Since its inception just over a year ago, the Northeast State Planning (NESP) Leadership Retreat has been a valuable professional development tool for state planners from Maine to Maryland. This collaboration between Lincoln Institute and Regional Plan Association (RPA) brings together high-level state officials to discuss current state planning issues. After only two annual meetings the participants from 11 northeast states already have implemented ideas discussed with their peers, and a few states have initiated and built smart growth planning and community development schemes inspired by this interstate exchange.

At the second retreat held in March 2000, the participants shared new ideas and success stories, addressed “the do’s and don’ts” of building state planning programs, and took steps toward establishing an economic development program for the northeast corridor. They compared state growth management initiatives in the Northeast to those occurring in the rest of the country, and traded caveats and suggestions on how to sustain political support in the face of a changing economy, bipartisan politics and conflicting interests.

Smart Growth Across the Nation

According to John M. DeGrove, Eminent Scholar of Growth Management and Development at Florida Atlantic University, a new and bipartisan commitment to smart growth is developing across the United States. No longer is the nation enshrouded in a “no-planning” or “planning in isolation” mindset by state and local governments.

As the keynote speaker at the retreat, DeGrove outlined prerequisite factors crucial to a sustainable smart growth program. A primary realization is that the protection of natural systems and the revitalization of urban systems on a local level should happen concurrently with support and coordination from state agencies. Executive leadership can strengthen state legislative initiatives and is usually crucial to program development and implementation. The involvement of diverse coalitions can also be critical in accelerating a smart growth agenda at the state level.

For a progressive smart growth program to survive, there must be an impetus to place growth management in a state or regional framework bolstered by strong incentives and disincentives. State actions linked to federal programs-TEA 21, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the possible renewed funding of the Land and Water Conservation Fund-can enhance the success of strategic, comprehensive planning. Finally, bottom-up coalition building, grassroots efforts, and state agency coordination should be used in place of or in conjunction with top-down approaches. Experiences in Maryland and Pennsylvania have shown that such processes are effective.

Patricia Salkin, associate dean and director of the Government Law Center of Albany Law School in New York, is also at the forefront of growth management research. She has compiled and analyzed information about state planning programs across the country, citing gubernatorial support and legislative reforms as the primary factors driving smart growth programs. She reported that gubernatorial support is generally strong in the Northeast and is growing in such states as Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Minnesota, North Carolina, Utah and Wisconsin.

Salkin mentioned three main categories of legislative reform: 1) recodification and tightening of existing laws, 2) authorization for innovative and flexible controls, and 3) major overhauls. As examples, Oklahoma’s Senate Bill 1151 created a Planning and Land Use Legislative Study Task Force to evaluate the effectiveness of current laws, review model legislation, and identify public information needs; California’s Assembly Bill 1575, encourages innovative land use policies such as unified county plans; and Tennessee is undertaking a study to overhaul its planning and growth management framework and replace it with a smart growth program.

Sustaining Political Support

Sustaining political support for smart growth plans is a challenging task. Bipartisan politics, influential lobbying interests, changes in administration, and home rule are just a few of the most commonly mentioned obstacles to comprehensive, regional programs that address urban, suburban, rural and conservation issues. Arguably, the current strong economy may be facilitating smart growth incentives as many states, especially in the Northeast, offer monetary and capital rewards to municipalities whose policies are consistent with state and regional plans.

A number of common practices on this topic were outlined at the retreat. State agencies such as the office of planning or the department of community affairs may develop coalitions with entities other than fellow state agencies, especially if the “state” is seen as a meddling force in local issues. Some success stories tell of coalition building with elder communities, religious leaders and faith-based communities. Others have tried the silent partner approach in a public/private venture. Most importantly, the political force of local voices can be potent in getting local officials, state congressional representatives and agencies involved.

One key area that requires cautious handling is the presentation and dissemination of information. When plans move from general to specific, care must be taken to allow a broad range of interests to perceive personal and community benefits at the present time and through continued participation in the future. The use of proper terminology is also crucial. For example, in a politically driven world, executives may strive to separate themselves from counterparts with original ideas and phraseology. A state can gain distinction by interchanging the prevalent term “smart growth” with “community preservation,” or “locally designated growth areas” with “urban growth boundaries.”

Political support also can be sustained by creating educational programs to address the planning needs of a community. Training and curricula can be developed for elected public officials and for citizens appointed to planning boards, board of appeals and historic preservation committees. Some efforts have even begun to institutionalize planning studies at the elementary, middle and high school levels. Stamford, Connecticut, for example, is engaged in a program modeled after the recycling movement to encourage school children to bring home planning issues and initiate their family’s involvement in the development and growth of their communities.

Revitalizing the Northeast Corridor

Numerous areas around the globe have adopted the regional corridor concept of economic development. Major capital campaigns are in the process of feasibility analysis or implementation in such diverse locations as California’s San Francisco to San Diego corridor and China’s Beijing to Shanghai corridor. Representatives from several northeast states reported that they are working collaboratively to encourage the economic development of their corridor. Transportation, especially the utilization of rail, is an essential component of the strategy to move goods and people more efficiently throughout the Northeast. Of particular interest is linking the economies of mid-sized cities with the region’s megalopolis anchors-Washington, DC, New York and Boston. The intermediary cities include Providence, RI; Hartford, New Haven, Bridgeport and Stamford, CT; Newark and Trenton, NJ; Philadelphia, PA; Baltimore, MD; and Wilmington, DE.

This planning group, led by the Regional Plan Association, will create a vision and mission statement for the project and then conduct an economic analysis to quantify the benefits. Once a plan is formulated, its cost will be calculated and a timeline will detail the phasing-in of each segment. The participants will then begin an outreach effort to gain backing from various state and local officials, as well as advocacy groups and community representatives. Amtrak, the main source of passenger rail in the corridor, plans to have its high-speed regional train service on-line in late 2000, and a number of partnerships could evolve from the already active advocacy efforts of several groups, such as the National Corridors Initiative/NCI, the I-95 Corridor Coalition, and the Coalition of Northeastern Governors (CONEG). A diverse coalition of business, civic and nonprofit organizations may be instrumental in advancing a regional economic development instrument.

A Southeastern Massachusetts Case Study

The planning retreat culminated with an exercise that looked at the rural southeastern region of Massachusetts where the Commonwealth and the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs (EOEA) are planning to cultivate a bioreserve. Now in its initial stages, this program seeks to preserve vast tracts of valuable land, including forests and wetlands, and curb haphazard and uncoordinated development. The area of concern is the largest high-yield, sole-source aquifer in Massachusetts, with close to 70,000 acres of cranberry bogs, areas of endangered habitat, and a cluster of pine barrens. The Commonwealth is exploring various avenues to preserve these natural resources.

Through a statewide Community Preservation Initiative, the Commonwealth has begun to provide technical assistance to towns in the region by helping them forecast their commercial/industrial buildouts based on current zoning and population estimates. The EOEA hopes this information will help the communities make better decisions regarding future development and put this knowledge to use on a cooperative regional level to create beneficial growth plans for all nearby cities and towns.

The participants emphasized three considerations that specifically addressed the issues raised by the EOEA, and that are transferable to other regional planning initiatives. First, negotiated processes, whether between state government and a municipality, between municipalities, or between a community and a state agency, are effective in consensus building and cutting costs. Investing in consensus building at the beginning of the planning process can preclude litigation costs and the costs of stalled development due to community opposition. Second, technical assistance must be provided in a manner that keeps communities engaged throughout the entire analysis stage. Engagement increases support for the results and demystifies the “technical experience,” thus giving a sense of empowerment and control to those most affected by the final plan. Finally, local government involvement is key to any planning process, since local officials usually have their fingers on the pulse of community vitality and needs, and can use that knowledge to ensure effective programs.

Alternatively, participants mentioned a few pitfalls that need to be avoided in the context of this southeastern Massachusetts case. The original mapping of the bioreserve maximized the layout of open spaces and land in need of protection. However, in the desire to classify maximum acreage for protection, some new boundaries would have cut through municipalities, leaving the potential of an insider/outsider dichotomy. In areas where home rule is a coveted prize, as in Massachusetts towns, government programs are often met with suspicion and resistance. Further, if state government presents an agenda for preservation with lines drawn and boundaries sited without local input, communities will often react adversely to any plans, regardless of the goodwill and intent of the program. The ideal action to preclude these problems is to offer technical assistance to achieve through collaboration the preservation that the state ultimately wants. Preferably, the entire municipality should be represented in any regional framework for southeastern Massachusetts to facilitate inter- and intra-muncipal support for the desired program.

In conclusion, the discussions at the Second Annual NESP Retreat offered a great deal of insight into the experiences of the 11 states represented. Though they share a common geographic location, they have taken many approaches to address future growth and development. The retreat offered instructive lessons on the common theories, practices and principles that are useful in building a diverse array of programs appropriate to each state’s local conditions, and it underscored the value of continuing such meetings.

Robert D. Yaro is executive director and Raymond R. Janairo is senior research associate of the Regional Plan Association, based in New York City.

Cities in Latin America, Asia, and Central and Eastern Europe are being virtually transformed by inflows of capital in ways that urban land use planners never thought possible. These cities desperately need to develop and implement urban land management systems to maximize the social as well as private benefits of globalization. This article looks at globalization trends, identifies urban land management issues and opportunities, and discusses how Buenos Aires, as a case example, could strengthen its urban land management systems to better accommodate globalization-induced economic growth.

Globalization Trends

Over the past 20 years the world economy has become more and more integrated. International trade and investment have increased and the spatial distribution of industrial activities has become more diffused. Advances in communications, computer technology and logistics have revolutionized how business is conducted and how financial capital is invested. Many cities and regions that were once off the beaten track are now on the world’s main street, and those that once dominated certain markets, such as Glasgow in shipbuilding, Birmingham in textiles and Pittsburgh in steel, have lost ground.

Globalization, that is the international integration of product, service and financial markets, poses enormous opportunities and challenges. In the best of circumstances, globalization can lead to significant increases in non-agricultural employment, increasing wages, improved living conditions and better environmental quality. In other cases it may mean plant closures, unemployment, declining incomes and worsened living conditions

Because globalization requires foreign direct investment in plants and facilities, the internationalization of industrial activities is profoundly altering the world’s urban economic landscape. Over the past two decades, cities benefiting from global structuring have grown rapidly, while less economically competitive cities have stagnated. Given their plentiful supplies of cheap labor and permissive regulatory environments, cities in developing countries have become important actors in global manufacturing.

Multinational manufacturing corporations have been the principal driving force of globalization. These firms have increasingly shifted production from developed to developing countries to exploit the advantages of inexpensive labor. As they restructure their networks of production, they invest in plants and equipment in the host countries and generate significant increases in employment. According to the World Bank, five of the eight million jobs created by multinationals between 1985 and 1992 were generated in developing countries. The total number of jobs created by multinationals in developing countries stands at 12 million, but when subcontracting is included the true total is likely to be 24 million jobs. Multinationals account for more than 20 percent of the total manufacturing employment in such countries as Argentina, Barbados, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mexico, the Philippines, Singapore and Sri Lanka.

Urban Land Management Issues and Opportunities

As cities strive to become centers of global production, trade and development, they are increasingly concerned with improving their attractiveness for foreign direct investment and employment generation. For example, cities must have efficient spatial structures, adequate infrastructure and urban services, affordable housing and healthy environments. Effective urban land management is required to promote urban regeneration and development of new industrial and commercial districts, investments to upgrade and expand critical infrastructure systems, programs to enhance and protect the environment, and initiatives to upgrade social overhead capital (housing, education, healthcare).

To implement these initiatives globalizing cities need to develop urban land management strategies to provide land for industrial and commercial development, to facilitate the formation of public-private partnerships, and to finance the provision of infrastructure and social overhead capital investments. Unfortunately, in many cities around the world such strategies do not exist and foreign investment is either stifled or, if it does take place, causes significant adverse side effects. Several examples highlight the consequences of poor urban land management.

In Ho Chi Minh City, planners have not carefully assessed the land use and transportation impacts of foreign investment. The city administration has approved dozens of high-rise office projects in the Central District but they have not adequately assessed the traffic and infrastructure impacts of these projects. As a result traffic congestion and infrastructure problems with the water supply and sewerage treatment are mounting. To make matters worse, planners have approved the development of Saigon South, a massive 3,000-hectare commercial, industrial and residential project, without assessing its impacts on the city’s transportation system.

Getting access to land for factories and commercial facilities is problematic, particularly in the transition economies of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. Decades of inefficient allocation of land for industrial uses have literally blighted inner-city areas in Warsaw, Moscow and St. Petersburg. Derelict industrial belts that desperately need regeneration surround these cities. Unfortunately, a lack of clarity over land rights, corruption and bureaucratic inertia are impeding redevelopment. To compound matters, land use plans in many transition economy cities have not been adjusted to reflect the new land use requirements necessary to support post-industrial development.

The globalization of economic activity is literally transforming the urban landscapes of developing countries. To effectively exploit the benefits of inward investment flows and to insure that social and environmental goals are met, the public sector needs to take the lead in planning and formulating urban land management strategies to promote sustainable urban economic development.

The Case of Buenos Aires

A recent Lincoln Institute seminar in Buenos Aires offered some ideas on what actions are needed to more effectively manage the challenges of globalization-induced investment and urban economic development in that city. Participants agreed that Buenos Aires needs to strengthen its land management and economic development capabilities. The city should foster the formation of agglomeration economies and define and strengthen its comparative advantage in the global marketplace. The public sector should also foster the formation of social overhead capital and facilitate the development of critical infrastructure, social services and other investments that cannot be provided by the private sector.

Government needs to remove market imperfections and internalize externalities so that the social benefits of urban development are maximized and social costs minimized. This requires having in place sound and appropriate land use and environmental planning controls and regulations. Government should also provide information about the city’s demographic and economic projections and its land and property market so that developers and investors are well informed about urban development trends. This effort includes developing an inventory and assessment of public land holdings that can be used to foster strategic planning objectives.

At the same time, government should work with community and business leaders to improve social equity in real estate market transactions by increasing the supply of affordable housing and seeing that infrastructure and urban services are provided to all neighborhoods regardless of social or economic status. This may include preparing a capital budget for critical infrastructure and real estate development projects, as well as strategies for financing these investments.

The private sector is challenged with developing the city by providing businesses and residents with shops, offices, factories and housing. To the fullest extent possible, the government should enable the private sector to develop real estate to match the changing requirements of households and businesses. In some cases, such activities require partnerships between the public and private sector. For its part, the private sector needs to be more cautious and systematic about the formation and promotion of real estate projects by paying more attention to land market research on occupancy demand and supply for offices, retail, industrial and residential sectors.

To facilitate the implementation of these actions, the seminar participants encouraged Buenos Aires officials to build awareness about the linkages between globalization, urban land management and economic development. One important step would be to form a partnership with the private sector to develop a land market database of real estate transactions in the city. In addition, the participants identified the need for training courses on such topics as strategic planning; public-private partnerships; financing urban development and infrastructure; developing affordable housing; linking urban land management with economic development; and promoting urban revitalization and regeneration.

David E. Dowall is professor of city and regional planning at the University of California at Berkeley.

The idea of reducing or abolishing capital gains taxes to encourage private investment and general economic growth often comes up in state and national political campaigns. Advocates of cutting these taxes argue that if investors could keep their gains, they would invest them in new enterprises, thereby creating new jobs and strengthening local economies.

The public discussion usually focuses on stock market investments, but most capital gains are generated in the real estate sector where most of the economy’s assets are based. In 1994, the Federal Reserve Board estimated that real estate accounted for 67 percent of the nation’s total economic assets, including land worth about $4.4 trillion, homes worth $5.9 trillion, and other buildings (stores, factories, office buildings) worth an additional $3.1 trillion.

There are no comprehensive national statistics on capital gains from real estate or other assets. But the most recent survey by the Internal Revenue Service, conducted in 1985, estimated that land and buildings accounted for at least 58 and perhaps as much as 70 percent of the total of $208 billion in capital gains that year.

Federal statistics also report that the annual cost of doing business in real estate often exceeds the taxable income generated from land and buildings. It follows that many real estate investors receive a net benefit only when they eventually sell their properties for more than they originally cost. In effect, they are willing to turn over most current income to their mortgage bankers, in the hope of reaping a capital gain at the end of the process.

How Much Total Income Does Real Estate Generate?

There are no adequate national statistics on how much real estate is worth or the total income it generates. It is possible, however, to estimate real estate cash flow by starting from the income reported by the owners of real estate and adding to that some of the major expenses they paid before paying taxes. In 1993, the owners of real estate reported receiving about $209 billion in cash flow (earnings plus depreciation), though the amount depreciated was not taxable. In addition, the real estate industry paid about $515 billion in a combination of mortgage interest and property taxes. Thus real estate generated at least $724 billion in total earnings in 1993 (see chart 1).

The portion of this total paid out as interest to lenders since the end of World War II has grown much faster than any other part of the total. Between 1945 and 1993, the share of real estate earnings paid out as interest grew from about 10 percent to about 50 percent. This reflects the fact that about 70 percent of private sector lending is committed to real estate mortgages. This two-way street—with money flowing from real estate into financial institutions, then back out into real estate loans—is one reason why federal statistics lump real estate and finance together as the “finance, insurance, and real estate” sector, or FIRE for short.

Who Receives Income Generated by Real Estate?

Federal income and tax statistics attribute income from real estate to three categories of owners: persons, corporate real estate and noncorporate real estate. These categories are not self-explanatory. They are based on the motives and behavior of real estate owners, and do not refer simply to individual people, partnerships and companies.

“Persons” receive some income from real estate, though it is not their primary way of earning a living. They may rent out an apartment in a two-family house or a second home during the off-season, for example; or, they may own an apartment building or small commercial property.

“Corporate real estate” is a relatively small category, consisting only of land and buildings that are owned and used for non-real estate business purposes. For example, manufacturing companies typically own their own corporate headquarters and industrial plants. To capture tax advantages, however, these companies may spin off their facilities as “noncorporate” real estate, then lease them back.

The “noncorporate real estate” category is the least obvious. Owners in this category participate either full- or part-time in real estate as a business, mostly through partnerships. The category includes a wide range of people and organizations, from professional developers or property management companies to doctors who own nursing homes.

In 1993, the annual earnings for these three categories were $86 billion for persons, $3 billion for corporate owners, and $120 billion for noncorporate owners (see charts 2-4).

How Is Real Estate Income Taxed?

Since 1970, when the federal government began separating real estate statistics from those for the finance and insurance sectors, real estate has shown little taxable income. Corporate and noncorporate real estate businesses enjoy several tax advantages that help to account for this seeming anomaly of the economy’s major asset generating such low reported earnings:

(a) Like other business owners, they can deduct the cost of maintaining their property (painting, landscaping, replacing a leaky roof, etc.) as an expense before paying taxes on their business income. The purpose of this spending is to preserve the value of their real estate.

(b) They can also claim depreciation (“capital consumption allowances”) for their buildings (technically land does not depreciate). In most businesses, this allowance is a way to compensate for wear-and-tear on machinery, which must be replaced when it becomes obsolete. In practice, real estate owners have often been allowed to depreciate their buildings even though their market value is not declining at all.

(c) When owners sell their properties, any positive difference between the depreciated price received and the price originally paid is taxed as a capital gain. Capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than other income. Thus, over-depreciation turns out to be a way of minimizing tax liability.

The combination of (b) and (c) raises what might seem like an obvious question: how can real estate depreciate, losing value and eventually needing replacement, yet end up selling for more than its purchase price, generating capital gains? Of course a given piece of real estate does not always do both. Some real estate is indeed sold at a loss–for example, if property values in a whole neighborhood or city decline. But land, unlike machinery or even buildings, cannot wear out. Since World War II, urban land in particular and real estate holdings in general have gained in value far more often than they have declined.

How Should Real Estate Income Be Taxed?

In a rising market, federal tax policy allows real estate investors to earn several times more than they could simply by making smart buying and selling decisions. Writing off maintenance expenses and the supposedly declining value of the property before calculating taxable income means that the same property can produce a steady income for realtors and potential investors, but appear to lose money as far as the federal tax collector is concerned.

A tax-smart investor in a rising real estate market will own a piece of property only until it has been fully depreciated. It then has a “book value” of zero—like a piece of machinery so worn out or outdated that it cannot be sold at any price. The owner of such a machine has to junk it and buy a new one. The real estate investor, in contrast, can sell the “zero value” property to new owners, who can depreciate it all over again starting from the new, higher price they paid.

The upshot of these tax policies is that an industry with large total earnings reports little or no taxable income. Charts 3 and 4 show that real estate businesses have reported a negative taxable income frequently since the mid-1980s, despite the fact that real estate values in many places were rising. Since the real estate industry pays hardly any income taxes on its rental income, the major federal tax it does pay is the capital gains tax—for that is where the accumulated rental earnings are taken, when the building is sold for its depreciated value.

Does such favorable tax treatment for real estate benefit the economy as a whole? That question cannot be answered from tax statistics alone. The answer depends in part on whether all real estate projects that are taxed the same way are equally good at generating public benefits, such as jobs in construction and property maintenance, or other needed goods such as housing, shopping, and manufacturing facilities. If the answer to that question is “no,” then the public interest might be better served if funds now invested in real estate for tax advantages alone were invested in new technologies or public infrastructure.

____________________________

Michael Hudson is a research associate at the Jerome Levy Economics Institute at Bard College in New York. He is writing a book about how federal income and capital gains taxes on land and buildings affect national taxation and investment patterns, and he spoke on this topic at the Lincoln Institute in October 1995.

The collapse of communism in the early 1990s launched an era of political and economic reforms in Russia and throughout the former Soviet Union that introduced democracy and the free market economy to countries that previously had no experience with either of these concepts. In Russia privatization of land was one of the first items on the reform agenda, and by the end of 1992 the Russian Parliament had adopted the federal law On the Payment for Land. This law set normative land values differentiated by regions to be used for taxation, as well as a basis for land rent and purchase. At the time the country had no land market, so this was considered a very progressive measure. Lands that were previously held in public ownership were rapidly distributed to individuals, and by 1998 some 129 million hectares of land were privately held by some 43 million landowners. Introduction of private ownership rights in land also meant the introduction of the land tax, since owners or users of land plots became eligible to pay for their real property assets.

Economic reforms in Russia were accompanied by inflation that ran thousands of percent annually. To maintain revenue yields, local and regional authorities adjusted normative land values accordingly. As land market activity started to develop in the mid-1990s, some of these authorities used market price information to make land value adjustments. As a result land taxes became absolutely inconsistent with the economic situation, and tax amounts were not comparable for similar properties located in different jurisdictions.

By the late 1990s the land tax system had developed faults that required tax reform on a nationwide scale. The basic outline of the tax reform included the following features:

• The land tax will become a local tax.
• While floating tax rates will be established by local governments, the maximum possible tax rates will be fixed by federal legislation.
• The federal government will develop rules and procedures for mass valuation of land plots.
• The tax base will be the cadastral value of land plots.
• Land cadastre authorities will provide information on taxable objects and their taxable land values to tax and revenue authorities.

Reform of the land tax is seen as part of a wider property tax reform. The current property tax system in Russia includes a number of taxes: individual property tax; enterprise property tax; land tax; and real property tax. While the first three are operational, the fourth tax has been tested as an experiment since 1997 in two cities, Novgorod Veliky and Tver (Malme and Youngman 2001, Chapter 6). It is expected that when Russia is in a position to introduce the real property tax nationally, the first three taxes will be canceled.

In 1999 the Land Cadastre Service of Russia, a land administration authority of the federal government, was delegated the responsibility to develop mass valuation methods and to implement the country’s first mass valuation of all land. The government chose mass valuation, identifying the sales comparison, income and cost approaches as the basic valuation models that needed to be developed. Land is valued at its site value as if it were vacant.

Implementation of a mass valuation system has been constrained by the lack of reliable land market data, however. The housing market is the only developed market in Russia that can be characterized by a large number of sales transactions. These transactions are spread unevenly throughout the country, with large cities characterized by many transactions and high prices for apartments, whereas small towns and settlements have few examples of real estate sales. The national land market recorded some 5.5 million transactions annually, with only about 6 percent of them being actual buying and selling transactions. Official data from land registration authorities could not be used as a data source because transacting parties often conceal the true market price to avoid paying transfer taxes.

This lack of reliable market data has forced the developers of mass valuation models to identify other factors that may influence the land market. The model developed for valuation of urban land included some 90 layers of information that were geo-referenced to digital land cadastre maps of cities and towns. Apart from available market information, these data layers included features of physical infrastructure such as transport, public utilities, schools, stores and other structures. Environmental factors also are taken into consideration.

Mass valuation methods in Russia have identified 14 types of urban land use that can be assigned to each cadastral block. Thus, the model can set the tax base according to the current or highest and best land use. The actual tax base established for each land plot is calculated as the price of a square meter of land in a cadastral block multiplied by the area of the plot.

It took one year of development and model testing and two years of further work to complete the cadastral valuation of urban land throughout Russia. Actual valuation results suggest that the model works accurately with lands occupied by the housing sector. The correlation between actual market data and mass valuation results is between 0.6 and 0.7 on a scale of 0 to 1.0, with greater accuracy in areas where the land market is better developed.

Cadastral valuation of agricultural land is based on the income approach, since availability of agricultural land market information is extremely limited. Legislation allowing the sale of agricultural land became effective in early 2002. The data used to value agricultural land included information on soils and actual farm production figures over the last 30 years. Mass valuation of forested lands was also based on the income approach. Russian land law also identifies a special group of industrial lands located outside the city limits that includes industrial sites, roads, railroads, and energy and transport facilities. These lands proved to be a difficult subject for mass valuation because there are so many unique types of structures and objects on them; individual valuation is often applied to them instead.

Over the past four years, some 95 percent of Russia’s territory has been valued using mass valuation methodology. The Federal Land Cadastre Service continues to refine and improve its methods in preparation for the enactment of relevant legislation authorizing the introduction of a new value-based land tax. During this period, the Cadastre Service organized a Workshop on Mass Valuation Systems of Land (Real Estate) for Taxation Purposes, in Moscow in 2002, under the auspices of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. It also assembled a delegation for the Lincoln Institute’s course Introducing a Market Value-Based Mass Appraisal System for Taxation of Real Property, in Vilnius in 2003 (see related article).

Alexey L. Overchuk is deputy chief of the Federal Land Cadastre Service of Russia and deputy chairman of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Working Party for Land Administration.

Reference

Malme, Jane H. and Joan M. Youngman. 2001. The Development of Property Taxation in Economies in Transition: Case Studies from Central and Eastern Europe. Washington, DC: The World Bank. Available at http://www1.worldbank.org/wbiep/decentralization/library9/malme_propertytax.pdf

Daphne Kenyon, a visiting fellow at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, heads D. A. Kenyon & Associates, a public policy consulting firm in Windham, New Hampshire. She also serves on the New Hampshire State Board of Education, to which she was appointed by Governor John Lynch (D) in 2006. Kenyon is writing a policy focus report for the Institute, titled Untying the Property Tax–School Funding Knot, which will be available in the fall of 2007.