mile site 25 miles east of downtown. Its location and scale were determined primarily by two considerations: land assembly without the disruption of existing residential enclaves; and future airport operation without significant noise impacts overflowing the airport boundary. Boston’s $14.6 billion Central Artery/Tunnel project, known colloquially as “The Big Dig,” appears very different, in that it is located in the heart of downtown, but it is virtually identical in its do no harm planning orientation. It is almost entirely underground as it passes close to built-up areas (replacing a previous elevated roadway); it has been threaded into the urban fabric without the taking of a single home; and it will add significantly to the city’s parkland.
Common Themes
In addition to do no harm planning, our review of mega-projects built over the past two decades identified the following themes as particularly salient.
Business Support
While insufficient by itself, strong business support has generally been an indispensable condition for mega-project development. Within the business community, leadership has almost invariably come from enterprises with deep local roots, particularly in real estate ownership, development and finance. The strongest supporters of Denver’s new airport, for example, were those who owned property with commercial development potential near the new site; downtown businesses concerned that the city’s existing airport was too small to allow for the region’s continued development; and the banks and financial service firms that had lent money to many of the city’s property owners and developers. Similarly, the most active and effective support group for Boston’s Big Dig has been the Artery Business Committee, a coalition of those who own major buildings adjacent to the artery’s corridor and several major employers with historic roots in downtown Boston.
Public Entrepreneurs
In addition to well-mobilized constituencies, aggressive, deft government officials have been indispensable to the success of recent mega-project proposals. Indeed, it was frequently they who originated project ideas and first sparked the formation of supportive coalitions. Even when others initiated, they commonly took the lead in crafting strategies, tactics and plans; in lobbying for state and federal aid; in securing other types of needed legislation and regulatory approvals; and in dealing with project critics.
Though business groups initiated some projects, they seemed more frequently to “invest” in proposals originated by public entrepreneurs. The business constituents were by no means easy marks, of course. Like venture capitalists in the private sector, they considered a great many ideas brought to them by public entrepreneurs (and others), but invested only in those few that looked particularly good for their enterprises, were to be carried out mainly or entirely at public expense, and had a reasonable chance of securing the myriad approvals required.
Illustratively, Boston’s Big Dig was conceived by Fred Salvucci, a transportation engineer who had become active in battles against planned highway and airport projects during the 1960s and then served as transportation secretary for twelve years under Governor Michael Dukakis. During the first Dukakis administration (1975–1979) the main constituencies for a new harbor tunnel (business) and for depressing the central artery (neighborhood and environmental groups) were at loggerheads. While temporarily out of office from 1979 to 1983, however, Salvucci concluded that the politically feasible strategy might be to marry these projects, while also relocating the tunnel to an alignment far from a neighborhood that it had historically threatened. This strategy in fact resolved the local controversy, and prepared the way for a successful campaign for massive federal aid, led again by Salvucci with critical business support.
Denver Mayor Federico Peña broke a similar type of logjam that had persisted for years over whether to expand Denver’s existing Stapleton Airport or build a new facility on a large site outside the city’s borders. Concluding that the obstacles, both political and environmental, to expanding Stapleton were insuperable, but that city ownership and operation of any new airport remained a critical objective, he negotiated successfully with adjacent Adams County for a massive land annexation. To achieve this objective, he accepted conditions protecting county residents from significant airport noise and guaranteeing Adams County most of the tax benefits that would flow from economic development around the new airport. With local agreements in hand he, like Salvucci, then led a successful campaign for special federal assistance.
Mitigation
Do no harm plans avoid substantial neighborhood and environmental disruption but it is impossible to build a mega-project with no negative side effects. The commitment of do no harm planning is to ameliorate such impacts as much as possible, and to offset them with compensatory benefits when full direct mitigation cannot be achieved. The boundary between mitigating harm and providing net benefits to protesting groups is often indistinct, however, so the norm of mitigation provides leverage as well for skilled activists whose demands are at times tangential to the mega-projects whose budgets they seek to tap. Mega-project champions in turn reflected on the fate of such projects as New York City’s proposed Westway, which failed because of what seemed at first a minor legal challenge. They were deathly afraid of litigation and were frequently willing to make very expensive concessions in return for agreements by critics not to sue.
During permitting for the Big Dig, for example, Boston’s Conservation Law Foundation (CLF), a group whose signature strategy was litigation for environmental purposes, threatened to sue unless the state committed to accompany the highway project with a multi-billion dollar set of rail transit investments, mainly for expansion. CLF’s rationale was that the transit projects would prevent the new road from filling up with traffic, which in turn would generate more air pollution. Modeling done for the project (as well as data from other regions) showed that the Big Dig would not in fact have significant air pollution effects, and that investing in rail transit extensions would be a particularly inefficient way to offset pollution effects if they did occur. Nonetheless, both Democratic and Republican state administrations acquiesced to CLF’s demands because they did not want to risk litigation, which at the very least threatened project delays and might also have imperiled the breadth of local consensus in support of the Big Dig.
Bottom-up Federalism
A naïve observer of American politics might assume that the federal government distributes grants to achieve national goals. In fact, however, the grantor-grantee relationship is usually much more complicated than that. Recipient jurisdictions are typically active participants in the coalitions that bring new programs into being and provide them with critical support each budget season. The programs of aid for mega-project investment that we examined were all distinguished more by their openness to local initiative than their sharp definition of national purpose. If grantee jurisdictions had a great deal of influence collectively on program structure, moreover, they had even more when it came to projects, and they were able to exercise it individually.
Every project we studied was initiated by subnational officials and interest groups, and it was they who took the lead at every stage in the decision process. While limited in their discretion by federal program rules, they were alert as well to opportunities for securing waivers, statutory amendments and add-on funds, with the assistance of their congressional delegations. Stated another way, when federal aims are diffuse and weakly defended, principal-agent theory (as applied to the intergovernmental system) needs to be read bottom-up rather than top-down.
High and Rising Costs
Do no harm designs and related mitigation agreements have tended to produce projects that are vastly more expensive than their historic predecessors. According to Brian Taylor (1995), the average cost per centerline mile of urban freeways rose by more than 600 percent in real terms from the 1960s to the 1980s, and costs were even more extreme in some of the mega-projects we examined. Whereas Taylor found that urban freeways cost on average about $54 million per centerline mile (in 2002 dollars) in the 1980s, for example, the Big Dig cost $1.9 billion per centerline mile. Judith Grant Long (2002) reports in a similar vein that the average cost of new stadiums and arenas more than quadrupled in real terms from the 1950s to the 1990s, and we have calculated that light rail development costs increased by nearly two-fifths from the 1980s to the 1990s.
Both older and more recent projects have been marked by a consistent pattern of substantial cost increases between authorization and completion. The projected cost of Boston’s Big Dig, for example, has roughly tripled in real terms since its approval by Congress as an interstate highway project in 1987. The cost of Denver International Airport more than doubled from the late 1980s, when it received voter approval and its federal funding commitments, to its completion six years later.
While a full study of this issue was beyond the scope of our work, we judge that the consistent pattern of underestimation has two primary causes. First, project advocates have very strong incentives to estimate optimistically as they seek political commitments of support. Second, mega-projects are often so complex—both technically and in terms of the mitigation agreements that will often prove necessary to keep them on track—that early cost estimates are typically little more than guesses within very broad ranges.
Locally Painless Project Funding
The hallmark of successful mega-project financing is that projects should appear costless, or nearly so, to the great majority of local voters. The easiest way to achieve this result is to rely on funding from higher-level governments. Where such aid is unavailable or insufficient, the challenge is to identify other sources of revenue to which local voters are generally insensitive—which means, above all, avoiding local property and income taxes and spreading the burden beyond host city residents.
This challenge became increasingly salient after 1970 with rising antitax sentiment, the end of federal renewal aid, and the surge in capital spending for such facilities as stadiums, arenas and convention centers, for which federal aid was only rarely available. In the growing domain of mass transit, moreover, federal matching ratios have tended to decline since 1980.
The revenue strategies adopted to deal with these challenges have been varied and ingenious. New terminals and runways at major airports have been funded largely by increased landing fees, lease payments, and (since the early 1990s) ticket surcharges authorized by the federal government but imposed locally. Stadiums, arenas and convention centers are commonly funded by taxes that fall mainly on nonresidents, such as taxes on hotel rooms, car rentals and restaurant bills. Where broad-based taxes have been unavoidable, the preferred method has been incremental add-ons to sales taxes, which typically require voter approval. Voters have often said no, but sales tax increases provide large amounts of revenue when they are adopted—and when they are not, project advocates routinely come back with revised plans. In Los Angeles and Seattle, for example, transit advocates responded to referendum defeats by scaling back their rail plans and allocating some of the projected revenue to bus service and local road improvements.
Looking to the Future
Almost two decades ago, when New York City’s ambitious Westway project died even though its backers had helped pioneer the do no harm planning and design paradigm, then-Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan wondered whether it had become so difficult to build public projects that “Central Park could not conceivably be built today” (Finder 1985). Recent history suggests, however, that the mega-project impulse remains strong. The pertinent question is not whether the U.S. political system can still generate mega-projects but whether the projects that go forward are typically worth their costs to taxpayers.
In general, economists are skeptical about the cost-effectiveness of the most prominent mega-projects, from the Big Dig to the scores of rail transit systems, professional sports facilities and convention centers, built over the past 25 years. Project advocates invariably retort that the economists miss intangible project benefits such as fostering community pride and (in the case of transit, particularly) strengthening the likelihood of smart growth practices in new development. The national coalitions in support of highway and airport improvements, which economists tend to rate more favorably than other types of projects, have argued vociferously that current environmental rules and opportunities for critics to litigate are too onerous and should be relaxed.
There is no easy resolution of these issues because they involve tradeoffs between important, deeply held values. However, our review of a half-century of public works projects in urban areas has left us with three clear impressions. First, states and localities should be required to bear half or more of the cost of projects they undertake, because great windfalls of earmarked money from higher levels of government tend to overwhelm serious local deliberation. Second, strong environmental regulation helps ensure that local pro-growth coalitions do not leave fouled environments or devastated neighborhoods in their wake. Finally, while referenda are in general a flawed instrument of policy making, the evidence seems to suggest that the requirement of voter approval for major local projects tends to have a salutary effect on the bargaining between business groups that stand to benefit financially from the proposed investments and the more general interests of local taxpayers and residents.
_____________________
Alan Altshuler and David Luberoff are the coauthors of Mega-Projects: The Changing Politics of Urban Public Investment. Altshuler is the Stanton Professor of Urban Policy at the Kennedy School of Government and the Graduate School of Design (GSD) at Harvard University, and director of the Kennedy School’s Taubman Center for State and Local Government. Luberoff is the Taubman Center’s associate director and an adjunct lecturer at GSD.
References
Caro, Robert A. 1974. The power broker: Robert Moses and the fall of New York. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Finder, Alan. 1985. Westway: A road that was paved with mixed intentions, losing confidence and opportunities. New York Times, September 22, sec. 4, 6.
Long, Judith Grant. 2002. Full count: The real cost of pubic funding for major league sports facilities and why some cities pay more to play. Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University.
Taylor, Brian. 1995. Public perceptions, fiscal realities, and freeway planning: The California case.
SHARE
Past trends will not foretell the future, but charting how state and local finances weathered the 2001 recession suggests viable ways to navigate going forward. Lacking the deficit finance ability of the federal government, states and localities must set a spending course based on anticipated taxes and revenues. An unexpected crisis-like the stock bubble burst at the beginning of this century and the subsequent economic slowdown-that throws budgets into fiscal chaos requires such unpopular bailouts as tax increases or cuts in services and welfare. Did that happen?
Participants at a Lincoln Institute-sponsored conference in March 2007 gathered at the Urban Institute in Washington DC, to discuss the recession and share findings on how states and localities determined various actions and policies to address its impacts. This conference, titled “State and Local Finances after the Storm: Is Smooth Sailing Ahead?”, was also hosted by the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center, and by the Kellogg School of Management and the Institute for Policy Research, both at Northwestern University.
Municipalities around the country face a daunting fiscal crisis. Federal stimulus assistance has expired, and many states have made significant cuts in aid to municipalities. Meanwhile property values have declined 31 percent since their 2006 peak according to the S&P/Case-Shiller national home price index.
It will take several years to know how this historic decline will affect property tax revenues, because changes in property tax bills significantly lag changes in market values. However, cities faced declines in general fund revenues of 2.5 percent in 2009, and approximately 3.2 percent declines in 2010 (Hoene 2009; Hoene and Pagano 2010). Municipal responses to revenue shortfalls have included making cuts to personnel (71 percent of cities), delaying or cancelling capital projects (68 percent), and making across the board cuts (35 percent) (McFarland 2010).
To avoid further cuts, municipalities will need to raise additional revenues. But with anti-tax sentiment running high, many cities and towns may try to avoid raising tax rates and look instead to increased reliance on fees and other alternative revenue sources. One alternative that has attracted the attention of many local officials recently is payments in lieu of taxes (PILOTs) by nonprofit organizations.
PILOTs are voluntary payments made by tax-exempt nonprofits as a substitute for property taxes. These payments typically result from negotiations between local government officials and individual nonprofits, but the exact arrangements vary widely. PILOTs can be formal, long-term contracts, routine annual payments, or irregular one-time payments. The payments can go into a municipality’s general fund, or be directed to a specific project or program. PILOTs are most frequently made by hospitals, colleges, and universities, but also by nonprofit retirement homes, low-income housing facilities, cultural institutions, fitness centers, and churches. Some such payments are not even called PILOTs, but are know as “voluntary contributions” or “service fees.”
Since 2000, PILOTs have been used in at least 117 municipalities in at least 18 states (Kenyon and Langley 2010). These payments are concentrated in the Northeast, and especially in Massachusetts where they have been made in 82 out of 351 municipalities (figure 1). It is hard to make definitive statements about trends in the use of PILOTs, because there is no comprehensive source that tracks them, but press accounts suggest growing interest in PILOTs since the early 1990s, with a noticeable uptick in recent years. Major multiyear agreements have recently been reached in Pittsburgh and Baltimore; commissions have studied PILOTs in Boston, New Orleans, and Providence; and many smaller municipalities have reached new agreements with local charities.
The Revenue Potential of PILOTs
The revenue potential of PILOTs varies across municipalities because of large differences in the impact of the charitable property tax exemption on their tax bases. Figure 2 shows that in 23 large U.S. cities the value of tax-exempt nonprofit property as a share of total property value ranged from 10.8 percent in Philadelphia to 1.9 percent in Memphis and El Paso. Similarly, a fiscal year 2003 study of 351 municipalities in Massachusetts found that if the tax exemption for charitable and educational nonprofits were removed, these organizations would account for more than 10 percent of the property tax levy in 18 municipalities and between 2.5 and 10 percent in another 68, but less than 1 percent of the tax levy in 179 municipalities (McArdle and Demirai 2004).
Since nonprofit property tends to be highly concentrated in a relatively small number of municipalities, especially central cities and college towns, PILOTs have the potential to be a very important revenue source for some municipalities, even if they are unlikely to play a significant role in financing local government in the majority of cities and towns. Table 1 looks at PILOTs in ten municipalities where they rarely account for more than 1 percent of total revenues, but the dollar figures are often significant.
The impact of the charitable property tax exemption on municipal budgets also depends on the degree of reliance on property taxes as a revenue source. Local governments with a heavier reliance on sales and excise taxes, user fees, or state aid are in a better position to deal with forgone property tax revenues through those other sources.
Collaboration on PILOT Agreements
In seeking PILOT agreements, local officials sometimes resort to adversarial pressure tactics, which can backfire and jeopardize important relationships between municipalities and nonprofits. A more collaborative approach is usually more successful when local officials work to build genuine support among nonprofits for a PILOT program that is rooted in shared interests and mutual dependence for each other’s long-term success.
Many large nonprofits like hospitals and universities are quite immobile, and other smaller nonprofits may be committed to serving their local communities even if they could relocate with relative ease. The long-term success of these organizations depends on the municipality’s success. Because population loss, crime, and crumbling infrastructure can imperil a nonprofit’s future, having a local government with the capacity to provide quality public services is in its own self-interest.
Similarly, nonprofits are often major employers and provide services and activities that attract people to a city and improve the quality of life for local residents. Thus, the success of these organizations is also crucial for a municipality’s future. Even if the nonprofits are tax-exempt, their presence can significantly expand the local tax base by attracting businesses and homeowners.
Recognition of these shared interests by both sides is crucial to reaching sustainable PILOT agreements. Private conversations between high-ranking municipal and nonprofit officials can help break down barriers that sometimes block PILOTs. To make the case for PILOTs, municipalities often appeal to the nonprofits’ sense of fairness and community responsibility—arguing that it is fair for nonprofits to pay for the cost of public services they consume, and that a contribution will directly benefit the community.
These conversations should also touch on what the nonprofits need for their future success. In practice, municipalities are often most successful in obtaining PILOTs when nonprofits need something from the local government, such as building permits or zoning changes. The quid pro quo nature of these agreements is often viewed negatively—as a form of extortion or special treatment. However, accommodating these requests is often in a municipality’s own interest.
For major nonprofit development projects, a shortened approval process with less red tape can cut overall costs significantly, and such discussions can result in more creative arrangements. For example, as part of a 20-year PILOT agreement with Clark University, the City of Worcester, Massachusetts agreed to work with the university to convert a short section of a street into a pedestrian area.
When local officials use more aggressive tactics to obtain PILOTs, such as trying to shame nonprofits into making payments or threatening to challenge their tax-exempt status in court, the organizations may become defensive and less willing to cooperate. Charitable nonprofits have a strong record of defending their property tax exemptions, so such divisive tactics are likely to leave a municipality with no PILOT, potentially significant legal fees, and a damaged reputation.
Problems with PILOTs
PILOTs have the potential to provide crucial revenue for municipalities with large nonprofit sectors, but there are many problems with these payments compared to more conventional taxes and fees.
First, at the same time that municipalities face a fiscal crisis caused by the recession, nonprofits face their own fiscal crisis due to declining endowment values and donations. In addition, government contracts—a major funding source for health and human service nonprofits—were cut, and some government entities are delaying contracts or payments. A 2009 survey found that 80 percent of nonprofit organizations were experiencing fiscal stress in the wake of the recession (Center for Civil Society Studies 2009). To nonprofits facing uncertain financial futures, it appears unfair for local governments to begin requesting PILOTs at this time (National Council of Nonprofits 2010).
Second, some degree of horizontal and vertical inequity in PILOT programs is almost inevitable, because their voluntary nature means there is no way to ensure that nonprofits with similar property values make comparable PILOTs. For example, even with Boston’s long-standing PILOT program, the four largest universities in the city made very different contributions in fiscal year 2009. Boston University paid $4,892,138 (8.53 percent of what it would pay in property taxes if taxable); Harvard University paid $1,996,977 (4.99 percent); Boston College paid $293,251 (1.92 percent); and Northeastern University paid only $30,571 (0.08 percent).
Third, PILOTs are a limited and frequently unreliable revenue source, rarely accounting for more than 1 percent of total revenues. This limited revenue potential must be weighed against some potentially significant costs associated with reaching PILOT agreements, such as upfront administrative costs, time spent by high-ranking officials negotiating agreements, or costs to obtain accurate assessments of exempt properties. PILOTs can also be an unreliable revenue source from one year to the next if they rely on short-term agreements.
Finally, the process used to reach PILOT agreements is often contentious and secretive, with contributions determined in an ad hoc manner lacking objective criteria. A collaborative approach can make PILOT requests less controversial, but reliance on private conversations also makes the process less transparent.
Systematic Programs to Mitigate Problems
Many of these problems with PILOTs can be mitigated if municipalities set up a systematic program that does not rely solely on case-by-case negotiation, especially for municipalities with a large number of nonprofits. A framework that applies to all organizations can provide guidance and bring consistency to the negotiations with individual nonprofits. The recommendations of Boston’s PILOT Task Force provide a concrete example (box 1).
Baltimore, Maryland: The city reached a $20 million six-year PILOT agreement with hospitals and universities in June 2010, with $5.4 million to be paid in each of the first two years. In return, the city dropped a proposed $350 fee per dorm and hospital bed, and protected hospitals and universities from increases in telecommunications and energy tax rates over the next six years (Walker and Scharper 2010).
Boston, Massachusetts: Beginning in January 2009, a task force of representatives from nonprofits, city government, business, labor, and the community met with a goal of making the city’s existing PILOT program more consistent. The final report has recommendations on key features of a systematic PILOT program: only nonprofits with property values exceeding a $15 million threshold are included in the program; the target PILOT for each institution is equal to 25 percent of what it would pay in property taxes, because roughly one-quarter of the city’s budget is devoted to core public services that benefit nonprofits; assessed value is used as a basis for the payments; and guidelines determine which types of services will count for community benefit offsets (City of Boston 2010).
New Orleans, Louisiana: A Tax Fairness Commission has been tasked with recommending changes to make the city’s tax system fairer and to broaden the tax base. While the commission may consider PILOTs, it is particularly interested in narrowing the nonprofit property tax exemption (Nolan 2011). Louisiana has a very broad charitable exemption compared to most states, with all properties owned by eligible institutions exempt from taxation regardless of use, including those not typically tax-exempt such as fraternal organizations, labor unions, and trade associations (Bureau of Government Research 1999).
Providence, Rhode Island: The mayor and city council members sought to increase the amount of PILOTs from the city’s four colleges and universities, but the Commission to Study Tax-Exempt Institutions (2010) recommended against renegotiating the 20-year $48 million PILOT agreement reached in 2003. Instead the commission recommended that the city should focus on forming partnerships with local nonprofits to foster economic growth, and the state should provide full funding of its PILOT program and provide Providence with a share of new income and sales tax revenues that result from nonprofit expansion.
Municipalities interested in establishing a systematic PILOT program should consider the following features.
Use a threshold level of property value or annual revenues to determine which nonprofits to include in the PILOT program. Excluding from PILOT requests certain types of nonprofits, such as religious organizations or small social service providers, may be a popular notion, but it can result in arbitrarily targeting some nonprofits while ignoring others. A more systematic policy with a threshold approach is easy to administer and will exclude only those nonprofits that do not meet the financial threshold to make significant contributions, rather than favor some organizations based on the nature of their activities.
Set a target for contributions that is justified. Instead of reaching an arbitrary dollar figure in negotiations, a target that applies to all nonprofits in the program can reduce horizontal inequities and may raise more revenue by creating the expectation for a certain contribution. For example, the target can be justified by estimating the cost of local public services that directly benefit nonprofits, such as police and fire protection and street maintenance.
Use a basis to calculate suggested payments. Using a basis with the rate set to reach the target contribution will also promote consistency. The fairest basis is the assessed value of exempt property, because the PILOT request will be proportional to the tax savings each organization receives from the property tax exemption. However, municipalities that want to avoid having to accurately assess tax-exempt properties can use another basis, such as the square footage of property or the organization’s annual revenues.
Include community benefit offsets, so nonprofits can reduce their target cash PILOTs in return for providing certain public services for local residents. Charitable nonprofits are typically more willing to provide in-kind services than to make PILOTs, and are well positioned to leverage their existing expertise and resources to provide needed services. For example, nonprofit hospitals can set up free health clinics, and universities can establish after-school tutoring programs. Local officials should be clear and consistent about which services are most needed by local residents and will count for community benefit offsets, and should rely on nonprofits to estimate the cash value of these donated in-kind services.
Reach long-term PILOT agreements. Both municipalities and nonprofits are better off with a long-term approach that allows them to build predictable payments into their respective budgets. Additionally, because PILOT requests can require considerable time to negotiate, both parties will benefit from reaching an agreement and then moving on to focus on their primary missions and perhaps other partnerships to serve the community. Several municipalities have 20- or 30-year PILOT agreements in place.
Alternatives to PILOTs
Given some of the common problems with PILOTs, municipalities with large nonprofit sectors that face revenue shortfalls may want to consider alternative revenue-raising measures.
Increase reliance on traditional user fees or special assessments. This alternative may be the most palatable in the current anti-tax climate. One consideration favoring this option is that nonprofits are typically not exempt from these charges, so increasing reliance on such sources will obtain revenue from a broad group of entities, including tax-exempt nonprofits. For example, a municipality could finance garbage collection through a fee instead of the property tax, or use special assessments to pay for sewer hookups in new subdivisions.
Establish municipal service fees. Some municipalities have carved out specific services that are normally funded through property taxes and instead charged nonprofits a fee for the service. These fees may or may not be assessed solely against tax-exempt nonprofits, and they often use a basis for the payments related to the size of the property rather than the assessed value. For example, Rochester, New York, has a local works charge to fund snowplowing and street repair. It is applied to both taxable and tax-exempt organizations using the property’s street frontage as the basis. Minneapolis, Minnesota, has a street maintenance fee that also uses square footage as the basis, but is only charged to nongovernmental tax-exempt properties.
Develop agreements for needed services. Local officials can decide not to pursue cash PILOTs, but instead develop formal partnerships with nonprofits to provide specific services for local residents or work together to foster economic development. Direct provision of needed services, sometimes known as services in lieu of taxes or SILOTs, will help the fiscal situation of the municipality in the short run, while joint efforts to foster economic development can have significant long-run benefits.
Expand the tax options for municipalities. This final alternative would require a change in state law in many instances. Some municipalities across the country have the ability to levy sales taxes, special excise taxes such as hotel taxes, income taxes, or payroll taxes. But most cities in the Northeast do not have these alternative tax sources, and are especially reliant on the property tax, which can be problematic if the tax-exempt sector is large or growing rapidly.
Conclusion
PILOTs have the potential to provide crucial revenue for municipalities that have a significant share of total property value owned by tax-exempt nonprofits, both as a stop-gap in the current municipal fiscal crisis and in the future. However, PILOTs rarely account for more than 1 or 2 percent of municipal revenues, so expecting these payments to eliminate local government deficits is unrealistic. Furthermore, singling out nonprofits to help address a municipal fiscal crisis is unfair since they face their own challenges due to the recent recession.
Local officials who do want to pursue PILOT agreements must tread carefully if they want to avoid some common pitfalls. First, PILOT requests can be highly contentious when local officials resort to heavy-handed pressure tactics to reach agreements. It is preferable for local officials to work collaboratively with nonprofit leaders to craft PILOT agreements that serve their mutual interests. Second, the voluntary nature of PILOTs limits the revenue potential of these agreements, results in inconsistent treatment of nonprofits, and leads to other problems. Municipalities with a large number of nonprofits can mitigate these problems by establishing a systematic PILOT program to provide guidance and bring consistency to their negotiations with individual nonprofits.
About the Authors
Daphne A. Kenyon is a visiting fellow in the Lincoln Institute’s Department of Valuation and Taxation and principal of D. A. Kenyon & Associates, Windham, New Hampshire.
Adam H. Langley is a research analyst in the Lincoln Institute’s Department of Valuation and Taxation and a master’s student in economics at Boston University.
References
Bureau of Government Research. 1999. Property tax exemption and assessment administration in Orleans parish. New Orleans, LA.
Center for Civil Society Studies. 2009. Impact of the 2007-09 Economic Recession on Nonprofit Organizations. Communique No. 14. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University for Policy Studies. June 29.
City of Boston. 2010. Mayor’s PILOT task force: Final report and recommendations. December.
Commission to Study Tax-Exempt Institutions. 2010. A call to build the capital city partnership for economic growth: Report to the Providence City Council from the Commission to Study Tax-Exempt Institutions. Providence, RI. November.
Hoene, Christopher W. 2009. City budget shortfalls and responses: projections for 2010-2012. Washington, DC: National League of Cities.
Hoene, Christopher W. and Michael A. Pagano. 2010. Research brief: City fiscal conditions in 2010. Washington, DC: National League of Cities.
Kenyon, Daphne A. and Adam H. Langley. 2010. Payments in lieu of taxes: Balancing municipal and nonprofit interests. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Lipman, Harvy. 2006. The value of a tax break. The Chronicle of Philanthropy 19(4): 13.
McArdle, Regina, and Donna Demirai. 2004. A study of charitable and educational property tax exemptions. City and Town, January. Boston: Massachusetts Department of Revenue, Division of Local Services.
McFarland, Christiana. 2010. State of America’s cities survey on jobs and the economy. Washington, DC: National League of Cities.
National Council of Nonprofits. 2010. State budget crises: Ripping the safety net held by nonprofits. Washington DC. March 16.
Nolan, Bruce. 2011. N.O. Tax Fairness Commission begins rethinking property taxes. The Times-Picayune. February 3.
Walker, Andrea K., and Julie Scharper. 2010. Baltimore City Council committee backs $15 million in new taxes; deal with hospitals and universities announced for $20 million more. Baltimore Sun. June 10.
