Urban land management policies and land market operations have taken on greater status in the debate on urban public policy in Latin America, and they are given increased attention in academic research and the development agendas of many countries in the region. Over the past 10 years the Lincoln Institute’s Program on Latin America and the Caribbean has supported a network of Latin American scholars and practitioners who have developed seminars, promoted research, organized public debates, consulted with decision makers and published their findings on these timely issues. Members of this network met at a conference in Buenos Aires in April 2004 to assess their activities and prepare this summary declaration of core land policy issues crucial to the search for more sustainable urban development programs in the future.

Urban land policy in Latin America and the ways that land markets operate tend to produce cities that are economically unequal, politically and socially exclusionary, spatially segregated and environmentally unsustainable. The consequences of these policies can be seen in the high and often irrational prices for land, due in part to the absence of effective urban land management practices.

The Current Situation

Land markets are structurally imperfect. However, the functioning of urban land markets depends on social relations, just as the outcomes of land market operations affect those relations, making it both possible and necessary to influence the markets. Instead of removing the imperfections, many instruments and policies have in fact helped to distort urban land market operations even further. Moreover, many established policies have kept the “rules of the game” in urban real estate unchanged, and apparently untouchable.

A more comprehensive reading of the problem reveals that, rather than being the result of inconsistent rationalization, the current dysfunctional land market is the result of missed opportunities for socially sustainable development in Latin American cities. Yet there are promising and innovative alternatives that can overcome the existing bottlenecks evident in inadequate and destructive national government policies, the enduring difficulties in financing urban development, and poor management practices.

One of the most glaring negative outcomes of the current situation is the relative persistence, weight and importance of informal urban land markets dominated by many exclusionary practices, illegal titling, lack of urban services, and other problems. Deregulation in places that should be regulated (poor outlying areas on the urban fringe), overregulation of wealthy regulated areas, and privatization policies that disregard social criteria are factors that help to drive these negative processes, particularly the spatial concentration of the urban poor. Although the majority of regularization programs are well-intended, they instead cause perverse effects, including increased land costs for the poorest sectors.

Traditional urban planning processes and urban standards have lost importance and effectiveness as instruments for guiding urban development, especially the existing mechanisms for land management. Yet this situation offers opportunities to think about innovative ways to deal with land management and urban planning strategies. This opportunity has already been seized in some places, where new experiments and proposals are causing intense debates by questioning the predominant traditional approaches.

Creating new practices within this framework requires making one unavoidable step: rethinking urban land taxation by incorporating new methods and keeping an open mind regarding alternative fiscal instruments that must be intended as tools to redirect current urban development and discipline the operation of the urban land market. These new tools should not only collect funds in order to build infrastructure and provide urban services, but also contribute to a more equitable distribution of benefits and costs, especially those associated with the urbanization process and the return of recovered land value increments to the community.

Proposals for Action

Recognize the indispensable role of the government. It is critical that the government (from local to national levels) maintains an active role in promoting urban development. The local level should be more committed to structural changes in land management, while the national level should actively foster such local initiatives. Government must not ignore its responsibility to adopt urban land market policies that recognize the strategic value of land and the specific characteristics of how land markets operate, in order to promote the sustainable use of the land by incorporating both social and environmental objectives and benefiting the most vulnerable segments of the urban population.

Break the compartmentalization of fiscal, regulatory and legal authorities. Lack of cooperation among local authorities is responsible for major inefficiencies, ineffective policies, waste of scarce resources and inadequate public accountability. Furthermore, incongruent actions by different public authorities send misleading signals to private agents and create uncertainties if not opportunities for special interests to subvert government plans. The complexity and scale of the challenges posed by the urban social reality of Latin American cities require multilateral actions by numerous stakeholders to influence the operation of urban land markets (both formal and informal), thus insuring the achievement of joint objectives: promoting sustainable and fair use of land resources; reducing land prices; producing serviced land; recognizing the rights to land by the urban poor; and sharing the costs and benefits of urban investment more evenly.

These authorities must also coordinate urban development policies with land taxation policies. They should promote a new urban vision with legislation that recognizes the separation of building rights from land ownership rights, with the understanding that land value increments generated from building rights do not belong exclusively to landowners. Urban managers must also devise creative mechanisms whereby these land value increments may be mobilized or used to produce serviced land for low-income social sectors, thereby offsetting urban inequalities.

Recognize the limits of what is possible. Transforming the current regulatory framework that governs the use of urban land requires new legal and urbanistic thinking that recognizes that inequalities and socio-spatial exclusion are intrinsic to the predominant urban development model. Even within the current model there is substantial room for more socially responsible policies and government accountability. Urban regulations should consider the complexity of land appreciation processes and enforce effective traditional principles such as those that restrain the capacity of government agencies to dispose of public resources or proscribe the “unjustified enrichment” of private landowners.

Break vicious cycles. Alternatives to existing regularization programs are needed to break the vicious cycle of poverty that current programs help to perpetuate. It is important to recognize that these programs are only a stopgap measure and that urbanization, housing and land taxation policies must also be integrated into the process. Reliance on housing subsidy policies, although inevitable, can be nullified if there are no mechanisms to prevent these subsidies from being translated into an increase in land prices. City officials should give priority to the creation of more serviced land rather than new regularization programs, since the right to a home is a social right to occupy a viable “habitat” with dignity. It is also important to understand that the low production of serviced land per se contributes to withholding the supply and, therefore, to higher prices affecting all aspects of urban development.

Furthermore, individual solutions (such as plot-by-plot titling processes or case-by-case direct subsidies to individual families) ultimately result in more costs for society as a whole than broader, collective solutions that incorporate other aggregate values such as public spaces, infrastructure investment and other mechanisms to strengthen social integration. Many Latin American countries have witnessed subsidized housing programs, often supported by multilateral agencies, where the land component is overlooked or dismissed. Such programs seek readily available public land or simply occupy land in intersticial areas of the city. This disregard of a broader land policy compromises the replicability, expansion and sustainability of these housing programs on a larger scale.

Rethink the roles of public and private institutions. Land management within a wide range of urban actions, from large-scale production of serviced land for the poor to urban redevelopment through large projects, including facelift-type actions or environmental recovery projects, requires new thinking about how public institutions responsible for urban development can intervene through different types of public-private associations. Redeveloping vacant land and introducing more flexibility in the uses and levels of occupancy can play a crucial role here, provided such projects fall under the strategic guidelines of public institutions, are subject to monitoring by citizens, and incorporate a broadly shared and participatory vision of urban development.

Showcase projects such as El Urbanizador Social (The Social Urbanizer) in Porto Alegre, Brazil, the Nuevo Usme housing project in Bogotá, Colombia, and that country’s value capture legislation are examples of sensible and creative efforts that recognize the importance of adequate urban land management and new thinking on the role of land, particularly the potential of land value as an instrument for promoting more sustainable and equitable development for the poor in our cities. Creative and balanced new thinking is also exemplified by the joint ventures of public land and private capital in Havana, Cuba, with value increments captured for upgrading densely populated historic areas.

Empower the role of land taxation in public finance to promote urban development. National, state or provincial and local governments must share responsibility for promoting property taxation as an adequate and socially meaningful method of financing and fostering urban development. The property tax should be sensitive and responsive to Latin American cities that have a strong legacy of marked economic and socio-spatial differences. There may be good reasons to tax land at a higher rate than buildings, in a rational and differentiated manner, especially in outlying areas subject to urban speculation and lands offered ex ante to low-income sectors of society (making certain that paying the tax also helps to build citizenship in these sectors). As already noted, it is also critical to create innovative fiscal instruments appropriate to special situations and other methods for capturing the value generated.

Educate stakeholders in the promotion of new policies. All actors involved in these processes, from judges to journalists, from academics to public officials and their international mentors, need in-depth training and education in the operation of land markets and urban land management in order to achieve the above objectives. We must identify the “fields of mental resistance,” particularly in urban and economic thinking and in the legal doctrines that represent the obstacles to be overcome. We must recognize, for example, that an “informal right” exists and operates in many areas to legitimize land transactions socially, if not legally, and to create networks and spaces of solidarity and integration. It is urgent that we take steps to introduce these themes and proposals into political agendas at the various government levels, in political parties, social organizations, academia and the mass media.

Latin American Network

Pedro Abramo, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil

Oscar Borrero, Bogotá, Colombia

Gonzalo Cáceres, Santiago, Chile

Julio Calderón, Lima, Perú

Nora Clichevsky, Buenos Aires, Argentina

Claudia De Cesare, Porto Alegre, Brasil

Matilde de los Santos, Montevideo, Uruguay

Diego Erba, São Leopoldo, Brasil

Edésio Fernandes, London, England

Ana Raquel Flores, Asunción, Paraguay

Fernanda Furtado, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil

Alfredo Garay, Buenos Aires, Argentina

Silvia García Vettorazzi, Guatemala City, Guatemala

Ana Maria González del Valle, Lima, Perú

Samuel Jaramillo, Bogotá, ColombiaCarmen Ledo, Cochabamba, Bolivia

Mario Lungo, San Salvador, El Salvador

María Mercedes Maldonado, Bogotá, Colombia

Carlos Morales Schechinger, Mexico City, Mexico

Laura Mullahy, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USARicardo Núñez, Havana, Cuba

Sonia Rabello de Castro, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil

Eduardo Reese, Buenos Aires, Argentina

Francisco Sabatini, Santiago, Chile

Martim Smolka, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA

Alvaro Uribe, Panama City, Panama

Ricardo Vanella, Córdoba, Argentina

Maria Clara Vejarano, Bogotá, Colombia

Isabel Viana, Montevideo, Uruguay

As a city grows in size and building density, improvements to the land supporting the new development are usually part of the growth process. However, the combination of demand for additional construction sites and the limited amount of physical land available for development often results in land price increases.

This land scarcity is caused by three primary factors: the ability of landowners to retain serviced land from the market (attributed to a concentration of land ownership and legal and other institutional constraints); difficulties in accessing areas not yet prepared for occupation due to a lack of infrastructure; and restrictions imposed by zoning. Each of these factors has its own dynamics, but they are not necessarily present at the same time. Such is the case in Brazilian cities, particularly São Paulo, where these restrictive factors do not always operate in the same way with regard to land price.

For example, building regulations may reduce the land price of individual plots, but increase the overall price when the regulations affect all plots and thus restrict housing supply. A large stock of vacant land controlled by a few owners can cause price increases, while the lack of accessibility can result in lower prices. Land price also depends on the nature of the land regulation. As the city grows, the greater demand for buildable urban land generally results in added values if the existing infrastructure supports a more intense occupation of land and the zoning regulations (or changes thereto) also permit higher building density.

To examine these issues, we must consider first how the investment in infrastructure that provides or intensifies the means of access and use of land is financed; and second how the benefits and costs from the land improvements are distributed. Generally the cost of public services (e.g., streets, bridges, sewers, lighting, water) is paid with public funds, whereas the improvement or added value to the land created by the public investment in infrastructure, with few exceptions, is reaped by the owners of the improved property entirely free of charge.

Increases in property value also may result from simple changes in the use of land that is already accessible, for example when land previously considered rural is redefined as urban. Changes in potential densities due to new zoning regulations can create great benefits for the affected properties, although in this case as in the previous one future pressure on the infrastructure will require substantial public investment.

The Legal Framework

Owners of improved property in Brazil, as in most countries, traditionally appropriated the added value generated by public sector investment and zoning changes. The notion that owners should not be the only beneficiaries of such improvements was introduced in Brazil gradually during the 1970s, and this principle was incorporated in articles 182 and 183 of the 1988 Federal Constitution. These articles were subsequently regulated by Federal Law No. 10,257 of 2001, also known as the Urban Development Act or City Statute (Estatuto da Cidade).

Since 1988 urban development has been a matter of federal law. In practice, the federal legis-lation ratified the principle of the social function of urban land ownership and the separation of the right to own land from the right to build. Based on the 2001 act, the City of São Paulo approved its Strategic Master Plan in 2002 and Land Use Law 13,885 in 2004. These laws introduced the mechanism of Charges for Additional Building Rights (Outoga Onerosa do Direito de Construir–OODC), established minimum, basic, and maximum coefficients of land use (or floor area ratios), and limited the supply of buildable area. These tools, utilized together, enabled the municipality to improve land management efficiency, promote socially desirable outcomes, and increase revenues.

The minimum coefficient or floor area ratio (FAR) refers to the minimum use expected from a plot to comply with its social function; the basic FAR refers to the buildable area that any owner has the right to develop by virtue of ownership; and the maximum FAR is the amount of development that could be supported by the existing in-frastructure and zoning regulations. The charges associated with the OODC are imposed on the difference between the maximum FAR and the basic FAR of a plot.

The Administration of Building Rights

The OODC is the monetary compensation paid by those who receive new building rights (buildable area) from the government. This development con-cession (provided by articles 28, 29, 30, and 31 of Federal Law 10,257 of 2001 and defined in articles 209 to 216 of the 2002 Strategic Master Plan) is one of the regulatory instruments used to administer building rights in the city, except in areas designated for large-scale urban operations that use a special legal instrument to encourage public-private interventions (Biderman, Sandroni, and Smolka 2006).

The basic FAR of land use established in 2004 varies between 1 and 2, depending on the area of the city considered. The maximum FAR can be 1, 2, 2.5, or 4, also depending on the area. In some urban areas these new regulations reduced building rights by establishing a basic FAR of 1 for land that had been designated 2 or more under prior legislation. In parallel, the municipality of São Paulo used the OODC to extend the building potential or the maximum FAR up to 4 on land that previously could be developed up to only 1 or 2.

As a result, in certain areas where the FAR was reduced from 2 to 1, developers could submit projects using the former FAR 2, or even the maximum FAR 3 or 4, as long as they paid the government for the additional buildable area corresponding to the difference between the basic FAR and the FAR used in the project. This instrument favors developers, assuming they find the charges cost-effective, because it allows them to build up to FAR 4 in areas where formerly the maximum was FAR 2. Typical landowners do not always find this tool advantageous, however, since the building potential of their land may be reduced and a charge may be imposed on what they previously perceived as a right to build, free of any charges.

Landowners of small lots and low-density housing may not notice what they could be losing when the FAR is changed because they typically view their property as combining the land, building, and other improvements. It is difficult to separate the value of land from that of improvements, so an eventual land value decrease is not perceived immediately. Furthermore, the expansion of the real estate market in São Paulo coincided with the approval of this new legislation in 2004, and the overall increase in land prices may have compensated the eventual price decline associated with changes in FAR. It is also necessary to note that the expansion of government credit for house financing since 2006 contributed to an increase in demand for land and consequently the rise of land prices.

For the developers, the increase in FAR to 4 in areas where the maximum had been 1 or 2 constituted a favorable situation. They could invest more capital in land and make more profitable undertakings, thus compensating for the extra payment they made for the difference between the basic and the maximum FAR. Gradually, developers were convinced that it was better to pay this land value increment to the government than to private owners because the government converted the payments into improvements that frequently benefited the developers’ projects.

The 2002 Strategic Master Plan and Law 13,885 of 2004 also limited the supply of residential and nonresidential building potential in all city districts by establishing a total additional buildable area of 9,769 million square meters (m2): 6,919 million m2 for residential use and 2,850 million m2 for nonresidential use (table 1). This potential did not include the buildable areas inside the perimeter of São Paulo’s 13 urban operations. The additional areas were distributed among the 91 out of 96 city districts, excluding five environmentally protected areas. This definition and demarcation of the potential building stock introduced a new element to the real estate market.

Once the maximum building area was known, developers anticipated land scarcity in those districts where the supply was low and the real estate dynamic high, thus unleashing a trend in higher land prices. The lack of buildable area, in turn, lead to pressures from real estate developers for the government to increase the supply—that is, to change the building area limits in some districts during the 2007 revision of the master plan—but their efforts were not successful. By October 2010 the land supply had been exhausted, or was very close to it, for residential use in 17 districts and for nonresidential uses in 5 districts (figure 1).

Planning and Social Interest Factors

The formula to calculate the OODC charge adopted in São Paulo’s 2002 Strategic Master Plan takes into account planning and social interest factors in addition to the characteristics of the parcel and the actual economic benefit allocated to the property as a result of the OODC.

The planning factor is an instrument that seeks to encourage or discourage higher densities in certain areas, depending on the existing infrastructure, especially public transport and mass transit. The planning factor is also used to obtain greater financial compensation from the sale of building rights for businesses in improved areas of the city, as the coefficient varies according to whether the land use is residential or nonresidential.

The social interest factor establishes exemptions or reductions in the financial charge, depending on the type of activity to be developed on the parcel. The coefficient ranges from zero to one and is applicable to a variety of activities. For example, the coefficient for affordable or social housing is zero, which means that developers of this type of housing do not pay compensation for additional building rights. Similarly, nonprofit hospitals, schools, health and infant care clinics, cultural facilities, sports and leisure institutions, and houses of worship have a coefficient of zero.

These factors act as incentives for desirable social outcomes, since the smaller the planning and social interest factor coefficients applicable to a given area, the smaller the charge to be paid, and the greater the incentive for projects to be developed in the area.

Revenue Impact and Allocation of Funds

Total revenues from OODC payments reached R$650 million (US$325 million) in approximately five years, in spite of the global financial crisis that constricted credit by end of the period (table 2). These funds are deposited into the Urban Development Fund (FUNDURB), which was created to implement plans and projects in urban and environmental areas, or other interventions contemplated in the 2002 master plan.

As of September 2008, the number of projects approved to be financed by FUNDURB included 15 linear parks (R$42.5 million), sidewalk and street improvements (R$21.2 million), drainage and sanitation (R$108 million), community facilities (R$ 21.1 million), regularization of informal settlements (R$50 million), and restoration of culture heritage buildings (R$37 million).

Concluding Remarks

After the City of São Paulo approved the 2002 Strategic Master Plan, the principle of development concessions and buildable land was applied throughout its territory. When a real estate project exceeds the basic FAR and the developer wants to build up to a maximum of 4, payment of financial charges to the government is required. Since the OODC was introduced, revenues have increased annually. One should keep in mind that these revenues are net of the more than US$1 billion generated from 2 of the city’s 13 Urban Operations (Faria Lima and Agua Espraiada) where major zoning and density changes are occurring (Biderman, Sandroni, and Smolka 2006). In those areas the new building rights are priced through the auction of CEPACs, and the revenues must be invested in the area corresponding to the urban operation instead of going to the FUNDURB fund to benefit the city as a whole (Sandroni 2010).

The charge for building rights in São Paulo does not seem to have affected the profitability of developers. On the contrary, increasing the maximum FAR to 4 in some areas of the city contributed to enhancing the developers’ rates of return. However, setting a maximum reserve for building rights seems to have caused an upward trend in land prices, especially in districts where the supply of buildable area is low. In some districts developers proceeded to deplete the supply of residential building rights quickly. This type of response will probably intensify in the future, thus putting pressure on the city government to raise the maximum stock of buildable area and/or the maximum FAR. If this happens, there is a risk that the motivation to increase municipal revenue may outweigh urban planning criteria and the limitations of infrastructure, especially public transportation and mass transit.

Moreover, the flow of financial compensation will not be continuous. Unlike property tax revenues that recur annually, revenues from the sale of building rights will fade in time as the additional building potential is exhausted. In some sectors of the city the supply of buildable area has already been depleted, and the city has achieved its defined goal for building density. However, future changes in the master plan may provide greater building potential for these areas, depending on technical recommendations and the political conditions for the change to take place.

In sum, the application of the principle of the social function of property, embedded in the 2002 Strategic Master Plan for São Paulo, enabled the enactment of municipal legislation that clearly separates the right of ownership from the right to build. As a result, the traditional notion of all-encompassing property rights is no longer sustained, and land ownership cannot override the public interest or take precedence over the social function of property. Consequently, existing building rights can be reduced without landowners being entitled to monetary compensation simply because their hopes have been dashed.

About the Author

Paulo Henrique Sandroni is an economist who served as director of urban planning and public transportation for the City of São Paulo from 1988 to 1993, and for a short period he served the federal government as vice-minister of administration. He has published articles and books on economics, including a dictionary considered a primary reference on economics in Brazil. Sandroni is also a professor at the Economics and Business School at the Getulio Vargas Foundation in São Paulo, a private consultant on urban development and transportation issues, and a lecturer in programs sponsored by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

References

Biderman, Ciro, Paulo Sandroni, and Martim O. Smolka. 2006. Large-scale urban interventions: The case of Faria Lima in São Paulo. Land Lines 18(2): 8–13.

Prefeitura Municipal de São Paulo, Secretaria de Financas. www.prefeitura.sp.gov.br/cidade/secretarias/financas

Sandroni, Paulo. 2010. A new financial instrument of value capture in São Paulo: Certificates of additional construction potential. In Municipal revenues and land policies, Gregory K. Ingram and Yu-Hung Hong, eds., 218–236. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Carlos Morales-Schechinger joined IHS, the Institute for Housing and Urban Development Studies at Erasmus University in Rotterdam, The Netherlands, in 2008. This international institute attracts students from all over the world, mostly from developing countries. Some IHS programs are sponsored jointly with the Lincoln Institute.

Previously Morales was a part-time lecturer at UNAM, the National Autonomous University of Mexico. He has been collaborating on a regular basis in seminars and courses organized by the Lincoln Institute throughout Latin America for the past 12 years. He lectures primarily on land value capture instruments, land and property taxation, and land-based preventive policies as alternatives to informal settlements.

He has held various government posts, including director of land policies and instruments in Mexico’s ministry for urban development, where he designed and implemented an ambitious program on land banking; and as director of cadastral policy for Mexico City’s government, where he managed an extensive fiscal reform of property taxes. He also held posts in both public and private banks in Mexico, dealing with property valuation, mortgages, property administration, and loans for large urban developments and for local governments.

He holds a bachelor’s degree in architecture from UNAM, a diploma in local government finance from the University of Birmingham, UK, and a Master of Philosophy in urban studies from the University of Edinburgh, UK.

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

Carlos Morales: My first introduction was in the early 1980s when I attended an Institute-sponsored international conference in Cambridge that related to my work for the government on urban land policy. The ideas I learned about were put to direct use two years later when I worked on a reform to increase the supply of serviced land in medium-sized cities and to subsidize sites and services for low-income households in Mexico. In the early 1990s, when I was working for the government of Mexico City on an ambitious property tax reform, I attended another Institute conference on property taxation.

From 2000 onward, I participated in many education activities organized by Martim Smolka through the Program on Latin America and the Caribbean. Around 2004 the Institute started a joint venture with IHS and I was one of the visiting lecturers hired by the Institute to teach in those programs. I was later invited to join the IHS staff full-time as the manager of this joint venture.

Land Lines: How do you compare the effectiveness of institutions such as IHS and the Lincoln Institute?

Carlos Morales: I believe they are complementary. The Institute is a leader in research and education on land policies, with an international focus on Latin America and China. IHS is recognized for its education and capacity building on urban management and development for a worldwide audience, focusing on developing and transition countries. IHS courses are open to students from all regions, but most come from countries in Africa, Asia, and Central and Eastern Europe. Through its joint venture with IHS, the Lincoln Institute is able to reach out to those from many more countries in an efficient way.

Land Lines: Conveying fundamental knowledge about land policy and urban management to practitioners is not an easy task. What have you found is the most effective approach?

Carlos Morales: Using a combination of two things is important: the profile of the lecturer and the appropriate pedagogy. Lecturers should have experience both as practitioners and as academics to be able to answer questions that are relevant to practitioners, especially when the answers imply moving away from their comfort zone and facing some kind of change.

The ultimate purpose of social science is precisely to change reality, not only to understand it. Consultancy brings academics close to practice, but it does not confront them with the moral commitment of implementing policy or the ethical responsibility for making policy work on the ground. Experience in direct practice is crucial. The Institute’s programs in Latin America employ lecturers with this profile, and they have proven effective in addressing issues such as the impacts of taxation and regulations on land markets and in choosing instruments for capturing incremental land value, both of which are hot topics in the region.

Regarding pedagogy, practitioners tend to be skeptical about theory. They regard it as impractical, and they want to test it to be convinced. Using examples of policies implemented in other cities is very useful. Some students from developing countries do not accept cases from more developed countries, arguing that their governance structure is too different. Others prefer cases from diverse situations because in spite of contextual differences they aspire to better development opportunities for their own countries. A lecturer should have an arsenal of many different cases to examine when questions rise.

Doing simulation games is also a very effective technique. Games involving role playing where participants compete against each other are the most useful for understanding land markets and helping solve problems. Role playing is revealing even when participants fail to solve problems since it prompts them to question what happened. I have seen how participants who experience failure in a game begin to cooperate and design clever regulations on their own. Another strategy is to assign participants roles contrary to their beliefs or experience. For example, government officials playing the role of pirate land developers learn about the substantial amounts of money the poor must spend just to access land.

Playing the devil’s advocate works well when discussing controversial concepts, as if the participants are in a land court. This is not a new technique except when played with a couple of twists. An example is determining the criteria for compensating eminent domain. In this game one team argues in favor of current use values and the other future use values. Background literature and practical information are provided for arguments on both sides. Practitioners from many places can relate to examples of regulatory takings, whether as expropriations in China, land restitutions in Eastern Europe, or the sale of building rights in Brazil.

Since participants have to defend a position with which they do not agree, they have to study and work harder. In many cases they end up changing their minds, or at least identifying new arguments to use later in debating their opponents in real life. At the end of a land court game the group acting as jury secretly votes twice, first on the team’s performance as advocates and second on the conceptual arguments. When a team gets more votes than the position they defended, it is clear that more research on the issue is needed. What I like best is that the game does not impose a position on the participants, but it raises the level of debate.

Land Lines: What are the main types of resistance to concepts and ideas on land policy?

Carlos Morales: Perhaps the concept most frequently resisted is how taxes and regulations are capitalized into the price of land. Resistance can come from an ideological standpoint (either left or right, both have arguments), self-interest (landowners do not readily accept sacrificing profit), or ignorance of how the capitalization concept works. As an educator I have a role to play in addressing the last challenge.

Even if theory is explained to practitioners, they remain skeptical if their experience contradicts the theory. Misunderstanding can come from referring to a tax on a commodity that is not as scarce as land, but it can also come from experience with land markets themselves. This happens when two policies with opposite effects are introduced together, for example, increasing densities and increasing taxes. The combined effect of these measures makes it difficult to understand the impact of each one. A simulation game can help isolate each impact. Practitioners need to experiment with each policy measure to better understand them both. I have noticed that they may nod with skepticism when you lecture them, but they give you a “eureka” smile when they reach understanding by playing a game.

Land Lines: How do you overcome resistance to topics such as value capture?

Carlos Morales: A charge linked to the increase in densities is a way of capturing the incremental value of land and a source of funds to finance infrastructure, as São Paulo is doing when it charges for extra building rights. The discussion about how this policy impacts market price is controversial. Landowners oppose it because it reduces their price expectations, but developers favor it because it reduces land prices and the payments are returned in the form of public works. A similar situation happened in Bogotá when a tax on the increment in the value of land was introduced.

Both cases are useful references to explain land value capture in developing countries, yet more city cases need to be documented and disseminated, and some practitioners want examples from developed countries. This is not easy, because land value capture is a buzzword in Latin American circles, but not in most developed countries. This is not because value capture is not used in the United States or other places, but rather because it is assumed as part of the operation of the land market. It is the role of lecturers to point this out and open opportunities for sharing experiences among practitioners from both developed and developing countries.

Land Lines: Please comment on the difficulties of conveying taxation concepts to planners.

Carlos Morales: Planners learn about property taxes if they are high enough to have an impact on decisions by landowners, developers, and land users, as in the United States. In developing countries these taxes generally are so low that they do not impact market decisions, so planners are not interested. When I play games that illustrate land markets to architects—who are often also planners—and they realize that the city is not going the way they expect, their most frequent reaction is to suggest more taxes and more efficient land markets. Seldom do they propose a traditional land use plan.

Land Lines: What in your opinion are the central concepts or ideas that could make the difference in the international debate on urban land markets?

Carlos Morales: Pointing out that land value capture is a significant source for financing infrastructure and preventing slums can bring more stakeholders into a serious discussion. Ideas related to security of tenure, land registration, and titling in order to increase access to loans have been dominating policy, but results have not been as positive as predicted. Slums continue to develop and service provision is still lagging behind.

Policies that have to do with land taxation and property obligations—not just property rights—have more potential to improve the functioning of urban land markets. UN-Habitat and the World Bank adopted the earlier notions of security of tenure as a solution, but are now beginning to show interest in land-based urban development instruments. Land value capture policies will have an effect tomorrow, but with a political cost today because giving titles is cheap and appeals to short-term politicians. This is the challenge that should be faced in the international debate to ensure more effective and long-term land market reform.

David Vetter (Ph.D., University of California) has worked for more than four decades on urban finance and economics issues in Latin America. He taught and conducted urban research in Brazil for 17 years at the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE), the Graduate Engineering Program (COPPE), the Institute of Urban and Regional Planning and Studies (IPPUR), and the Fundação Getúlio Vargas. In 1990, he joined the World Bank, where he developed subnational investment and reform programs for Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Ecuador. To push for greater private-sector participation in urban financing, he joined Dexia Credit Local in 1998 as vice president and established lending programs in Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico. Since returning to Brazil in 2004, he has worked as a consultant and researcher for various clients, including the Inter-American Development Bank and the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, where he has been a visiting fellow since July 2014. He recently authored two articles for Land Lines: “Residential Wealth Distribution in Rio de Janeiro” (January 2014) and “Land-Based Financing for Brazil’s Municipalities” (October 2011).

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

David Vetter: For many years—whether I was doing research, consulting, or working at the World Bank or in the private sector—I quite often found solid information to help me from the Lincoln Institute. More recently, the Institute financed my research on residential wealth and municipal finance in Brazil.

Land Lines: What will you research as a visiting fellow and why?

David Vetter: I will focus on strategies for financing urban infrastructure in Brazil. Like other Latin American countries, Brazil continually needs to make substantial investments to keep pace with the rapidly growing number of new households and to reduce the number of them without access to urban infrastructure. From 2000 to 2010, the number of households grew by more than 12 million—an increase nearly 7 times the 1.8 million households in the Boston-Cambridge Metro Area in 2010. Given this demographic pressure, the absolute number of Brazilian households without access to urban infrastructure remained high in 2010, despite sizeable investments over the previous decade. And the deficits of some types of infrastructure actually increased. From 2000 to 2010, for instance, the number of Brazilian urban households without adequate sewage systems rose by nearly 2 million—more than the total number of housing units in Metropolitan Boston in 2010.

Brazil’s Ministry of Cities estimated that basic sanitation (potable water, waste water, solid waste, and drainage) would cost more than US$80 billion just for 2014 to 2018. Highways, street paving, public security, health, and education demand similarly high investments, and the amounts required often greatly exceed existing sources of financing.

Land Lines: How could value captured by these infrastructure investments help to finance them?

David Vetter: The benefits of infrastructure investments are capitalized into land and building prices. The Lincoln Institute’s 2013 forums on Notable Instruments for Urban Intervention showed that many governments in Latin America are effectively using a wide variety of tools to capture value created by their infrastructure investments, as detailed in Martim O. Smolka’s comprehensive review of the literature (2013): sale of development rights; betterment levies for street paving, drainage, and other improvements; and public-private partnerships (PPPs) involving value capture, as in the financial structure of Rio’s massive port renovation (Porto Maravilha). More efficient collection of the real estate property and transfer taxes help as well.

Value capture can generate positive feedback, creating a virtuous circle that generates additional resources for further investments. For example, the increases in value generated would increase the base for the property tax if real estate assessments were conducted in a timely manner, and the resulting revenue could be used to finance further investment.

Land Lines: To what extent could Brazilian municipalities increase the use of value capture?

David Vetter: According to economic theory, the value generated by infrastructure investments should roughly equal their cost. Because the supply of infrastructure would seem to be inelastic due to public finance constraints, the market value generated can actually exceed the cost of the investments.

For example, Brazilian municipalities invested more than US$82 billion in infrastructure and equipment from 2006 to 2010 (about US$16 billion per year). But in 2010 alone, state and national governments also invested more than US$50 billion. Capture of even a relatively small percentage of the value created could provide significant resources for investment. For example, the Rio de Janeiro Metropolitan Region is receiving massive infrastructure investments from national, state, and municipal governments, as well as from private sector partners, for various projects including the new Arco Metropolitano beltway and a new Metro line. Some are concessions or PPPs with significant financing at below-market interest rates from the public development banks (BNDES and CAIXA).

Land Lines: What role could value capture play in housing policy?

David Vetter: Infrastructure investment creates residential wealth, as its value is capitalized into housing value. Residential structures represent about one third of Brazil’s total net fixed capital in the national wealth accounts, as is typical for other countries around the world. Given this importance, we ask in our own work on the Rio de Janeiro Metropolitan Region: What generates residential wealth? How much residential wealth exists? Who holds it? We found that there are winners and losers. For example, the increase in value generated by infrastructure investment increases the residential wealth of homeowners, but it raises prices for renters in the benefitted area and housing cost for homebuyers wishing to locate there.

Land Lines: Would a housing policy focused on generating residential wealth and the equity of its distribution differ from most low-income housing programs?

David Vetter: It would be quite different. Most low-income housing programs keep unit costs down by building on low-cost land. Land price is low when it lacks access to employment and basic urban services, so affordable units often end up in these poorly serviced areas. A housing policy focused on residential wealth would emphasize access to employment and basic services, as they are among the key determinants of housing value.

Land Lines: But isn’t this utopian? How could value capture help to increase the residential wealth of lower-income families?

David Vetter: The challenge is certainly great. But value capture from higher-income families could allow cross subsidies to lower-income ones, especially renters who wish to locate in the areas benefiting from infrastructure investments.

Let me illustrate. The number of households in the Rio de Janeiro Metropolitan Region increased by more than 600,000 from 2000 to 2010 (that’s twice the number of households in Washington, DC, in 2010). As a result, the region’s urban infrastructure deficits remain high despite high investments. A recent impact study of metropolitan Rio de Janeiro’s new beltway (Pontual et al. 2011) explored the possibility of developing whole new socially integrated and fully serviced neighborhoods to hold the huge expected increase in the number of households along the beltway. This development could be financed in part by capturing value generated by the massive infrastructure investments planned and being implemented. Part of the value captured from higher-income families could be used to finance lower-income ones.

This impact study analyzed where such neighborhoods might best be located. Which value capture instruments might work best in this case? It is interesting that the private sector is already developing what they describe as “green neighborhoods” in the outlying regions of metropolitan Rio. Does it make sense to plan individual housing projects when such large increases in households are involved?

Land Lines: Would lower-income families be able to pay for infrastructure?

David Vetter: In Latin America, the eligibility criteria for value capture programs almost always include a test for capacity to pay. Of course, value capture should only be applied to families who can afford it.

Land Lines: How do you respond to the Brazilian professionals working on urban issues who argue that it is impossible to capture value for legal or cultural reasons?

David Vetter: Although Brazil’s constitution provides broad powers for value capture, only the largest municipalities, such as São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro, appear to be using them. Other sub-national and national governments are doing much less to capture the value of considerable public investments.

This failure is probably due in part to resistance by some who think that value capture is legally impossible. Yet while betterment levies meet with similar resistance, Silva and Pereira (2013) estimate that total revenue from them exceeded US$300 million among municipalities in the states of São Paulo, Paraná, and Santa Catarina from 2000 to 2010, even though relatively few municipalities employed them. This amount is not very significant for states of this size, but it does show that betterment levies are feasible.

One reason why betterment levies were successful in Paraná and Santa Catarina was that the World Bank and Inter-American Development Bank have required cost recovery in their municipal development projects since the 1980s. This success supports the idea that incentives of a national or state program can encourage use of value capture at the municipal level.

In addition, many cases of value capture seem to go unnoticed. In the City of Rio de Janeiro, for example, the sale of excess land from the existing subway system partly financed the expansion of a whole new line, and developers provide water and sewerage trunk lines as a condition for project approval in a higher-income neighborhood, Barra da Tijuca.

Land Lines: How might national or state government programs encourage greater use of value capture?

David Vetter: One way would be to provide access to financing as an incentive for the municipalities that use value capture. Ecuador’s development bank (Banco del Estado) uses such access to encourage municipalities to employ betterment levies. Access to financing could be used to provide access to a broader range of value capture instruments, such as the sale of development rights and impact fees, as well as betterment levies.

Land Lines: How can the Lincoln Institute encourage infrastructure financing through value capture?

David Vetter: Lincoln has done an excellent job of generating knowledge about value capture through its research, forums, training program, and publications. The Institute could scale up its excellent work on value capture in the region through more forums and publications, and by directly advising policy makers regarding program design and implementation.

As part of its ongoing education program in Latin America, the Lincoln Institute, with the Porto Alegre (Brazil) City Council, organized the “International Seminar on Property Taxation” in April 2001, to discuss equity and efficiency in property tax administration. More than 200 delegates came from 12 countries, 14 Brazilian states and 45 local authorities. Internationally recognized experts and public officials in government, academia, public finance and taxation represented such institutions as the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), the International Property Tax Institute (IPTI), the International Association of Assessing Officers (IAAO), the Brazilian Association of Secretariats of Finance of Capitals (ABRASF) and the Brazilian School of Fiscal Administration (ESAF). This article draws on the issues and experiences discussed at that seminar.

As in the United States, there is an ongoing debate in Latin America over the replacement of the property tax with alternative revenue sources, such as fees and charges, that might be easier to administer, less influenced by political factors and more efficient. Nevertheless, the property tax remains the predominant option for raising revenue to finance public services at the local government level in Latin America.

An important characteristic of the property tax is the great diversity found in its administration. For example, the property tax is a purely local tax in Brazil, Colombia and Ecuador, but it is administered at the province level of government in Argentina. In Mexico, the role of the local authorities has been reduced to primarily tax collection. In Chile, the property tax is an important revenue source for local governments, although the central government is responsible for administering the cadastral, assessment and collection systems. El Salvador is the only country in Central America that has never introduced the property tax, although currently there is strong pressure for establishing new taxes, since tax revenue represents only about 11 percent of GDP.

Insights on Property Tax Administration

In general the property tax is recognized as a ‘good tax’; its role is essential in the process of recovering revenue, funding public services and promoting social development. The unique nature of the property tax provides important links among wealth and income, social development, and land use and occupation. However, the property tax must be administered fairly to avoid inefficiency and inequity in the distribution of the tax burden. Concerns mentioned in several seminar sessions included the need for an adequate cadastre, as complete as possible in terms of coverage and containing basic attributes needed for assessing different types of properties. One discussion group recommended integrating the community in the continual process of updating cadastral data. Others emphasized the need for performing a careful cost and benefit analysis before implementing geographic information systems.

In countries where the cadastre is not administered by the central government, there is no standard model or system. Depending on the development level of the municipality and/or financial resources available, the cadastre technology can vary enormously from a simple list of properties to a cadastre based on a geographic information system with multiple purposes. Diverse valuation approaches are also observed: self-assessment is used in Colombia and Bolivia, whereas the cost approach is commonly used in Brazil, Chile, Ecuador and Mexico. Some local authorities in Brazil are engaged in a movement to use the sales comparison approach for residential property. In applying the cost approach, the land value is determined using the sales comparison approach. Although based on market information, the land value is also estimated in different ways, causing concerns over how to reduce assessment inequities.

Valuation is primarily a technical task that requires assessment uniformity and short valuation cycles, and should not be used for political purposes. Capping systems, which limit tax increases between consecutive periods for each individual property up to an overall adjustment based on annual inflation rates, are seen as a major source of assessment inequity. Transparency in the valuation results is considered fundamental for guaranteeing the taxpayers’ confidence in and acceptability of the tax system. Other basic premises include fiscal accountability, fairness, democratization of information, and translation of technical language into a form that is understandable to community members and leaders. Furthermore, community members should take part in making decisions on public revenue collection and expenditures.

A recent development of interest in this regard is the increasing use of Internet facilities by taxpayers to receive and pay tax bills, review statistical data on their property and update cadastral information. Chile is considered the benchmark in Latin America in the use of these technologies.

Experiences with Fiscal Reform

Several seminar presenters shared their experiences with property tax reform and revisions, which often include investments in cadastral systems. For instance, the improvement in the collection performance of the property tax in Colombia increased as a percentage of GDP from 0.22 percent in 1970 to 0.91 percent in 1994. This improvement was attributed in part to legislation that demanded the implementation and updating of the cadastre throughout the country. The strong pressure against updating assessed values, as well as administrative difficulties in undertaking valuations, resulted in the establishment of a self-assessment procedure. Taxpayers are now responsible for declaring the assessed value of their properties, but the value cannot be less than the recorded cadastral value. To reduce underassessment, the assessed value is also used as the basis for expropriation.

Fiscal reform initiatives in Argentina during the 1990s were strongly motivated by financial crises in the public sector. The reform project relating to the property tax was divided into two main areas, cadastres and fiscal administration. The equivalent of over US$ 120 million has been invested in these reforms, yet the project has been completed in only about 50 percent of the jurisdictions. In another example, Mexicali, the capital city of Baja California, pioneered the adoption of land value as the property tax base in the 1990s. Although this was a successful experience with property tax reform, current challenges in Mexico include achieving fiscal balance between public expenditure and revenue raised and recovering the importance of the property tax as a revenue source.

Property Taxation in Brazil

Political, legal and practical obstacles have contributed to the continuation of inequities and inefficiencies in the property tax in Brazil. Frequently there is no common interpretation of tax regulations among major branches of government (the judiciary, legislature and executive), creating a pervasive lack of confidence in the tax system. Primary concerns in property tax administration include incomplete and out-of-date cadastres, resulting in irreplaceable losses in revenue; poor assessment practices that generate a low degree of uniformity; the strong influence of historical assessed values, because valuation is infrequent and approval of a new valuation list in the Chamber of Councilors is often difficult; and low performance in tax collection.

The validity and feasibility of adopting progressive (sliding) rates for the property tax, was largely used adopted in Brazil during the 1990s, was reexamined. The basic idea had been to establish progressive rates according to classes of assessed value and to insert an element of ability-to-pay into the system, simultaneously making high-value properties pay more proportionally and alleviating the tax burden on low-value properties. In 1996, the Supreme Court declared the use of progressive rates for the property tax unconstitutional. However, a recent constitutional amendment authorized progressivity in the property tax rates based on the value of properties, as well as different rates based on property location.

Arguments expressed in the seminar against the application of progressive rates for the property tax were based on the principle of keeping the tax simple, and concerns about the measure’s effectiveness. Arguments in favor of progressivity included the concentration of income disparities in Brazil and the fact that the poor are likely to spend more proportionally in housing expenditures than are the wealthy. The majority of seminar participants believed that the progressive rates might promote a fairer distribution of the tax burden. However, progressivity should be gradual; that is, a higher rate should be applied only over the part of property value that exceeds the limit established in each class of assessed value, to avoid a large difference in tax burden for properties with values slightly above and below the boundaries of each class.

At the national level in Brazil, inefficient use of the property tax as a revenue source is widely recognized. Revenue from property taxes represents less than 0.4 percent of GDP. Indeed, the tax actually collected is only symbolic in many parts of the country. A recent survey of municipalities investigated several aspects of local government performance, including tax evasion. In only 13 percent of the municipalities was the tax evasion rate less than 20 percent. In one out of five municipalities, the revenue collected represented less than 20 percent of the properties included in the cadastre.

Table 1 demonstrates the relative importance of property tax revenue in Brazil, according to the size of the municipality. Small municipalities are financed largely by transfers from other government levels and larger municipalities are more dependent on the property tax as a revenue source. However, the performance of property tax administration depends directly on political will, which varies enormously among cities. For instance, due to an extensive updating of its cadastre, the city of Santana de Parnaíba, with 60,000 inhabitants in the State of São Paulo, collects approximately R$ 212.00 per inhabitant, while the average revenue collected from property tax for cities of its size (10,000 to 100,000 population) is R$ 10.04 per inhabitant. That performance is even better than in São Paulo, the capital of the state, which collects less than R$ 80.00 per inhabitant. Similarly, a participatory approach involving local community and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) allows critical issues of property tax assessment and administration to be discussed, resulting in actions to improve the system. In the city of Ribeirão Pires, for example, measures that increased revenue by 40 percent included an ample review of the property tax legislation that allowed the adoption of better assessment practices, new property tax rates and more efficient procedures for tax collection. Furthermore, the tax reform has contributed to increasing the local government’s popularity.

Case Study of Porto Alegre

Inspired by the April seminar and previous research and analysis, the local government of Porto Alegre has prepared a proposal for a property tax reform aimed at increasing fiscal equity, enhancing the importance of the property tax as a revenue source, and creating more efficient administration of the tax. The project was presented on September 28 to the City Council, the entity in charge of either approving or rejecting the measures, which must be decided before the end of 2001.

A multidisciplinary team worked actively on the project, composed of local authority members, such as valuers, property tax experts, and urban and environmental planners, as well as a group of statisticians and information technology experts from the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul. The measures being proposed have been discussed thoroughly with representatives of public associations, community leaders, the media and, of course, city councilors (See Table 2).

Conclusion

The participation of several hundred delegates at the seminar is evidence of the importance of property taxes in their countries. Although there is still an ample need for improving the overall performance of property tax systems, the debate demonstrated progress in the way the tax is administered and perceived in many parts of the region. Several independent experiences made it clear that political will is the principal element for explaining differences in the performance of property taxes in Latin America. Recent technological advances, now accessible to any country, have been able to provide better solutions in data management, valuation and assessment. Challenges are gradually moving from the technical to the political sphere. More than ever learning how to implement tax reforms and revisions is essential for pursuing more effective property tax systems. A trend toward using a participatory approach when undertaking such revisions is also evident, since public acceptance is likely to facilitate the reform process.

Claudia M. De Cesare is a property tax advisor to the Secretariat of Finance for the municipality of Porto Alegre, Brazil. She also conducts research and teaches courses on valuation and property taxation at the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul and the Lincoln Institute. She is a member of the advisory board of the International Property Tax Institute (IPTI) and is active in other professional organizations.

Sidebar: Latin America Network On Property Taxation

The Lincoln Institute has recently formed informational networks of scholars and policy makers focused on several key issues in land and tax policy in Latin America. Led by Martim Smolka, senior fellow and director of the Lincoln Institute’s Program on Latin America and the Caribbean, the first meeting of the property taxation network took place in conjunction with the seminar in Porto Alegre in April 2001. Network rpresentatives came from Argentine (Hector Serravalle), Brazil (Claudia M. De Cesare, Cintia E. Fernandes, Mauro Lunardi and Sol G. Pinto), Chile (Carlos Acuña), Colombia (Maria Camila Uribe and Claudia Puentes), Ecuador (Mario R. Maldonado), El Salvador (Roberto Cañas) and Mexico (Sergio Flores).

The network’s mission is to pursue more effective property tax systems in Latin America and to reinforce the role of the property tax as an alternative for local government revenue. The network will promote professional development, identify relevant themes for comparative research and educational programs, and disseminate information and experiences. The members of the network have prioritized the following projects:

• property tax indicators;
• annotated bibliography;
• database on institutions, permanent courses and educational programs;
• development of curriculum; and
• exchanges for professional learning.

Although isolated initiatives at national or state levels have improved cadastral systems, valuation procedures and communication skills in some countries, the network members agree there is still great potential for improving efficiency and equity in current tax systems. The members also wanted more accessible information and better communication on property tax issues in Latin America. Innovative experiences and lessons like those cited in the following article can be shared within the group. Future educational programs may be a source of inspiration for other municipalities, like Porto Alegre, facing challenges in property tax administration.

The recent fiscal crisis in Asia has affected systems of taxation and land use regulation throughout the region. The situation in Korea is typical. A series of collapses of large conglomerates led to a severe economic crisis, with 5.5 percent of total loans in default by the end of 1997. Currency and stock indexes fell to one-half their value within a year. Major measures to control the crisis, undertaken in cooperation with the International Monetary Fund (IMF), include cutting government expenses by 10 percent and initiating a series of tax reforms to raise revenues.

In this context, a recent seminar on the taxation of real property in Asia provided a valuable and timely forum for the exchange of ideas. The seminar was hosted by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the Government of Korea at the Korea-OECD Multilateral Tax Center in Chonon in early March. Tax administrators from China, Korea, Singapore and Vietnam attended the two-part program, which included a four-day seminar on property taxation and a one-day workshop hosted by the Korea Ministry of Finance. My fellow instructors in the seminar were Michael Engelschalk of OECD’s Fiscal Division in Paris and Anders Muller of Denmark’s Ministry of Taxation.

Seminar Themes

The seminar addressed three major issues concerning local government systems for property taxation:

Local Revenues and Fiscal Decentralization:

Anticipating increased political and fiscal decentralization in many Asian countries, the seminar explored the role of local government within the national tax structure. These fundamental issues are particularly of interest to China, which is just beginning to develop a property tax system, and Korea, which is beginning to exercise stronger local autonomy.

Market Economy and Property Valuation:

For Vietnam and China, which are moving toward a market-based economy, establishing reliable sales information on property markets and developing effective valuation techniques are major challenges. Korea and Singapore, with their more advanced property tax systems, must be able to respond to a dynamic property market. Singapore’s annual value rating method and Korea’s market capitalization approach are very different systems, and the issue of improving valuation models remained a hotly debated subject during the seminar.

Taxation Administration and Enforcement:

Computerization, a collection process and legal procedures need to be developed and implemented in all governments to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of management and enforcement procedures. Political issues such as assignment of local and central government functions, determining ability to pay and the role of wealth taxation were also discussed extensively by the participants.

Tax Policy Issues in Asian Countries

Although China at present does not permit private ownership of land, three categories of taxes are applied to use rights:

taxes on land use (land use tax, land occupation tax and agricultural tax):

taxes on ownership of buildings (house tax and real estate tax); and

taxes on transactions (land appreciation tax, business tax, stamp duty and deed tax.)

Property tax reform in China is needed for two reasons: redundancy and out-of-date regulations. Even after the economic reforms of the 1980s, foreign investment in real property has been regulated and taxed according to a 1951 law. The central government has decided to reform and simplify property taxes by consolidating the domestic house tax with the land use tax for local people, consolidating domestic and foreign house taxes for foreigners, and possibly eliminating the deed tax.

Korea proposed a land value increment tax several years ago to capture the capital gains from land transactions, but the proposal was defeated. To capture land value increments and avoid speculation, Korea instead implemented a capital gains tax system that covers both real property and other asset transactions. To discourage land speculation, the tax rate will be fixed at 50 percent for property sales within two years of purchase, but owners who hold properties for more than two years will have a lower capital gains tax rate.

Korea’s GNP is expected to grow less than one percent in 1998 and tax revenues are projected to decline by US$4.4 billion. In response, the government designed a package to raise tax revenues by US$2.4 billion and to cut government expenditures by US$5.6 billion. In the tax reform package, minimum tax levels will generally be raised but capital gains taxes on land sales and value-added tax exemptions will be reduced.

Vietnam began reforming its tax system in 1990 with the introduction of uniform tax laws and ordinances across the country. Some examples are the 1994 Law on Agricultural Land Use Taxes, the 1992 Ordinance on Land and Housing Taxes, and the 1994 Law on Taxes on Land Use Right Transfer. Although Vietnam endorses a market economy, these central government regulations set the standard for all taxation administration. Property valuation (use value) is also defined by national law, although the taxable price is determined by the People’s Committee of the province or city, which is directly under central government power. In other words, the valuation is based on market value but must be approved by the People’s Committee.

In Singapore property owners pay an annual tax of 12 percent on the annual value of the property. The annual value for buildings is based on the estimated market rent per annum. The value for vacant land or land under development is derived from five percent of its estimated market value. The total annual tax in 1996-97 constituted six percent of the government’s operating revenue. Other property-related taxes include transfer taxes, inheritance taxes and development charges. Given the dynamic urban real property market and high land prices, the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS), which oversees the taxation system, is continuously developing new valuation and collection methodologies.

In summary, the demand for research on tax policies is critical in Asia. This seminar offered an educational environment where instructors and participants could share basic principles on the taxation of real property and learn from each others’ experiences.

Alven Lam is a fellow of the Lincoln Institute and academic dean of the Land Reform Training Institute in Taiwan.

Thomas A. Jaconetty is the chief deputy commissioner of the Board of Review (formerly the Board of Appeals) of Cook County, Illinois. During the past 24 years he has been involved in the disposition or review of taxes on more than 600,000 parcels of real estate. He is a member of the International Association of Assessing Officers (IAAO); the Chicago, Illinois State (ISBA) and American Bar Associations; the Justinian Society of Lawyers; and many other professional associations. He has served as a member and chair of the ISBA State and Local Taxation Section Council and contributed to the Illinois Department of Revenue’s Recodification Project.

A certified review appraiser and formerly an arbitrator for the Circuit Court of Cook County, Jaconetty has authored numerous articles and chapters for legal and taxation publications, edited three books and is working on a fourth. He has lectured at or moderated many educational programs on property taxation and assessment administration, and has published over a dozen articles on those topics. In 1998 he was appointed to the Planning Committee of the National Conference of State Tax Judges, and he served as conference chairman for the past two years.

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

Thomas Jaconetty: I was familiar with the Institute’s work through its presentations at the annual conferences of the International Association of Assessing Officers (IAAO) and various other educational seminars. In 1994 the chairman of the National Conference of State Tax Judges, Ignatius MacLellan of the New Hampshire Board of Tax and Land Appeals, invited me to attend the conference after reviewing articles I had written on “Highest and Best Use” and “Valuation of Federally Subsidized Housing.” I found the experience invigorating, challenging and intellectually stimulating. The conference was and continues to be the best seminar in which I am involved each year, and I attend quite a few.

LL: As the past chairman, how do you see the role of the National Conference?

TJ: For 25 years the conference has functioned as a clearinghouse of ideas for officials exercising judicial or quasi-judicial powers over tax cases for statewide or regional jurisdictions. Noted authorities in the field, state tax court judges and officials of established tax courts are drawn together in an informal, collegial environment. The conference encourages improved decision making, the exchange of data and resources, the analysis of complex legal issues, and an avenue for a free-flowing interchange of ideas. The personal and professional relationships are open, friendly and dynamic, and there is plenty of room for divergent opinion, eclectic thought and agreement to disagree.

The Planning Committee of about 15 regular participants develops annual programs, and the rest of the members are actively involved with making presentations, offering suggestions, working on committees, attending the sessions and contributing to the overall educational experience. The annual fall conference is the most significant opportunity for formal interaction, but ongoing discussions are supported by the use of e-mail, the Lincoln Web site and the members’ professional involvement in other organizations.

LL: Why is it important for tax adjudicators to have this forum?

TJ: We are surrounded by ever-changing ideas and theories that we must balance against time-honored principles of taxation, complex economic relationships and the expectations of government. Each state has individual statutes and case law, but there is a high level of commonality among basic tax principles and a finite number of responses to factual situations. In spite of the many recurring and vexing issues that confront us, regular communication offers an opportunity to encourage consistency and consensus on the one hand and divergent opinion and reasoned dissent on the other. Members actively seek suggestions, advice and even help from their colleagues, who eagerly and generously respond.

LL: How have you seen the National Conference evolve during the years of your involvement?

TJ: Actually, there has been a remarkable level of consistency. There has been a core group of representatives from about 15 states and another dozen or so that change over time. Many members predate my involvement and others are very new. The most significant changes have been the enhanced communication offered by e-mail and the willingness of the group to probe into ethical, theoretical, decision-making and policy-based questions. There also has been a noticeable increase in volunteerism and in the number of women who are active participants.

I think there is a growing awareness that the deference given to any fact-finding agency (such as the state tax courts from whence our members come) creates a complementary responsibility to evaluate tax controversies within a framework that addresses all of the pertinent legal, valuation, philosophical and public policy issues. From all of that we hope to attain “justice,” which James Madison argued “is the end of government.”

LL: What do you see as the greatest challenges to the conference?

TJ: Remaining timely and relevant, and maintaining a cutting-edge outlook. Not every ascendant theory is always supportable or reasonable, but we seek to remain receptive, open and flexible while respecting the basic principles of state and local taxation that have stood the test of time. As issues become more complex and multi-jurisdictional, there is always a tug-of-war between local control and innovation versus national consistency and uniformity. This era of enormous budgetary constraints on state and local agencies places a premium on knowing where to go for expertise.

We face new challenges and are learning every day, and the conference presents the opportunity to encourage that growth. As John Quincy Adams said, “To furnish the means of acquiring knowledge is . . . the greatest benefit that can be conferred upon mankind.” We are also working to increase our membership and recruit more participation from states not currently represented. The optimum goal is to have around 55 to 60 active participants at any one time.

LL: What role does the Lincoln Institute play?

TJ: It is the heart and the soul of the conference. Especially in these trying economic times, without the Institute’s support many of our members would not have the local funding and financial wherewithal to attend the conference. And, without the organizing ability of the Institute staff, there would be no conference. The Lincoln Institute is uniquely qualified to create the healthy intellectual environment that brings the tax policy, legislative, academic, practitioner and administrative points of view before those very persons who decide the cases and, in so doing, “make the law.”

LL: You alluded to policy. Should judges and tax adjudicators be involved in considering public policy?

TJ: I can only suggest my own view. How judges and adjudicative bodies rule is almost inevitably a reflection of what they learn, know, believe, have proven before them, sense and comprehend, as well as what appears to be just. Everything must be taken against the backdrop of the purposes of the law and the ends that the law seeks to achieve. The more informed, eclectic, analytical and open the decision maker, the better the outcome.

The valuation of contaminated property (brownfields) and subsidized housing are two real property tax areas that immediately come to mind. These are technical issues, but they require an appreciation of the larger context and policy implications, as well as the proper balance between legislation and its interpretation.

The Lincoln Institute has had a significant and salutary impact on the development of sound tax policy. Henry George, whose writings inspire the Institute’s work, addressed these issues in The Land Question “[Taxation] must not take from individuals what rightfully belongs to individuals.” In Progress and Poverty he stated, “It is the taking by the community, for the use of the community, of that value which is the creation of the community.” But, as an exercise of power, it “must not repress industry . . . check commerce . . . [or] punish thrift . . .”

LL: What are some of the major tax issues facing tribunals today?

TJ: On the real property taxation side there is the taxation of contaminated property; the use and misuse of the cost approach; valuation of subsidized housing; the effect of low-income housing tax credited property; and the changing face of charitable and nonprofit entities. There are so many other issues: the application of traditional sales, use, gross receipts and income tax principles to an ever-expanding and global economy; related questions of nexus jurisdiction and extraterritorial power; the impact of e-commerce; the clash and interrelationship of the due process and commerce clauses; local autonomy challenged by movements to adopt model acts.

Other more general concerns include alternative dispute resolution; pro se litigants; ethics (appraiser, assessor, judicial); regulation versus deregulation; court management; and the role of policy in decision making. Added to these are the routine daily determinations that must be made by tribunals and agencies that form the grist of the taxation process, which is the lifeblood of government—that which Oliver Wendell Holmes characterized as “what we pay for civilized society.”

LL: How does the National Conference of State Tax Judges interact with other professional associations?

TJ: Many members of the conference are active at the state and local level with continuing legal education (CLE), appraisal or assessment organizations, such as seminars offered with the Appraisal Institute. Others take part in presentations sponsored by local directors of revenue or bar-related symposia on tax issues. Some sit on advisory commissions, boards, panels and task forces. Still others, including myself, have a continuing relationship with the IAAO, which offers an especially valuable and practical access to the assessment side of the real property world.

LL: Any final thoughts on the conference and its future?

TJ: Having just completed my two-year term as chairman, I hope it can be said that the conference maintained the high standards set by my immediate predecessors—Ignatius MacLellan, Joseph Small and Blaine Davis. I certainly feel that the future is in capable hands with our new chair, Arnold Aronson. With the biannual rotation of the conference to different locations around the U.S., it returns to Cambridge next year to celebrate its twenty-fifth year. I will simply echo what many of us say every year when we convene: This conference is the finest and most beneficial professional education endeavor in which any of us are engaged.

Faculty Profile, John H. Bowman

Las ciudades norteamericanas tienen un potencial prometedor a largo plazo como centros de innovación y crecimiento, y la expansión tecnológica y de las ciencias de la salud están comenzando a compensar la erosión de varias décadas en el sector de manufactura. Las ciudades siguen siendo también lugares llenos de vitalidad, que ofrecen opciones de diseño urbano, densidad y transporte que atraen a residentes de todas las edades y procedencias. De hecho, nueve de las diez ciudades más pobladas de los Estados Unidos han crecido en población en la última década, según el censo de 2010.

Sin embargo, las perspectivas de corto plazo de las ciudades están cargadas de desafíos. Con el reciente brusco descenso en los ingresos tributarios, causado por el colapso del mercado inmobiliario en 2008 y la consiguiente crisis financiera y recesión económica, se ha hecho extraordinariamente difícil para los gobiernos locales y estatales mantener los servicios básicos, por no mencionar los planes de inversion para el futuro. Los fondos federales de la Ley de Recuperación y Reinversión de los Estados Unidos (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, o ARRA) ayudaron a los gobiernos locales a compensar la disminución de la renta de los últimos tres años, pero los fondos de ARRA ya no están disponibles para el año fiscal entrante (una transición que se ha dado por llamar “el precipicio”), obligando a los funcionarios locales a hacer frente en su totalidad al efecto causado por el déficit de ingresos.

El Foro Periodístico sobre Suelos y el Entorno Edificado: La Próxima Ciudad (Journalists Forum on Land and the Built Environment: The Next City) de 2011 reunió a académicos, profesionales y líderes politicos con periodistas de los medios impresos y audiovisuals para explorar el tema de la infraestructura de las ciudades en el contexto de la recuperación económica presente. Este programa es producto de una asociación anual entre el Instituto Lincoln, la Fundación Nieman de Periodismo de la Universidad de Harvard, y la Facultad de Estudios de Posgrado en Diseño de Harvard.

Los debates del Foro se centraron en dos enfoques para las inversiones en infraestructura y sus servicios asociados. El primero fue un enfoque a corto plazo de las inversiones en infraestructura como estímulo fiscal, con objeto de recuperar el nivel de actividad económica y aumentar el empleo. El segundo fue un enfoque a más largo plazo en cuanto a la función que cumple la infraestructura para sustentar la transformación de las economías municipales y el aumento de competitividad y habitabilidad en un mundo globalizado.

La infraestructura y la crisis fiscal de los gobiernos locales

La necesidad del país de contar con un estímulo fiscal para impulsar la economía en 2009 llevó a plantear inversiones colosales en infraestructura para satisfacer esta necesidad. No obstante, los tipos de proyectos que se podían iniciar rápidamente a nivel local tendían a ser esfuerzos de pequeña escala, como reparación de caminos y mantenimiento de instalaciones. Las iniciativas más ambiciosas, como los trenes de alta velocidad interurbanos, no llegaron a materializarse debido a problemas presupuestarios y de endeudamiento, y porque todas ellas requerían una mayor planificación antes de poder proceder a la etapa de implementación.

Lawrence H. Summers, quien recientemente retomó su cargo de profesor en Harvard después de haber sido director del Consejo Económico Nacional en la Casa Blanca, defendió el plan de estímulo de la administración Obama, que consideró necesario para restaurar la confianza en el sistema financiero y evitar que la recesión “pasara a formar parte de los libros de historia”. No obstante, admitió que “si bien los gobiernos locales pudieron usar los fondos de estímulo para cubrir déficits de ingresos, había muy pocos proyectos grandes listos para empezar”.

Más aún, la cruda realidad de la presión fiscal es que las ciudades no pueden concentrarse en proyectos de infraestructura en gran escala y a largo plazo porque están ocupadas en recortar gastos y realizar cambios en la dotación de los serviciospúblicos locales, señaló Michael Cooper, periodista de The New York Times. Algunos ejemplos de estos recortes en los servicios incluyen el programa de licencia sin goce de sueldo todos los viernes para los maestros públicos de Hawái durante el año escolar en curso; el niño de San Diego que murió atragantado con un chicle porque la estación de bomberos más cercana estaba cerrada debido a las clausuras rotativas; las decisiones de Colorado Springs de apagar un tercio de los faroles de alumbrado todas las noches, y de subastar el helicóptero de la policía; y el pueblo de California que destituyó a su alcalde porque acondicionó las tuberías de Madera deterioradas del sistema de aguas, pero aumentó las tarifas para pagar esta reparación.

Muchas jurisdicciones también tienen problemas fiscales con la falta de financiación de los fondos de pensión y de beneficios sociales. Algunas están agravando el problema simplemente dejando de realizar los pagos anuales requeridos, una medida de emergencia adoptada, por ejemplo, por el gobernador Chris Christie en Nueva Jersey. El Mercado de bonos municipales se está tambaleando y algunas ciudades, como Harrisburg, Pensilvania, se encuentran al borde de la quiebra. Los deficits fiscales están creciendo porque los gobiernos locales han gastado lo último que les quedaba de los fondos de ARRA.

Adrian Fenty, exalcalde de Washington, DC, afirmó que las ciudades se tienen que gestionar de forma similar a un negocio, adoptando una política de rendimiento y alejándose de la política de patrocinio. Es necesario mejorar tanto la eficiencia del suministro básico de servicios como la gestión de las finanzas municipales. Dado que la educación es tan importante para el crecimiento económico de las ciudades, su administración dio prioridad a una reforma educativa, concerniente tanto a la infraestructura humana como a la física, de manera que, durante su mandato en la alcaldía, su administración clausuró el 20 por ciento de las escuelas y redujo el personal administrativo un 50 por ciento. También renegoció los contratos de los maestros, ofreciendo un sistema de remuneración basado en el mérito y sin cargo fijo, que fue aceptado por el 60 por ciento de los maestros.

Desafíos de infraestructura: El caso del tren de alta velocidad

La iniciativa de 53 mil millones de dólares del presidente Barack Obama para construir trenes de alta velocidad ha puesto en evidencia los desafíos de la crisis fiscal en los gobiernos locales. Los gobernadores de Florida, Ohio y Wisconsin devolvieron los fondos federales asignados para ferrocarriles interurbanos con el argumento de que sus gobiernos locales y estatales no estaban en condiciones de asumir los gastos de explotación y mantenimiento, al tiempo que cuestionaban las proyecciones de tráfico de pasajeros. El proyecto de tren de alta velocidad de California, si bien estaba financiado por una emisión de bonos aprobada por los votantes, se encuentra con una oposición similar debido a las cargas financieras y a las disputas sobre el uso de suelos locales.

Bruce Babbitt, exgobernador de Arizona y Secretario del Departamento del Interior de los Estados Unidos, y miembro de la junta directiva del Lincoln Institute, dijo que la campaña de la administración Obama para construir ferrocarriles interurbanos de alta velocidad fue un “desastre político”, y que la visión subyacente se tenía que reevaluar. Sugirió que se usara como modelo el Corredor del Noreste, y que un plan revisado debería incluir un sistema bien definido de refinanciación confiable, similar a la estrategia adoptada para construir el sistema de autopistas interestatales.

El pago de la infraestructura de los ferrocarriles de alta velocidad exigirá una fuente de financiamiento específica, quizás mediante un aumento en el impuesto sobre la gasoline en los estados por donde se localizarán las nuevas líneas de ferrocarril, y un sistema de recuperación de plusvalías que comprometa a los propietarios privados que se beneficiarían del aumento en el valor de sus propiedades como consecuencia de estos proyectos de obras públicas. “No tenemos el coraje político para definir nuestra prioridades”, dijo Babbitt. Hará falta un “martillo nacional” para abordar el déficit de infraestructura del país sin abdicar del control a los gobernadores y los estados.

Los ferrocarriles de alta velocidad podrán vivir o morir de acuerdo a consideraciones económicas. Petra Todorovich, directora ejecutiva de America 2050, que ha efectuado numerosos análisis del potencial del ferrocarril de alta velocidad, propuso un marco de 12 megaregiones en los Estados Unidos que representan conjuntos de áreas metropolitanas donde la mejora en el servicio de ferrocarril brindaría el mayor potencial para reemplazar al automóvil y al viaje en avión de corta duración. Los trenes de alta velocidad pueden intensificar los mercados laborales, aumentar las economías de aglomeración y aumentar la productividad, al vincular grandes centros urbanos. Japón, Francia y China se encuentran entre los países que han demostrado cómo las líneas ferroviarias interurbanas pueden promover las sinergias económicas por medio de la ubicación estratégica de las estaciones para trenes de alta velocidad y sus conexiones con otros trenes y demás sistemas de transporte.

Este argumento de aprovechamiento económico fue respaldado por Edward Rendell, exgobernador de Pensilvania y alcalde de Filadelfia, y miembro de Building America’s Future, una campaña de revitalización de infraestructura deteriorada en todo el país. Rendell argumenta que los Estados Unidos han estado descansando sobre los laureles de las inversiones pasadas, y que la revitalización de los degradados cimientos físicos de la nación es ahora una prioridad urgente. Sin una infraestructura de nivel mundial, el país no será competitivo para atraer inversiones privadas, innovación tecnológica rápida y sustentable, y un crecimiento de la productividad, y no podrá mantener el crecimiento de buenos puestos de empleo a nivel nacional.

La infraestructura y el futuro de las ciudades

A medida que la recuperación se afiance y vuelva el crecimiento económico, serán necesarias inversions en nuevas tecnologías de comunicación, energía verde, sistemas urbanos inteligentes, transporte -como los trenes de alta velocidad y los sistemas de transporte colectivo- y otras obras de infraestructura, para ayudar a las ciudades a cumplir su papel de centros de innovación, cultura y productividad.

La visión de infraestructura combinada con el planeamiento a largo plazo también es fundamental para que las ciudades se puedan adaptar al impacto inevitable de los cambios climáticos, tales como un aumento posible en el nivel del mar de un metro con las consiguientes marejadas de tempestad, inundaciones y aumento en la cantidad de eventos climáticos extremos. La infraestructura de la mayoría de las ciudades costeras es tan vieja que incluso un huracán moderado puede causar importantes daños, dijo Ed Blakely, profesor de Política Pública de la Universidad de Sídney y “exzar” de la recuperación de Nueva Orleans tras el huracán.

Las ciudades han elaborado sus planes actuales sobre la base del registro meteorológico relativamente calmo de los últimos 200 años, pero esta calma probablemente se irá reduciendo a causa del cambio climático, de modo que la infraestructura existente resultará inadecuada u obsoleta. No se debe prestart atención a los esfuerzos de reconstrucción después de catástrofes como los del huracán Katrina, dijo Blakely, sino a la reubicación, reposicionamiento y “garantías de futuro” para ciudades más resistentes.

La infraestructura como servicio de utilidad pública que mejora la habitabilidad de la ciudad se puede observar en el proyecto High Line de la ciudad de Nueva York, consistente en el cambio de uso de una línea de trenes de carga elevada que pasa por el Meatpacking District y Greenwich Village. Uno de los arquitectos de ese proyecto, Liz Diller, socia de Diller, Scofidio y Renfro, sugirió que este tipo de mejoras puede transformar las áreas urbanas, funcionar como centros para eventos sociales y culturales, y promover la actividad económica, si bien advirtió que “la arquitectura no puede resolver en realidad grandes problemas”.

A pesar de la crisis fiscal actual, se espera que las ciudades experimenten otros cambios que puedan ayudar a su recuperación económica. Entre ellos, podemos mencionar las consecuencias de la crisis inmobiliaria actual, que probablemente genere demanda de propiedades en alquiler, y el desplazamiento demográfico a medida que la generación de baby boomers se vaya jubilando y mudando a casas más pequeñas.

Arthur C. (Chris) Nelson, profesor de la Universidad de Utah, notó que ambos cambios pueden generar más demanda de estilos de vida urbanos. Por ejemplo, se puede observar ya una reducción en la demanda de casas unifamiliares ocupadas por sus propietarios en la periferia metropolitana de las Rocosas, el Sudoeste y el Sur, donde hay subdivisions completas que están virtualmente vacías. El porcentaje de familias que son dueñas de sus casas ha disminuido desde un máximo de 69,2 por ciento en 2004 a 66,4 por ciento en 2011, generando una mayor demanda de unidades de alquiler, que normalmente están ubicadas en áreas más urbanizadas.

Los desplazamientos demográficos también están relacionados con cambios en la composición de los hogares. Para 2030, los hogares unipersonales constituirán un tercio de la población, y sólo alrededor de un 25 por ciento de los hogares incluirá niños, comparado con el 45 por ciento en 1970 y el 33 por ciento en 2000. Estos cambios promoverán probablemente un ajuste significativo en los mercados y valores inmobiliarios, a medida que los baby Boomers envejezcan y pongan a la venta sus casas suburbanas y se muden a ubicaciones más urbanizadas con acceso a transporte público y a barrios peatonales. Al mismo tiempo, los próximos cambios en los mercados hipotecarios y la reforma de Fannie Mae y Freddie Mac puedan llegar a aumentar el costo del financiamiento hipotecario (y de ser propietario de una casa) e inducir a las familias más jóvenes a alquilar en vez de comprar.

Las ciudades como motor de crecimiento

La inversión en infraestructura para respaldar las regiones metropolitanas puede justificarse también por la sorprendente fortaleza de las propias ciudades. El resurgimiento urbano se puede observar en el crecimiento de los ingresos de profesionales altamente especializados, la disminución relativamente modesta de los precios de las viviendas y hasta en los recientes incrementos en varias ciudades prósperas, y en una concentración de innovación en las áreas urbanas, dijo el profesor de economía de Harvard Edward Glaeser. “Podríamos mudarnos a cualquier lugar que se adecúe a nuestra biofilia”, dijo. “Pero seguimos atraídos por las ciudades”.

El crecimiento de la población urbana está altamente correlacionado con los ingresos urbanos promedio, los niveles de educación y la participación en la tasa de empleo en pequeñas empresas, a medida que las ciudades siguen atrayendo a emprendedores y promoviendo la productividad. Si los ingresos en otros lugares fueran como los de la ciudad de Nueva York, el PIB nacional aumentaría un 43 por ciento, dijo Glaeser. Las ciudades también resultarán atractivas por su valor medioambiental, por ser lugares de densidad y transporte público, con un uso relativamente menor de energía per cápita y menor emisión de carbono que las áreas suburbanas y rurales. G laeser rechazó las normas de edificación y las regulaciones restrictivas que desalientan el aumento de densidad y hacen que los barrios urbanos antiguos de baja altura estén “fosilizados en ámbar”. También recalcó que la educación pública sigue siendo la inversión más importante que las ciudades pueden y deben hacer para mejorar el crecimiento económico y la calidad de vida.

A medida que se recuperen la economía nacional y los ingresos de los gobiernos locales, una de las prioridades claves será equilibrar los gastos actuales en servicios y las inversiones de más largo plazo. El crecimiento económico facilitará el financiamiento de inversiones en infraestructura, pero éstas serán necesarias a su vez para aumentar el crecimiento económico. El desafío será encontrar una manera políticamente viable de romper este círculo vicioso.

Sobre los autores

Gregory K. Ingram es presidente y gerente ejecutivo del Instituto Lincoln de Políticas de Suelo.

Anthony Flint es fellow y director de asuntos públicosen el Instituto Lincoln de Políticas de Suelo.