American cities have promising long-term prospects as hubs of innovation and growth, with expansion in technology and health sciences beginning to offset the decades-long erosion of manufacturing. Cities also remain places of vitality, offering urban design, density, and trans-port options that attract residents of all ages and backgrounds. In fact, nine of the ten most populous U.S. cities gained population over the last decade, according to the 2010 U.S. Census.

Yet the short-term prospects for cities are fraught with challenges. The recent sharp decline in tax revenues, caused by the 2008 housing market collapse and related financial crisis and economic slowdown, has made it extraordinarily difficult for state and local governments to maintain basic services, let alone plan for investments in infrastructure. Federal funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) helped local governments offset revenue declines in the past three years, but ARRA funds are no longer available for the coming fiscal year (a transition now termed “the cliff”), leaving local officials to confront the full force of revenue shortfalls.

The 2011 Journalists Forum on Land and the Built Environment: The Next City brought scholars, practitioners, and political leaders together with print and broadcast journalists to explore the theme of infrastructure for cities in the context of the ongoing economic recovery. This program is an annual partnership of the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University, and Harvard Graduate School of Design.

Two roles for infrastructure investments and related services permeated discussions at the Forum. First was the near-term role of investment in infrastructure as a fiscal stimulus aimed at turning around the economy and increasing employment. Second was the longer-term role that infrastructure plays in sustaining the transformation of municipal economies and increasing their competitiveness and livability in a globalized world.

Infrastructure and the Local Government Fiscal Crisis

The country’s need for fiscal stimulus to jump-start the economy in 2009 raised the prospect of massive infrastructure investments to help meet that need. However, the kinds of projects that could be launched quickly at the local level tended to be smaller-scale efforts, such as roadway repairs and facilities maintenance. More ambitious initiatives, such as intercity high-speed rail, failed to materialize due to spending and debt concerns and because much more design was needed before implementation could proceed.

Lawrence H. Summers, who recently returned to his professorship at Harvard after being director of the White House National Economic Council, defended the Obama administration’s stimulus plans, which he said were necessary to restore confidence in the financial system and keep the recession “out of the history books.” However, he said, “while local governments were able to use stimulus funds to cover revenue shortfalls, there were very few large shovel-ready projects.”

Moreover, the grim reality of fiscal stress is that cities cannot focus on large-scale, long-range infrastructure projects because they are struggling to cut spending and reform the delivery of local public services, noted Michael Cooper, reporter for The New York Times. Some examples of lost services include the Hawaii program that furloughs public school teachers every Friday through this school year; the San Diego boy who died choking on a gumball because a nearby fire station had been shuttered on a rotating basis; Colorado Springs’ decision to turn off a third of its streetlights each night and to auction off the police helicopter; and the California town that recalled its mayor because he revamped the city’s failing wooden pipes in its water system, but increased water fees to pay for it.

Many jurisdictions also have ongoing fiscal problems with the underfunding of pension funds and benefits. Some are worsening the problems simply by not making the required annual payments, a stopgap applied by Governor Chris Christie in New Jersey, among others. The municipal bond market faces tumult and some cities, like Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, are on the brink of bankruptcy. Fiscal deficits are growing because local governments have now expended the last of their

ARRA funds.

Adrian Fenty, former mayor of Washington, DC, said cities need to be run on a more business-like basis, moving to the politics of performance and away from the politics of patronage. Improvements are needed in both the efficiency of basic service delivery and the management of city finances. Because education is so important to the economic growth of cities, his administration gave priority to education reform—human infrastructure as well as physical infrastructure. During his term as mayor, his administration closed 20 percent of the schools and reduced administrative personnel by 50 percent. He also revamped teacher contracts, offering a merit pay system without tenure that 60 percent of the teachers opted to join.

Infrastructure Challenges: The Case of High-Speed Rail

President Barack Obama’s $53 billion high-speed rail initiative has brought the challenges of the local government fiscal crisis into sharp relief. Governors in Florida, Ohio, and Wisconsin returned the federal funding allocated to those states for intercity rail, claiming that their state and local governments could not possibly afford the resulting maintenance and operating costs, and questioning ridership projections. The high-speed rail project in California, though financed by a voter-approved bond issue, faces similar opposition because of financial burdens and local land use disputes.

Bruce Babbitt, former governor of Arizona and secretary of the U.S. Department of Interior, and a member of the Lincoln Institute board of directors, said the Obama administration’s campaign for high-speed intercity rail was a “political disaster,” and that the underlying vision needed a reassessment. He suggested that the Northeast Corridor should be the model, and that a revised plan should include a well-defined system of reliable financing—similar to the approach used to build the interstate highway system.

Paying for high-speed rail infrastructure will require a dedicated funding stream, perhaps from an increase in the gasoline tax in the states where the new rail lines would be located, and a system of value capture to engage private landowners who benefit from increases in property value as a result of such public works projects. “We don’t have the political courage to define our priorities,” Babbitt said. It will take a “national hammer” to address the nation’s infrastructure deficit without abdicating control to governors and states.

High-speed rail may live or die based on economic considerations. Petra Todorovich, executive director of America 2050, which has issued numerous analyses of high-speed rail’s potential, proposed a framework of 12 U.S. megaregions that represent collections of metropolitan areas where enhanced rail service offers the greatest potential for replacing automobile and short-haul airline travel. High-speed rail can deepen labor markets, increase agglomeration economies, and boost productivity by linking urban centers. Japan, France, and China are among the countries that have demonstrated how rail lines between major cities can foster economic synergies through the strategic location of high-speed rail stations and their connections to commuter rail and transit.

This economic payoff argument was seconded by Edward Rendell, former governor of Pennsylvania and mayor of Philadelphia, who is part of Building America’s Future, a campaign for investments in crumbling infrastructure nationwide. Rendell argued that the United States has been resting on its past investments, and that shoring up the nation’s decaying physical foundations is now an urgent priority. Without world-class infrastructure, the country will not be competitive in attracting private investment, sustaining rapid technological innovation and productivity growth, or maintaining the growth of good jobs domestically.

Infrastructure and the Future of Cities

As the recovery continues and economic growth returns, investments in new communication technology, green energy, smart urban systems, transport such as high-speed rail and mass transit, and other infrastructure will be needed to help cities fulfill their roles as the centers of innovation, culture, and productivity.

The vision of infrastructure combined with long-range planning is also a central theme in how cities can adapt to the inevitable impacts of climate change, including a possible one-meter sea level rise and associated storm surges, flooding, and increasing numbers of extreme weather events. Infrastructure in most coastal cities is so old that even a moderate storm event can do extensive damage, said Ed Blakely, public policy professor at the University of Sydney and former hurricane recovery czar in New Orleans.

Cities have been able to base their current plans on the relatively calm meteorological record of the last 200 years, but that calm is likely to erode with climate change, making much of the existing infrastructure inadequate or obsolete. Attention should not be focused on rebuilding after disasters like Hurricane Katrina, Blakely said, but on relocating, repositioning, and “future-proofing” for more resilient cities.

Infrastructure as an amenity that improves city livability is seen in New York’s High Line project, the conversion of an elevated freight line through the Meatpacking District and Greenwich Village. One of the architects on that project, Liz Diller, principal in Diller, Scofidio + Renfro, suggested that such retrofits can transform urban areas, provide a focal point for social and cultural events, and promote economic activity—though she cautioned that “architecture can’t really fix big problems.”

In spite of the current fiscal crisis, cities are expected to experience other changes that may aid their economic recovery. Among these are the fallout from the current housing crisis that is likely to spur demand for rental units and the demographic shift as the baby boom generation enters retirement age and begins to downsize housing choices.

Professor Arthur C. (Chris) Nelson, professor at the University of Utah, noted that both changes may generate more demand for urban lifestyles. For example, the current reduction in demand for owner-occupied, single-family houses at the metropolitan periphery is evident in the Intermountain West, Southwest, and South, where entire subdivisions are virtually empty. The percent of households owning homes has declined from a high of 69.2 percent in 2004 to 66.4 percent in 2011, fostering more demand for rental units that typically are located in more urbanized areas.

Demographic shifts are also related to changes in household composition. By 2030 single-person households will constitute one-third of the population, and only about one out of four households will include children, a decline from 45 percent with children in 1970 and 33 percent in 2000. These changes are likely to foster a significant adjustment in housing markets and values as aging baby boomers offer their suburban houses for sale and move to more urbanized locations with access to transit and walkable neighborhoods. At the same time, upcoming changes in mortgage markets and the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac may make mortgage financing (and homeownership) more costly and cause younger families to choose renting over owning.

Cities as Engines of Growth

Investing in infrastructure to support metropolitan regions might have an additional rationale grounded in the surprising resilience of cities themselves. The ongoing urban resurgence is visible in the income growth of highly skilled professionals, the relatively modest housing price declines and even recent increases in several prospering cities, and a concentration of innovation in urban areas, said Harvard economics professor Edward Glaeser. “We could move anywhere that suits our biophilia,” he said. “Yet we keep flocking to cities.”

Urban population growth is highly correlated with average urban incomes, education levels, and the share of employment in small firms as cities continue to draw entrepreneurs and foster productivity. If incomes everywhere were like those in New York City, the national GDP would rise 43 percent, Glaeser said. Cities will also continue to be prized for their environmental value as places of density and transit, reflecting relatively lower per capita energy use and carbon emissions than suburban and rural areas. Glaeser argued against restrictive zoning and regulations that discourage greater density and leave older, low-rise urban neighborhoods “frozen in amber.” He also stressed that public education remains the most important investment that cities can and should make to enhance their continued economic growth and quality of life.

As both the national economy and local government revenues recover, a key priority will be to balance expenditures between current services and longer-term investments. Economic growth will make it easier to finance investments in infrastructure, but investments in infrastructure are needed to increase economic growth. The challenge is to find a politically feasible way of breaking into this virtuous circle.

About the Authors

Gregory K. Ingram is president and CEO of the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Anthony Flint is fellow and director of public affairs at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

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

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

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

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

Land Lines: What do you mean by legacy cities?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Land Lines: What do you mean by successful regeneration?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adam H. Langley es analista senior de investigación en el Departamento de Valuación e Impuestos del Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Previamente, Langley trabajó para la Asamblea del Estado de Nueva York. Obtuvo su licenciatura en Estudios políticos en el Bard College y una maestría en Economía en Boston University.

Las investigaciones de Langley han cubierto una serie de temas relacionados con las finanzas públicas estatales y locales, centrándose específicamente en el impuesto sobre la propiedad. Ha sido coautor de tres informes sobre enfoque en políticas de suelo del Instituto Lincoln: Property Tax Circuit Breakers: Fair and Cost-Effective Relief for Taxpayers (Fusibles para el impuesto sobre la propiedad: Alivio equitativo y económicamente efectivo para los contribuyentes) (2009), Payments in Lieu of Taxes: Balancing Municipal and Nonprofit Interests (Pagos en lugar de impuestos: Equilibrando los intereses de las municipalidades y organizaciones sin fines de lucro) (2010), y Rethinking Property Tax Incentives for Business (Repensando los incentivos del impuesto sobre la propiedad para las empresas) (2012). También ha liderado varios proyectos para proporcionar datos en el sitio web del Instituto Lincoln, como la creación de la base de datos de Ciudades Fiscalmente Estandarizadas (Fiscally Standardized Cities o FiSCs) y un juego de datos con amplia información sobre organizaciones sin fines de lucro que efectúan pagos en lugar de impuestos, y las localidades que los reciben.

Sus artículos han aparecido en publicaciones como Regional Science and Urban Economics, Public Finance and Management, y Publius: The Journal of Federalism. Su investigación también ha sido cubierta por más de cien medios periodísticos, incluyendo The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Economist, Governing, y The Boston Globe.

Land Lines: ¿En qué proyectos ha estado trabajando recientemente como analista de investigación senior del Instituto Lincoln?

Adam Langley: He estado trabajando en varios proyectos relacionados con las finanzas de los gobiernos locales. Un proyecto importante ha sido la creación de la base de datos de “Ciudades fiscalmente estandarizadas” (Fiscally Standardized Cities o FiSCs). Este subcentro del sitio web del Instituto Lincoln permite a los usuarios realizar comparaciones significativas de las finanzas de los gobiernos locales a nivel ciudad para 112 de las ciudades más grandes de los EE.UU. en los últimos 35 años. Utilicé estos datos en un artículo reciente sobre las finanzas municipales durante la Gran Recesión, que presenté en la 9.a Conferencia Anual sobre Política de Suelo el 2 de junio de 2014. También estoy creando una tabla resumida para describir los programas estatales de exención y créditos al impuesto sobre la propiedad, con información del subcentro “Características significativas del impuesto sobre la propiedad” del Instituto Lincoln. Pienso usar dicha tabla para estimar los gastos tributarios para estos programas en cada uno de los 50 estados.

Land Lines: Usted trabajó en varios proyectos para proporcionar datos en el sitio web del Instituto Lincoln. ¿Qué lo motiva a enfocarse en los datos?

Adam Langley: Estos proyectos de datos forman parte central de la misión del Instituto Lincoln de facilitar la toma de decisiones informadas sobre temas relacionados con el uso, la regulación y la tributación del suelo. Las bases de datos del Instituto han sido utilizadas por gestores de políticas, para ayudarles a guiar sus decisiones; por periodistas, para ampliar el contexto de sus notas; y por investigadores, para sus propios proyectos. El aprovisionamiento de datos accesibles sin cargo y fáciles de usar aumenta enormemente el alcance potencial del trabajo del Instituto en temas de políticas de suelo, porque permite a otros analistas realizar nuevas investigaciones sobre el tema.

También es esencial para el prestigio del Instituto Lincoln que nuestras recomendaciones de políticas se cimienten en un análisis de alta calidad y datos fidedignos. Para poder influir en las decisiones políticas, es fundamental que nuestras investigaciones sean ampliamente consideradas como objetivas, no partidistas y basadas en evidencias.

Land Lines: Usted dijo que la base de datos de “Ciudades fiscalmente estandarizadas” permite realizar comparaciones significativas de las finanzas de los gobiernos locales a nivel ciudad. ¿Qué tiene de malo la simple comparación de gobiernos municipales?

Adam Langley: Las responsabilidades de servicio de los gobiernos municipales varían mucho a lo largo del país. Mientras que algunas municipalidades brindan una oferta completa de servicios públicos a sus residentes, otras comparten estas responsabilidades con una serie de gobiernos independientes superpuestos. Debido a estas diferencias en la estructura de los gobiernos locales, la comparación simple de gobiernos municipales puede ser engañosa.

Por ejemplo, consideremos una comparación entre Baltimore y Tampa. El gobierno municipal de Baltimore gasta tres veces más per cápita que el gobierno municipal de Tampa (US$5.594 vs. US$1.829 en 2011). No obstante, la diferencia se debe casi por completo al hecho de que la ciudad de Tampa comparte el aprovisionamiento de servicios locales con un distrito escolar independiente y con el condado de Hillsborough al que pertenece, mientras que Baltimore no cuenta con ningún condado superpuesto, y las escuelas forman parte del gobierno municipal propiamente dicho. Cuando se tienen en cuenta todos los gobiernos superpuestos en la base de datos de FiSC, los gastos per cápita para los residentes de las dos ciudades son casi idénticos: US$6.083 en Baltimore vs. US$6.067 en Tampa.

Land Lines: ¿Puede explicar la metodología utilizada para crear las “Ciudades fiscalmente estandarizadas”?

Adam Langley: Las FiSC se construyen sumando los ingresos de cada gobierno municipal con la proporción pertinente de los condados superpuestos, distritos escolares independientes y distritos especiales. Los ingresos del condado se asignan a la base de datos FiSC según la proporción de la población del condado que vive en dicha ciudad; los ingresos escolares se asignan en base al porcentaje de estudiantes del distrito que vive en la ciudad central, y los ingresos de los distritos especiales se asignan en base a la proporción de los residentes del área de servicio del distrito que vive en la ciudad. Por lo tanto, la base de datos FiSC proporciona una representación plena de los ingresos recaudados de los residentes y comercios de la ciudad, ya sea por el gobierno municipal o por un gobierno separado superpuesto. Estas asignaciones se hacen para más de 120 categorías de ingresos, gastos, deudas y activos. La metodología de la base de datos FiSC fue desarrollada junto con Andrew Reschovsky, fellow del Instituto Lincoln, y Howard Chernick, profesor de Hunter College de la Universidad de la Ciudad de Nueva York. Calculamos las estimaciones usando datos fiscales de cada gobierno individual proporcionados por la Oficina del Censo de los EE.UU. y actualizamos la base de datos de FiSC con los datos de años posteriores, en la medida que se encuentren disponibles.

Land Lines: ¿Por qué es importante comparar las finanzas de los gobiernos locales a nivel de ciudad?

Adam Langley: Mucha gente quiere saber cómo se compara su ciudad con otras ciudades, pero al hacer estas comparaciones es fundamental contabilizar las diferencias en las estructuras de los gobiernos locales. La base de datos FiSC precisamente hace eso. Por lo tanto, se puede usar para comparar los ingresos del impuesto sobre la propiedad en dos ciudades, clasificar a todas las ciudades por su nivel de gasto escolar, investigar cambios en los salarios del sector público a lo largo del tiempo, o ver qué ciudades dependen más de la ayuda estatal para financiar sus presupuestos.

En otro proyecto, junto con Andrew Reschovsky y Richard Dye, estamos usando la metodología de FiSC para estimar los costos de las pensiones y otras obligaciones de los gobiernos locales de cada ciudad. La cobertura en los medios de comunicación a veces da la impresión de que todos los planes públicos de pensiones tienen dificultades, pero en realidad hay mucha variación en el país. Para poder investigar estas diferencias, es fundamental contar con datos comparables de costos de pensiones de todos los gobiernos locales de cada ciudad. Por ejemplo, las estimaciones iniciales muestran que en promedio la contribución requerida anual (annual required contribution o ARC) de los planes de pensiones locales en 2010 ascendía al 4,9 por ciento de los ingresos generales en las 112 FiSC de la base de datos. No obstante, la ARC era más del 10 por ciento de los ingresos tanto en Chicago (11,7 por ciento) como en Portland, Oregón (10,9 por ciento).

Land Lines: ¿La disminución de los ingresos durante la Gran Recesión varió mucho en las distintas ciudades?

Adam Langley: Sí, la disminución de ingresos varió significativamente en las 112 FiSC durante y después de la recesión. Cuando se tiene en cuenta la inflación y el crecimiento de la población, sólo los ingresos de ocho FiSC evitaron una disminución neta a finales de 2011. Calculé los cambios en los ingresos reales per cápita con respecto al máximo de cada FiSC hasta finales de 2011. Alrededor de un tercio de ellas tuvo una disminución del 5 por ciento o menos (41 FiSC), otro tercio sufrió disminuciones de entre el 5 y 10 por ciento (34 FiSC), y alrededor de un cuarto sufrió disminuciones superiores al10 por ciento (29 FiSC). Las FiSC con las mayores disminuciones de ingresos fueron Las Vegas (20,2 por ciento), Riverside (18,0 por ciento) y Sacramento (18,0 por ciento).

Land Lines: ¿Se han recuperado mucho los ingresos de los gobiernos locales desde el fin de la recesión?

Adam Langley: Todavía no, porque los cambios en el nivel de ingresos se retrasaron varios años con respecto a los cambios en la economía durante y después de la recesión. Los ingresos gubernamentales reales per cápita fueron estables a lo largo de 2009, disminuyeron un poco en 2010, y cayeron de forma importante en 2011. El último año con datos completos es 2011, así que combiné distintas fuentes de datos para estimar los ingresos a lo largo de 2013. Estos datos sugieren que los ingresos tocaron fondo en 2012, cuando fueron entre un 5 y 6 por ciento inferiores a los de 2007. Esto quiere decir que los ingresos no llegaron a su valor mínimo hasta tres años después de que la recesión terminó oficialmente. Los ingresos comenzaron a recuperarse en 2013, pero siguieron siendo más del 4 por ciento inferiores a los niveles previos a la recesión.

Este retraso se debe a cambios en la ayuda intergubernamental y los impuestos sobre la propiedad, que en su conjunto financian casi dos tercios del presupuesto de los gobiernos locales. La Ley de Recuperación y Reinversión Americana proporcionó a los estados alrededor de 150.000 millones de dólares en estímulos federales entre 2009 y 2011, con fondos de estímulo adicionales proporcionados directamente a los gobiernos locales. Sin embargo, la mayoría de los fondos de estímulo desaparecieron el año 2012, lo cual condujo a los mayores recortes de gasto estatales de los últimos 25 años. Más aún, los cambios en los impuestos sobre la propiedad normalmente se retrasan con respecto a los cambios en los precios de las viviendas entre dos y tres años, debido a que el monto se basa en la tasación de años anteriores, hay retrasos en la actualización de dichas tasaciones y otros factores. Este retraso hizo que los impuestos sobre la propiedad crecieran a lo largo de 2009, no disminuyeran hasta 2011, y cayeran a su punto mínimo en 2012.

Land Lines: ¿Puede darnos más detalles sobre su trabajo acerca de la exención de impuestos sobre la propiedad y los programas de crédito?

Adam Langley: Ya casi he terminado con la primera etapa de este proyecto, que consiste en crear una tabla con el resumen de los programas de exención y créditos estatales. La tabla contiene datos de 167 programas, con 18 variables que describen las características principales de cada programa. Hay información sobre el valor de las exenciones expresadas en términos de valor de mercado; criterios relacionados con la edad, discapacidad, nivel de ingresos y si el beneficiario es un veterano de guerra; el tipo de impuesto afectado; si la pérdida de ingresos tributarios la sufre el estado o el gobierno local; opciones locales; etc. Una vez que haya completado la tabla, escribiré un resumen de política para describir las características principales de estos programas. Toda esta información se deriva de la tabla “Programas de alivio tributario para propiedades residenciales” del subcentro “Características significativas del impuesto sobre la propiedad” del sitio web del Instituto. La tabla original de “Alivio residencial” brinda descripciones detalladas de cada programa, mientras que la tabla resumida será más útil para aquellos usuarios que quieran hacer una comparación rápida entre estados, o para investigadores que quieran realizar análisis cuantitativos.

En la segunda etapa de este proyecto, calcularé los gastos tributarios de mantener estos programas de alivio tributario del impuesto sobre la propiedad. A pesar de la preponderancia de estos programas y su a menudo considerable impacto en la carga tributaria sobre la propiedad, no existen estimaciones completas sobre su costo. Usando datos de la tabla resumida y microdatos de la Encuesta de Comunidades Americanas, calcularé para cada estado el porcentaje de residentes que pueden beneficiarse de los programas de alivio tributario sobre la propiedad, el costo total de dichos programas, el beneficio promedio para los beneficiarios y el porcentaje de residentes elegibles y el beneficio promedio por quin-til de ingresos. Estos cálculos proporcionarán nueva y valiosa información sobre el impacto de los programas de alivio del impuesto sobre la propiedad en los Estados Unidos.

Smart growth has moved from the domain of policy analysts into more general acceptance. It is championed by national leaders such as Vice President Al Gore, governors (Parris Glendening of Maryland), urban mayors (William A. Johnson of Rochester, New York), non-governmental organizations (National Trust for Historic Preservation), and the private sector (Urban Land Institute). Voters in many California cities, including Sacramento, Santa Barbara, Irvine and Davis, and in numerous suburbs around San Francisco have approved urban growth boundaries (UGB) as one type of intervention to contain sprawl development.

Urban containment policies are not limited to environmentally active communities in California, Oregon or Colorado, or booming economies in states such as Florida, however. Lexington, Kentucky, observed the 40th anniversary of its urban growth boundary last year, and Sioux Falls, South Dakota, has had a containment boundary for many years. This kind of broad-based popular support for smart growth policies is more than simply a growth management fad and is likely to increase, particularly as long as the national economic expansion continues. Indeed, urban containment appears to be building a kind of momentum as a land use policy that has not been seen since the Supreme Court’s sanctioning of zoning in Ambler Realty Co. vs. Euclid, Ohio.

Urban containment planning has two basic purposes: (1) to promote compact, contiguous, and accessible development provided with efficient public services; and (2) to preserve open space, agricultural land and environmentally sensitive areas that are not currently suitable for development. Urban containment consists of drawing a line around an urban area within which development is encouraged, often with density bonuses or minimum density requirements, to accommodate projected growth over a specified future time period, typically ten to twenty years. Land outside the boundary is generally restricted to resource uses and to very low-density residential development by limiting the extension of utilities, wastewater services and other infrastructure.

Intuitively, however, this sort of land regulation appears to be a double-edged sword. On the one hand, measures aimed at reducing traffic congestion or infrastructure costs, or improving the aesthetic quality of urban areas, are appealing. On the other hand, measures that are seen to limit land supply and potentially cause housing prices to increase are unappealing, particularly to those seeking to expand the stock of affordable housing.

To explore the implications of these two faces of urban containment as smart growth policy, the Lincoln Institute and the Fannie Mae Foundation convened a group of scholars and practitioners for a symposium in Cambridge last February. The economists, planners and other researchers in attendance discussed the existing literature on urban containment and identified questions for future research that could inform policy making in this dynamic area of land regulation.

Housing Price Effects

Housing costs reflect the price of land, the price of the house and the value of amenities. Urban containment policies change housing costs for two reasons. First, land prices change when land supply is altered. Second, if urban containment increases the value of the amenity package associated with a house, then that, too, will cause a change in house prices. Much of the discussion at the symposium centered around these two theoretically distinct aspects of the housing price problem.

Most economic literature assessing urban containment argues that it raises land and housing prices principally by constraining the supply of land and/or by failing to accommodate new demand for serviced land. But, others argue that urban containment systems, when coupled with increased densities within the growth boundary, should not adversely affect supply and, indeed, should generate benefits to residents. This latter view shifts the focus away from the microeconomic theory of price determination to housing economics, which introduces the concept that house prices capitalize the value of neighborhood amenities.

For example, the increased densities within an urban growth boundary can make it practical to extend or enhance existing public transit, thus yielding greater accessibility. In addition, increases in densities can result in lower costs to provide urban services by the public sector. Similarly, higher neighborhood densities can lead to more interactions with neighbors and more “eyes on the streets,” which, in turn, can translate into lower crime rates. Finally, if urban containment is successful in preserving open spaces, house values in neighborhoods near the preserved open space should also rise.

All of these benefits can be counted among the amenities that give value to a house and are ultimately capitalized in its value, even while the land supply restriction can also put pressure on house prices. In truth, both factors may be at work, and we still have much to learn about their impacts. Furthermore, some of these internalized benefits may have different values for households at different income levels.

A comparison of Atlanta, Georgia, and Portland, Oregon, both suggests of these sorts of benefits and points to areas for future research to answer these questions more comprehensively (see Table 1). During the first half of the 1990s, Portland experienced a large increase in housing prices (approximately 60 percent compared to almost 20 percent in Atlanta, in nominal terms). Between the mid-1980s and the mid-1990s, homeownership rates in Portland increased by nearly 5 percent while Atlanta’s rate remained virtually unchanged. Finally, perceptions of improved house quality were greater among Portland residents than those in Atlanta. In both metropolitan areas and in both time periods, the proportion of household income spent on housing was virtually the same, suggesting that income growth in Portland exceeded that in Atlanta. However, it is difficult to conclude definitively that increases in house quality in Portland were due to enhanced amenities conferred on households by changes in land regulation, rather than to rising incomes.

Although urban containment policies may stabilize the supply of land, they usually increase the supply of development opportunities. Such policies are typically accompanied by “upzoning” whereby land zoned formerly at one level of development intensity is changed to allow for a higher density. One strategy to increase densities is to infill and redevelop (or “refill”) urban areas at higher than extant levels through the adoption of “minimum intensity” zoning. We do not know the subsequent effect of such policies on house prices, and we know even less about their effect on household budgets and disposable income. For example, higher housing prices may simply reflect capitalization of more efficient development patterns that reduce expenditures in other parts of the household budget.

It is possible, however, that current and future homeowners will benefit directly from these sorts of capitalized savings. For example, location-efficient mortgages, a lending instrument being tested in a few markets, allow lenders to extend mortgages to households based on a higher mortgage-to-income ratio. The rationale for altering the income eligibility is that, in comparison to suburban households, urban households can substitute walking and public transit for automobile payments, including both capital costs and operating expenses. Thus, disposable income is effectively increased as non-housing expenditures decline. Current experiments with the location-efficient mortgage are underway in Chicago’s northside neighborhoods and in central Seattle. If default rates for these loans are similar to those for traditional mortgages, we may see greater adoption of this instrument in appropriate submarkets.

Other savings that may accrue to urban homeowners as a result of containment policies are lower taxes due to lower capital costs or increases in supplemental income if higher densities are achieved through the addition of accessory apartments in existing houses.

Landowner Behavior Implications

The imposition of urban containment policies and changes in density are also likely to result in changed expectations of landowners. Therefore, an additional consideration for researchers, which the symposium participants confronted, is the role of containment in affecting the nature of landowner behavior with respect to land acquisition and land development.

In an environment of a relatively inexhaustible supply of land, speculation can be reasonably efficient while the competition to sell land keeps prices low. The end result may be that housing prices will not be affected materially. However, when supply is constrained, even if upzoning increases development capacity, the number of players in the land market can fall and cartels may form. Furthermore, an assumption of urban containment policies is that undeveloped land inside the boundary will come on-line in sufficient amounts and at appropriate times to sustain development. There is no research into this, however. Will owners of land, knowing they hold an oligopolistic position in the land market, delay its sale to get a higher price?

Until now, in our studies of urban land markets, we have lived with the assumption of relatively inexhaustible (i.e., elastic) land supply. Urban containment policies can change that premise by making land an exhaustible commodity, resulting in the problem of dual predictability. On one hand, developers are given more certainty in whether and how they develop land; on the other hand, landowners know that land supply will become exhaustible and therefore they may be enticed to become speculators, in their own right. Will local governments reward those willing to develop vacant or underused parcels with higher densities to offset others who delay sale? Certainly, a land tax is expected to limit this sort of behavior. Can other changes in the tax regime encourage development within the UGB? For all of these reasons, we have much to learn about the effect of urban containment on landowner and speculative behavior.

Summary Observations

The symposium participants spent more time on the economic issues related to urban containment than on environmental concerns. However, some material was presented that suggested significant environmental benefits as a result of urban containment. Table 2 presents additional comparisons of Portland and Atlanta between the mid-1980s and the mid-1990s. While vehicle miles traveled increased in both places, Portland experienced little change (2 percent) whereas Atlanta experienced a significant increase (17 percent). At the same time, Portland’s average commute times fell, air quality improved, and per capita energy consumption declined.

All of these indicators suggest that Portland is different from Atlanta in meaningful ways. Furthermore, typical behavior by individuals in each of these metropolitan areas is presumed to be different. We should attempt to find out the degree to which growth containment policies account for these behavioral differences and whether there are other policies that may also play important roles in affecting the economic and environmental dynamics of metropolitan regions. For example, the problem of housing affordability remains a serious concern in most cities, whether with or without urban containment boundaries.

Urban containment creates an entirely new regime in urban planning and development decision making, offering research challenges because of the difficulties in developing methodologies that can tease out complex interactions and frame the results in a manner that can advance both public and private interests. The Lincoln Institute, the Fannie Mae Foundation and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development are among a growing number of research entities interested in pursuing these challenges.

Arthur C. Nelson is professor of city planning, urban design and public policy at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta. He organized the seminar referenced in this article and has researched and written extensively on this topic.

Cuba es un país sorprendente. La ciudad de La Habana, su capital histórica, ostenta 400 años de herencia arquitectónica. Muchas de sus áreas se encuentran en un estado de triste deterioro, pero otras, representan formas muy creativas de abordar la conservación y el desarrollo económico. Debido al enfoque en el desarrollo rural luego de la revolución de 1959, Cuba no experimentó el mismo tipo de inmigración popular del campo a las ciudades que ocurrió en otras partes de América Latina. Los desarrollos modernos se dieron en gran parte fuera del núcleo histórico de La Habana. En este sentido, las buena noticia es que la herencia arquitectónica de la ciudad todavía está en pie, pero la mala es que apenas está en pie.

Los arquitectos y urbanistas de Cuba enfrentan grandes dificultades para realizar las tareas básicas de mejorar la infraestructura y la vivienda al mismo tiempo que fomentan un desarrollo económico apropiado a su visión socialista. Están desarrollando modelos de transformación comunitaria a través de la organización local y los programas de autoayuda, y están creando modelos de “recuperación de plusvalías” en el proceso de conservación histórica y desarrollo turístico.

A través de las conexiones con el Grupo de Desarrollo integral de la Capital (GDIC), nueve profesionales del diseño ambiental viajaron a Cuba en junio para explorar los problemas de deterioro e innovación del medio ambiente construido y natural. El equipo contó con la asistencia de nueve de los once becarios de investigación Loeb de la Escuela de Posgrado en Diseño de la Universidad de Harvard en 1997-98.

Las becas de investigación Loeb para estudios ambientales avanzados se establecieron en 1970 gracias a la generosidad del exalumno de Harvard John L. Loeb. La beca anualmente otorga financiamiento de un año de estudios independientes en la Universidad de Harvard a entre diez y doce líderes en las profesiones de diseño y ambientalismo. Una tradición reciente del programa de becas de investigación es que los becarios hacen un viaje en conjunto al final del año académico, para dar solidez a las relaciones que desarrollaron durante el año, explorar juntos un ambiente nuevo y compartir sus conocimientos y experticia con otros.

Los becarios de investigación Loeb que viajaron a Cuba tienen una variedad de intereses que en conjunto conforman una muestra representativa de las profesiones de diseño ambiental:

• Charles Birnbaum, arquitecto especializado en paisajismo que aboga por la conservación de paisajes importantes.
• Toni Griffin, arquitecto preocupado por el desarrollo económico y comunitario de vecindarios urbanos.
• Pamela Hawkes, arquitecto especializada en la conservación histórica.
• Daniel Hernández, arquitecto creador de viviendas asequibles.
• Leonard McGee, líder comunitario que trabaja por la transformación y mejoramiento de las comunidades centro-urbanas de escasos recursos.
• Julio Peterson, promotor comunitario interesado en el desarrollo económico de centros urbanos de bajos recursos y países en vías de desarrollo.
• Peter Pollock, planificador urbano especializado en problemas de administración del crecimiento.
• Anne Raver, periodista interesada en la relación de la gente con su medio ambiente natural.
• Jean Rogers, ingeniero ambientalista y urbanista que se enfoca en mejorar los impactos de la industrialización en el medio ambiente.

Los becarios fueron recibidos en La Habana por el GDIC, que fue creado en 1987 como un equipo pequeño de expertos que aconsejaba al gobierno de la ciudad sobre políticas urbanas. Según Mario Coyula: “El grupo quiso desde el primer momento promover un nuevo modelo para el medio ambiente construido que sería menos imponente, más descentralizador y participativo, sensato ecológicamente y económicamente posible, en definitiva, holísticamente sustentable”.

Mario Coyula es arquitecto, urbanista y vicepresidente del GDIC. Entre él y sus colegas del GDIC han ensamblado una serie de seminarios informativos, así como recorridos de los becarios por La Habana. Además, han organizado visitas de los becarios a urbanistas y diseñadores en las ciudades de Las Terrazas, Matanzas y Trinidad.

Varias fundaciones y grupos han brindado su apoyo al proyecto: la Fundación Arca, la Fundación William Reynolds, el Instituto Lincoln de Políticas de Suelo, la Asociación de Exalumnos Becarios Loeb, y el Programa de becas de investigación Loeb de la Escuela de Posgrado en Diseño de la Universidad de Harvard. Cada becario Loeb escribirá un ensayo sobre un área de investigación relevante y su relación con las condiciones de Cuba. Éstos ensayos serán compilados y puestos a la disposición del GDIC, de la Universidad de Harvard y potencialmente de otros a través de la publicación de una revista o reporte especial.

Peter Pollock es el director de planeación comunitaria de la ciudad de Boulder, Colorado. En 1997-98 fue becario Loeb en la Universidad de Harvard y miembro visitante del Instituto Lincoln.

A proud outpost of America’s Industrial Revolution, Johnstown, Pennsylvania, survived the Great Flood of 1889, when a 40-mph wave swept the city into the Conemaugh River. Johnstown rebuilt itself into a dynamic city teeming with factories and steel mills. Yet what the flood couldn’t kill, a changing economy nearly has.

In the space of a generation, Johnstown has hemorrhaged 40 percent of its population and seen its job base disintegrate–joining the growing ranks of U.S. industrial cities teetering on the brink of terminal illness. They are becoming places without purpose, experts say, ill-prepared for a new economic era except as recipients of transfer payments and warehouses for the poor, the aged, the infirm and, in big cities, the violently deviant. “Johnstown is a place where wealth has moved out, where there is no middle class and where the town frantically searches for a magic solution to stay alive,” said anthropologist Bruce Williams of the University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown.

As the Information Age unfolds, urban scholars see a disturbing new set of forces converging viselike on Johnstown and many U.S. cities. While the problems of a New York City or a Detroit command popular attention, smaller cities such as Johnstown–those with populations of 25,000 to 100,000–might be suffering most from wrenching economic changes. No longer are place and distance such vital factors. The new economy is driven by technological changes that allow those with means to live and work largely where they want. New suburbs are still the number one choice for both business and residential developers seeking large plots of cheap land.

Struggling for Relevance

Many old industrial cities, meanwhile, struggle for relevance. Their residents lack the training for–and access to–the modern work force. New offices and industries require less labor. Isolation and segregation of the urban poor feed a cycle of despair. Advantages such as a coast, river or rail line matter less. With dwindling public investment and little or no market for their services or products, scores of these older cities can’t nurse themselves back to health.

“If a city lacks the basics for economic viability, what does it have left except some type of massive support by the federal government?” said Dr. Irving Baker, a retired political scientist at Southern Methodist University. “Those cities . . . are expendable,” he said.

This phenomenon links aging central cities, decaying inner-ring suburbs and exploding Mexican border cities. One of every five U.S. cities larger than 25,000 people has a poverty rate greater than 20 percent–a prime symptom of urban decay, an analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data indicates. Dallas and other Sun Belt cities are repeating the trajectory of distressed Northern cities, where poverty rates soared and the concentration of poor worsened.

As the debate continues over Washington’s shifting budget role, some experts wonder whether one result might be disposable cities, like the 19th-century ghost towns that predated federal bailouts. Solutions seem elusive, the experts agree, because neither government-run urban renewal nor private enterprise alone appears equal to the task.

“I think we are in a struggle for America’s heart right now,” said Peter C. Goldmark, president of the Rockefeller Foundation, whose programs support efforts to revitalize communities. “Because I don’t think America can live if its cities are dying.” Neal Peirce, an urban affairs commentator and writer, noted: “As I see it, we have a civilization to defend. If we really come to the point of writing places off as cities and neighborhoods of no return, we have reached the point of giving up what made this country the civilization I think many of us really have much pride being in.”

Disturbing Trends in Distressed Cities

Analysis by The Dallas Morning News–based on more than 125 interviews, a review of hundreds of reports and creation of a computer-generated index of 148 distressed communities–documented a number of alarming urban trends:

The United States remains an urban nation. But of all urban dwellers, 60 percent now live in suburbs — not in the nation’s 522 central cities.

Concentrations of the poor are increasing in all cities, including Sun Belt cities. In 1968, 30 percent of the nation’s poor lived in cities. Now the figure is 42 percent.

Jobs are leaving cities in massive numbers and are not being replaced. About 70 percent of new jobs, most requiring extensive technical training, are being created outside cities. Although the number of poor Americans dropped in 1994 for the first time in four years, the gap between rich and poor continued to widen as low-skill, low-wage jobs disappeared, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

Many older cities are burdened with foul physical sites created for a smokestack economy that no longer exists. Mayor Freeman Bosley said St. Louis’ dramatic population decline–a 50 percent loss since 1950–relates directly to his city’s inability to reclaim contaminated properties, known as brownfields. “Right now, there is no way the city of St. Louis can attract business to abandoned industrial sites,” he told a congressional panel recently. “The existing cleanup standards and related costs exceed the property’s value, and there are no compensating incentives.”

The revival of rural America comes at the expense of many cities. Following a decade of decline, three in four rural counties gained population between 1990 and 1994. Most of the gain was caused by migration from cities, not urban encroachment.

Few places have been able to reverse these trends once decline sets in. Said Brian Berry, an internationally recognized professor of urban geography at the University of Texas at Dallas: “To be blunt and brutal about it, there’s very little that policymakers can do [about these cities] short of bringing in the aspirins and making people feel a little better.”

The success stories of recent years have enjoyed some attractive geographic asset or been the target of a sustained intentional effort. Hoboken, New Jersey, once a rundown manufacturing hub, capitalized on its waterfront view of the Manhattan skyline. It is now a trendy suburb for young couples with children. Cleveland, Pittsburgh and St. Louis have stabilized after shedding population for decades. Yet even though each has poured tens of millions into successful downtown revitalization efforts, many neighborhoods remain deeply troubled.

Smaller cities such as Johnstown dominated The News’ list of distressed communities. “Small and medium-sized cities don’t have the great urban assets to draw on,” said David Rusk, former mayor of Albuquerque, New Mexico, and now an urban consultant in Washington, D.C. “They don’t have the legacy of parks, museums and recreational facilities that big cities have. And, most of all, they don’t have the old downtown core.”

What can be done to assist these communities? Gary Orfield, a professor of education and social policy at Harvard University, said, “If I were a mayor, my number one effort would be to try to help people to understand how serious these problems are and to convince the people in the rest of the society that if they don’t share in the solution, they are going to be sharing in a much, much more radical problem in the future.”

______________

Chris Kelley is urban affairs writer at The Dallas Morning News. This article is excerpted from a four-part series titled “Whither the Cities?” which ran December 3-6, 1995. A series reprint is available by calling The News at 1-800-431-0010, ext. 8472, or on the Internet at http://www.pic.net/tdmn/tdmn.html. Kelley participated in the Lincoln Institute’s 1995 Land Policy Forum for Journalists.

The twenty-first century will witness record growth in the number and distribution of private residential communities. Collectively referred to as common interest communities (CICs) or common interest developments (CIDs), these communities rely on covenants, conditions and restrictions to privately govern and control land use, design decisions, services and social conduct. The communities own, operate and manage the residential property within their boundaries, including open space, parking, recreational facilities and streets. Although CICs historically have been the domain of the affluent, they are now becoming a viable choice for both suburban and urban residential development. Taking the form of condominiums, cooperatives, and single- and multifamily homes, both gated and nongated private communities are spreading among diverse economic and social classes.

A Worldwide Phenomenon

The proliferation of private communities in the United States is causing an unprecedented transition from traditional individual ownership to collective governance of property, signaling a remarkable shift in the American political and economic landscape. This trend establishes a new micro-scale level of governance beneath existing municipal structures, and highlights other tensions between the public and private sectors.

Indeed, the numbers provide a clear indication of this movement’s strength. At the end of the twentieth century, about 47 million Americans lived in condominiums, cooperatives and homeowner associations (HOAs). Growing from only 500 in the 1960s to an estimated 231,000 in 1999, HOAs now comprise almost 15 percent of the national housing stock, with an estimated addition of 8,000 to 10,000 private developments each year. In the 50 largest metropolitan areas, more than half of all new housing is now built under the governance of neighborhood associations. In California—particularly in the Los Angeles and San Diego metropolitan areas—this figure exceeds 60 percent (Treese 1999).

Recent press coverage and research from Europe, Africa, South America and Asia suggest that CICs are rapidly being popularized in other parts of the world as well. Although gated communities are still rare in Britain, former prime minister Margaret Thatcher reportedly moved into such a community in South London. In South Africa, where secure communities were an unavoidable consequence of racism, post-apartheid gated developments are inhabited by all races, and not only by the wealthy. In Saudi Arabia private compounds of linked houses provide extended families with privacy and identity. Those compounds seem to be a reaction to the single residential typology imported from abroad during the country’s modernization period.

Since the economic reforms of the early 1980s, many residential areas in Chinese cities have walls to improve security and define social status. Often these developments are designed by U.S. companies and based on U.S. planning and design standards. Private communities in Southeast Asia, such as in Indonesia, are marketed as places that allow the differentiation of lifestyle and give prestige and security to their inhabitants. In Latin America sprawling gated communities at the metropolitan edges of Santiago, Chile, Bogotá, Colombia, and other cities have become the norm for a growing professional class in need of a secure lifestyle in an environment dominated by social and economic poverty. The deteriorating political and economic state of affairs in Buenos Aires, Argentina, has resulted in situations where developers and private companies provide privatized “public” services that attract large sectors of the population to private developments housing up to half a million people (Environment and Planning B 2002).

Dual Governance, Rules and Outcomes

The spread of CICs in the U.S. is driven by the mutual interests of developers and local governments, including planning officials. Developers benefit because they can maintain profits—despite the high costs of land and infrastructure—by introducing efficient land design schemes and, often, higher densities. Local governments prefer CICs because they privatize infrastructure and reduce public costs. At the same time, consumers see a way to protect their property values through the ability to control their neighborhood character by using compliance and enforcement mechanisms. CICs also provide consumers greater infrastructure options, recreational amenities and community services.

The growing fiscal crisis experienced by many local governments means they are often unable to respond to such traditional community demands as building and maintaining streets, collecting garbage, snowplowing and other services. The establishment of a separate legal mechanism within a private neighborhood association allows collective control over a neighborhood’s common environment and the private provision of common services. Perhaps more important, this trend creates a de facto deregulation of municipal subdivision standards and zoning, because cities and towns allow for a different, more flexible set of standards to be implemented in private developments. Often, the results are innovative spatial and architectural layouts and, sometimes, unusually sensitive environmental design. This shift in neighborhood governance enables a resultant shift in the design of residential developments that heretofore has not been fully appreciated.

A recent nationwide survey of public officials and developers gauges the impacts of subdivision regulations on the design of residential developments and the practices of developers in rapidly growing regions of the country (Ben-Joseph 2003). It assesses attitudes and perceptions and identifies the issues regarding subdivision regulations that members of the housing industry and the regulatory agencies feel are affecting housing development.

Excessive Regulations

As early as 1916 Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr., commented on subdivision standards and regulations.

While such regulations are intended only to guard against the evil results of ignorance and greed on the part of landowners and builders, they also limit and control the operations of those who are neither ignorant nor greedy; and it is clear that the purpose in framing and enforcing them should be to leave open the maximum scope for individual enterprise, initiative and ingenuity that is compatible with adequate protection of the public interests. Such regulations are, and always should be, in a state of flux and adjustment—on the one hand with a view to preventing newly discovered abuses, and on the other hand with a view to opening a wider opportunity of individual discretion at points where the law is found to be unwisely restrictive. (Olmsted 1916, 3)

Indeed, developers in the 2003 survey clearly expressed their frustration with the excessive and often unwarranted nature of physical improvements and standards associated with subdivision development. When asked to indicate which types of requirements present the greatest expense in conforming to regulations, an overwhelming majority (80 percent) pointed to requirements associated with site design. When asked to indicate which specific requirements they perceived as excessive, 52 percent of the respondents indicated those relating to street design and construction, with almost 45 percent indicating land dedication and 43 percent storm sewer systems (underground piping for storm water mitigation). When asked about which physical standards within each category were seen as excessive, those most frequently cited were street widths (75 percent of the respondents), street rights-of-way (73 percent) and requirements of land for open space (73 percent). Most developers also mentioned water and sewer hook-up fees (85–90 percent) and payments in lieu of land dedication (79 percent) as being excessive monetary requirements associated with physical improvements (see Table 1).

While one might expect that developers would criticize regulations as interfering in their business, it is important to note that most respondents were selective in their answers to the survey. Out of 29 requirements listed in Table 1, only 13 were considered excessive by the majority of developers, while 16 others were deemed reasonable. Such results indicate that many developers are tuned in to construction and design performance, and their attitude toward regulation cannot always be assumed to be negative.

Furthermore, the surveyed public officials (town planners and town engineers) often concurred with the developers’ observations. Generally these officials agreed that the regulatory process, such as the enforcement of subdivision regulations, has become more demanding and complex. Over the past five years, for example, 70 percent of the jurisdictions where these public officials work have introduced new requirements, and 57 percent have increased specifications, such as those for setbacks and lot sizes. Only 16 percent of these jurisdictions have decreased their specifications, mostly by reducing street widths.

Relief from Subdivision Regulations

Two-thirds of residential developers consider government regulations, particularly those pertaining to the design and control of subdivisions, the main culprit in prohibiting design innovation and increasing the cost of housing. More specifically, they see these regulations as an impediment to increasing densities, changing housing types, and reconfiguring streets and lots.

One way developers try to relax these regulations is through requests for relief in the form or zoning or design variances. More than half of the surveyed developers (52 percent) had to apply for some sort of relief in at least half of their projects, while 37 percent had to apply in at least three-fourths of their projects. When asked to point to the type of changes they requested, many indicated higher-density single-family projects, more multifamily units, and more varied site and structural plans. The majority of the developers in the survey responded that they sought to increase the density of housing units on their sites, but 72 percent noted that because of existing regulations they had to design lower-density developments than they wanted. Some developers reported that regulations forced them to build in greenfield locations away from major urban areas, where restrictions and abutters’ objections were less onerous.

Although almost all of the public officials (83 percent) reported that their jurisdictions require private developments to follow established subdivision regulations, the enforcement of these standards through the approval process is malleable. In some cases, when such a development is classified as a condominium, which may include attached and/or detached dwelling units, no formal review of street standards is required. In fact, the majority of public officials surveyed (61 percent) indicated that their jurisdictions allow for narrower streets to be constructed within private developments. One respondent stated, “Variances are more easily granted within private road systems since the county will not have any maintenance responsibility or liability.”

The practice of building narrower roadways and offering smaller building setbacks within private subdivisions has become widely accepted over the last decade. A street standards survey completed in 1995 showed that 84 percent of the cities responding allowed for different street standards in such developments, and that they more readily accepted the introduction of different paving materials, changes in street configurations, and the employment of traffic calming devices (Ben-Joseph 1995).

Design Benefits

Both public officials and developers acknowledge the design benefits associated with private subdivisions (see Table 2). Fifty-seven percent of officials indicated that private developments are introducing innovative design in the form of building arrangements and unit clustering. Forty-one percent felt that such developments permit the introduction of housing types not found elsewhere in their communities, and 61 percent indicated that they allow for narrower street standards to be incorporated.

While public officials see the benefits of pushing the design envelope within the confines of the development itself, many are also concerned about the social implications and impacts of these private developments on their surrounding communities. “As a matter of policy,” a survey respondent wrote, “gated private communities are discouraged as they are not in keeping with the urban form, which calls for an interconnecting network of vehicular and pedestrian movement. In addition, the walling of neighborhoods from arterial roadways should be avoided by alternatives such as the placement of other compatible uses along the periphery.”

Both developers and public officials believe that common subdivision regulations restrict alternative solutions, and they see privatizing subdivisions as a vehicle for simplifying the approval process and introducing design innovation. As one of the developers remarked, “Regular subdivision codes don’t allow flexibility. Lots are too standardized and streets use too much area. If I could build narrow streets and small lots, developments controlled by covenants and HOAs will not be necessary.” The ability to provide design choices and efficient layouts and to avoid a lengthy approval process drives both public and private sectors to offer CICs rather than typical subdivisions. Indeed, it seems that in the last decade most innovation in subdivision design has sprung from within the private domain and under the governance of community associations rather than within the public realm through traditional means.

Toward Better Subdivisions

The proliferation of CICs, with their ability to plan, design and govern outside of public boundaries, can be seen as an indicator of a failed public system. When developers and public officials resort to privatization to achieve a more responsive design outcome, and when local jurisdictions acknowledge that privatized communities provide a straightforward way to grant variations and innovation, then something is wrong with the existing parameters of subdivision codes and regulations.

For the last 25 years the subdivision approval process has increased in complexity, in the number of agencies involved, in the number of delays, and in the regular addition of new requirements (Seidel 1978). Both developers and public officials acknowledge that the application for variances and changes in subdivision regulations are lengthy and cumbersome. Therefore, it is not surprising that developers see private projects governed by HOAs as not only responding to market demands and trends, but also introducing planning and design concepts that are often not allowed or are difficult to get authorized under the typical approval process.

CICs are enabling developers to maintain profits and keep the design process relatively open-ended and flexible. The ability to operate outside the regular, common set of subdivision regulations allows developers to offer various design solutions that fit the local setting, the targeted site and the prospective consumers. In some cases these can be attractive, high-density yet affordable single-family developments, and in others low-density, high-end yet ecologically sensitive construction (McKenzie 2003).

The concept of private communities as environmentally sensitive developments may seem a contradiction in terms. However, some of these developments provide examples of responsible construction that minimizes environmental impact while maximizing economic value. In Dewees Island, South Carolina, there are few impervious road surfaces, allowing full restoration of the underground aquifer. Only vegetation indigenous to the local coastal plains is allowed. This xeriscaping approach removes the need for irrigation, fertilizers and pesticides. In addition, homes are required to use water conservation fixtures, reducing water consumption by 60 percent.

Paradoxically, while CICs are often controlled and managed by strict covenants and regulations, their initial design is very much outside the mainstream regulatory apparatus. It is precisely for this reason that they prove to be more flexible in their design solutions and more agreeable to developers, consumers and local governments.

How can such flexibility be integrated in the regular planning process? Can subdivision regulations be made more accommodating and less prescriptive? Will such an approach level the playing field and allow for more housing choices and greater design variety in the public domain? Will such changes promote developers to plan subdivisions endowed with CICs’ design qualities without their restrictive covenants and privatized shared spaces? And conversely, can CICs, while exhibiting great variation in architecture and site design features, be made less controlling in their management policies?

There are many issues raised by the spread of CICs, but none is more important than the realization that public policy and subdivision regulations must allow and promote more variety in housing styles and development options. Consumers should not be forced into CICs because they are the only type of development that offers a lively choice of features. CICs should be seen as a catalyst to change subdivision standards and regulations and as a vehicle to create a bridge between public officials and developers. Through the use of CICs developers are not only able to circumvent existing regulations, lower development costs and in some cases produce quite innovative community design solution, but also enable jurisdictions to secure new taxpayers with less public expenditure.

Not all CICs are created equal, and many are far from perfect. But, in terms of design efficiency, utilization of space, and integration of social and environmental amenities, private communities illustrate the shortcomings of many standards applied to typical subdivisions.

References

Ben-Joseph, Eran. 1995. Residential street standards and neighborhood traffic control: A survey of cities’ practices and public officials’ attitudes. Berkeley: Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California at Berkeley.

———. 2003. Subdivision regulations—Practices and attitudes: A survey of public officials and developers in the nation’s fastest growing single-family housing markets. Working paper. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design. 2002. Theme issue: The global spread of gated communities 29(3).

McKenzie, Evan. 2003. Common-interest housing in the communities of tomorrow. Housing Policy Debate 14(1/2):203–234.

Olmsted, Frederick L., Jr. 1916. Basic principles of city planning. In City planning: A series of papers presenting the essential elements of a city plan, John Nolen, ed., 1–18. New York: D. Appleton and Company.

Seidel, S. 1978. Housing costs and government regulations: Confronting the regulatory maze. New Brunswick: Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.

Treese, Clifford. 1999. Community associations factbook. Alexandria, VA: Community Associations Institute.

Eran Ben-Joseph is associate professor of landscape architecture and planning in the Department of Urban Studies and Planning at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA. This article is based in part on his survey and research that were supported by the Lincoln Institute.

Post-apartheid South Africa is an experiment the like of which the world has never seen before,says Myesha Jenkins, performance poet from Los Angeles who emigrated in 1993, the year before Nelson Mandella became president. “We want this experiment to work.” Taxi-driver Vincent from the northern province of Limpopo, speaking of the elections that will take place later in 2007, says, “We must do it right. The eyes of the world are on us.”

In June 2005 the U.S. Supreme Court issued a much anticipated decision in the case of Kelo v. City of New London, Connecticut (545 U.S. 469 [2005]). The close decision (5–4) galvanized the planning, development, redevelopment, and property rights communities, and continues to have national and international repercussions. What was at issue?

New London, Connecticut is an old, industrial, port city on America’s east coast. Its economic height in the 1920s was based on shipbuilding. Since that time the city has experienced substantial economic and population decline. As the property tax base dwindled, the city’s ability to provide basic public services also deteriorated. In the 1990s, New London developed a plan for economic revitalization, focused on a neighborhood with 115 separate properties. The plan required consolidation of these properties into a single parcel. The city further proposed to transfer ownership of some sections of the newly configured parcel to a multinational pharmaceutical company for a research and production facility.

The city approached landowners about their interest in the voluntary sale of their land, and 100 landowners agreed to sell. The city then proposed the use of eminent domain on the outstanding 15 properties (an action where the city would pay fair market value for each property). In so doing, the city did not assert that these properties were “blighted”—the legal and planning standard under which such eminent domain actions have existed since the 1954 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Berman v. Parker 348 U.S. 26 (1954).

Rather, under the authority of state enabling legislation and based on a comprehensive plan, both of which the court later acknowledged, the city asserted only that the outstanding parcels were required as part of the plan to accomplish a greater public good—increased jobs for the community, increased pubic revenues (taxes), and increased economic competitiveness.

The Kelo Case

Fighting to save her “little pink house,” Susette Kelo became the spokesperson for the opposition to New London’s proposed action on the remaining 15 parcels. Kelo and her co-litigants argued that the type of eminent domain proposed by the city was a misreading of the original intent of the U.S. Constitution’s takings clause (“nor shall private property by taken for public use, without just compensation”).

According to Kelo’s lawyers, the original constitutional clause was intended to allow for governmental actions that create public facilities (e.g., roads, parks, airports, hospitals), but not for government to take private land from one owner to give to another owner. They asserted that if the court found in favor of New London (and against Susette Kelo, which the court did) there would be no effective limit to any proposed physical taking of privately owned land by government. That is, government could always assert that a proposed new use of land was in the greater public interest.

The reasoning and final decision in Kelo was unsurprising. On a base of strong legal and historical analysis, the majority of the court showed why the action by the City of New London was acceptable. In so doing, it affirmed 50 years of similar actions by local and state governments throughout the country—actions which, while often clothed in a justification of blight, regularly had no more (or less) justification to them than that provided by New London.

The court itself provided the basis for much of the public policy controversy that followed when it stated that the decision was only about whether New London’s action was acceptable under the U.S. Constitution: Did it violate the terms of the takings clause in the Fifth Amendment? But, the court noted, “We emphasize that nothing in our opinion precludes any State from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power” (545 U.S. 469 [2005] at 489). That is, while New London’s and similar local and state governmental actions were legal under the federal constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court invited state legislatures to decide whether such actions should be legal under state constitutions.

The negative reaction to the court’s decision was swift and strong. Within a week a proposal was floated that then-U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter’s home in Weare, New Hampshire should be condemned so it might be replaced by the Lost Liberty Hotel. Using the threat of unconstrained governmental action against ordinary homeowners, a national movement emerged to thwart the impact of Kelo.

Following the invitation of the court, 43 states adopted laws that appear to challenge Kelo (see figure 1). The explicit intent of most of these laws is to prohibit governmental eminent domain actions both for the sole purpose of economic development and in cases where privately owned land is taken from one owner to be transferred to another owner.

Analysis of State-based Kelo Laws

Beginning in 2007, we began a two-year research project on the impact of these state-based laws. Planners, public sector lawyers, and redevelopment officials were already expressing strong concern about the constraints these new state laws could have on normal planning practice. Our question was, Would these laws impact planning, and if so, how? To investigate these laws, we adopted a multilevel approach that:

• inventoried and cataloged Kelo laws that had been adopted since 2005;
• undertook exploratory interviews with key stakeholders in the post-Kelo debate (ranging from representatives of the American Planning Association and the National Conference of State Legislatures to the Castle Coalition, the organization actively promoting the state-based laws);
• conducted a Web-based survey about the impacts of the laws with groups including planners, municipal attorneys, and developers; and
• tracked the emerging literature, mostly from opponents of the Kelo decision (that is, those who supported the new state-based laws) about their perceptions of the impacts these laws were having.

State and local governments are now grappling with circumstances quite different from those of a decade ago, especially since the economic recession in 2008 and 2009. Declines in development activity, property values, and property tax revenues appear to be leading a public discussion less focused on rapacious government activity and more concerned about how to encourage development. This change in the economic climate has had a substantial impact on the reach of the adopted state-based Kelo laws.

Stakeholder interviews provided some interesting insights as to agreements and conflicts among those focused on these new laws. Both proponents and opponents are willing to acknowledge that there have been instances of abuse by local governments in the exercise of eminent domain; they differ in whether they see this as an occasional or a regular occurrence.

Both groups comment on how the public discussion about the appropriate response to state-based laws has brought together seemingly unusual and unexpected allies. For example, libertarians and property rights activists who are opposed to expropriation on philosophical grounds are finding themselves allied with community activists who see an historical pattern of eminent domain abuse against communities of color and the poor.

Proponents and opponents also note that much of the change to date is in the legal framework for takings actions, and they agree it is less clear what the impact has been on actual planning and governmental practice. Even opponents of these laws (many planners, for example) see some good coming from them. They argue that eminent domain is becoming more tied into the planning process, more open, and more participatory.

Our survey results reinforced some of these points and added others (Jacobs and Bassett 2010). Respondents reported mixed reactions to the assertion that state-based Kelo laws were negatively impacting urban revitalization efforts, economic development planning, or programs for affordable housing (see table 1). Despite these results, respondents did note a negative effect on the willingness of local governments to use eminent domain, though there appeared to be no impact on blight designations by these governments.

With regard to changes in the planning process toward becoming more open and transparent, the majority reported no changes to date, and nearly half of the respondents saw no impact on the extent of conflict within the process (see table 2). When respondents were asked to share exactly how their localities were grappling with new requirements regarding eminent domain, most identified what we characterize as soft or tacit approaches—building networks, enhancing communication, and linking eminent domain into citizen participation processes.

Despite these relatively mild responses to the passage of state-based laws, 76 percent of respondents suggested that the property rights movement (the proponents of these laws) remains strong or very strong in their areas, versus 19 percent neutral and 4 percent reporting a weak or very weak movement. Yet the respondents also suggested that it was their perception that neither the average citizen nor the majority of elected officials were focused on the issues raised by the property rights movement.

The recent writings of supporters and proponents of the state-based Kelo laws add further understanding of what is (and is not) happening with these laws (see Ely 2009; Morriss 2009; Somin 2009). There appears to be a broad consensus that there has been little substantive impact from the state-based laws. Overall, the laws are characterized as more symbolic than substantive in nature and content. In the words of Ely (2009, 4), they are “merely hortatory fluff.” Why this is true, however, is a subject of some disagreement. Some analysts suggest it is because of the way key interest groups shaped the legislation. Others argue that while citizens appear to be concerned about the Kelo decision, they are less motivated to focus on the particular solution crafted by state legislatures.

There appears to be little expectation of substantive follow-up action by Congress or the U.S. Supreme Court, so whatever occurs will continue to be a function of actions by state legislatures and state courts. Nevertheless, the public is more aware of the eminent domain issue after Kelo, and that may affect future citizen and landowner actions. Where there is a distinction between substantive and symbolic legislation, the more substantive laws appear to be a function of both strong economic growth conditions in states and the promotion of laws through the initiative process versus the legislative process.

Impacts and Implications

Immediately after the Kelo decision, commentaries and reports by property rights advocates warned of impending danger for the American homeowner and the fundamental threat to American democracy. However, little has changed in the decade since a Lincoln Institute report examined the first generation of property rights laws (Jacobs 1999). That study concluded that state-based laws were having little impact on actual policy and planning practice. It appears that the same is largely true now.

That there should be social conflict over the public’s efforts to manage privately owned land is, in and of itself, not surprising (Jacobs and Paulsen 2009). That the physical taking of land would be the source of this conflict is even less surprising. What is surprising is that, beyond the spirited focus of a set of dedicated activists, it is not clear that the American public or their elected representatives really see the issues raised by the state-based laws as requiring substantial attention, and especially not now. The impacts of the state-based Kelo laws can be viewed in three ways.

Changes in Eminent Domain Activity

Both supporters of state-based Kelo laws and independent researchers find little change in what local and state governments are actually doing, or anticipate doing, as a result of the laws. There are several possible explanations. One is that few Kelo-style takings actually occur (Kayden 2009). The New London, Connecticut action was intended for economic development and was not based on a declaration of blight.

Physical takings can be initiated for a wide range of activities, but for at least 50 years (since Berman v. Parker) eminent domain for inner-city redevelopment has usually been accompanied by a declaration of blight. Almost none of the recent state-based laws prohibit physical takings when blight is declared. A second explanation is that even in situations where some physical taking is required, many of the transactions are (or at least appear to be) voluntary. Even in the New London situation, 100 of 115 landowners sold their land voluntarily and did not require an eminent domain action by the city. It is possible that the state-based laws are a solution to a problem that does not really exist.

Changes in Planning Practice

The state-based laws have not been all bad for planning practice. In fact, they have helped sensitize a broad range of interests to a core set of planning issues. In so doing the laws have made the planning and decision-making process a more central focus of public discussion and debate. Where there are indications of change to planning practice, they appear to be welcomed by planners. State-based laws are leading to requirements that when eminent domain is exercised it needs to be tied more explicitly to a broader planning and development process, as was the case in New London.

This means that eminent domain will be more transparent, and planners (and the elected officials to whom they report) will become more accountable. All in all, these new laws suggest that planners need to further improve the communication techniques and processes they use for planning in general, and eminent domain proceedings in particular. Few planners find objection to this, and many embrace it.

Changes in Public Discourse

As argued by even the supporters and proponents of state-based legislation, the most significant impact of these laws seems to be in the area of public awareness. The wide-ranging media coverage of the Kelo decision, the apparent bottom-up backlash against the decision, and survey data about the common understanding and appropriateness of the decision all suggest significantly heightened attention to eminent domain, and to the role of governmental activity in physical takings. It is precisely this situation that provides the conditions for changes in planning practice.

Conclusions

This research was conceptualized and begun at a time when public discussion about land use, taxation, and takings was set within a very different frame than it is today. Now, local, state, and national discussion is focused on the aftermath of the subprime mortgage collapse, the recession, and their systemic impacts on the domestic economy. Communities and states nationwide are having uncomfortable discussions about the provision of local and state services as the property tax and income tax bases that support those services soften and frequently decline, sometimes significantly and precipitously.

The national media seems to have a constant stream of articles detailing this problem. What is particularly significant for our research is the interrelationship of these events. In years past when local governments found themselves in a fiscal crisis, they could and would turn to their states for assistance. And in turn, when states found themselves in a parallel fiscal crisis, they could and would turn to the national government. Today neither the states nor the national government are able to provide assistance as their own fiscal positions stagnate, if not decline.

It is in this context that it is necessary to understand the present and then project the likely future of eminent domain actions by state and local governments and planning authorities. Research by supporters and proponents suggests that substantive, state-based legislation could be explained in part by the level of economic activity in the different states. States with strong economies, especially in the homebuilding sector, were more likely to pass substantive legislation.

What happens when there is not a strong state or local economy or when they are in a downward spiral? For the foreseeable future, we believe it is likely that planning in general and eminent domain in particular will be reexamined, and perhaps even witness a resurgence in support. Communities severely affected by the credit, housing, and mortgage-finance crises are being forced to reexamine eminent domain and related powers as ways to address abandoned housing and facilitate economic and social redevelopment. It is not at all clear what, if any, resistance they will experience from a citizenry wanting and needing solutions to real and seemingly ever more complex problems.

Even though survey respondents spoke to the continued strength and presence of the property rights movement, the results also indicated that it was not clear that the core issues of importance to the property rights movement were important to citizens in general, or even to elected officials. Does this mean that the property rights activists will abandon their activism? No. Just as they have sought to continuously advance their agenda and learn from their policy experiments for more than a decade, they will again learn from their successes and failures with state-based Kelo legislation. These laws represent the latest, not the final, wave of policy activism on property rights issues in the United States.

The planning community should not ignore the property rights advocates who have succeeded in changing the way the American public thinks about the core issue in physical and regulatory takings—the appropriate balance of the government vis-a-vis the individual with regard to property rights. But at the same time, it is not clear that the institutional changes these advocates have brought forth through state-based Kelo laws have changed public administrative practice, or that the laws fundamentally matter to the public and its representatives.

Was Kelo decided properly? That is a different question than our research focus. Are the state-based Kelo laws warranted as a response to the Kelo decision? That is a question that individuals and interest groups need to answer for themselves. Is there anything about the state-based Kelo laws that most planners should worry about? No there is not, but this does not mean that these laws or their supporters should be ignored. It does mean that planners and their allies and what they do in the public interest are on much stronger ground than the passage of these laws would seem to indicate.

References

Castle Coalition. 2007. 50-state report card: Tracking eminent domain reform legislation since Kelo. Arlington, VA.

Ely, James W., Jr. 2009. Post-Kelo reform: Is the glass half full or half empty? Supreme Court Economic Review 17: 127–150.

Jacobs, Harvey M. 1999. State property rights laws: The impacts of those laws on my land. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Jacobs, Harvey M., and Kurt Paulsen. 2009. Property rights: The neglected theme of 20th century American planning. Journal of the American Planning Association 75(2): 135–143.

Jacobs, Harvey M. and Ellen M. Bassett. 2010. All sound, no fury? Assessing the impacts of state-based Kelo laws on planning practice. Working Paper. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Kayden, Jerold R. 2009. The myth and reality of eminent domain for economic development. In Property rights and land policies, Gregory K. Ingram and Yu-Hung Hong, eds., 206–213. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Morriss, Andrew P. 2009. Symbol or substance? An empirical assessment of state responses to Kelo. Supreme Court Economic Review 17: 237–278.

Somin, Ilya. 2009. The limits of backlash: Assessing the political response to Kelo. Minnesota Law Review 93(6): 2100–2178.

About the Authors

Harvey M. Jacobs is a professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, where he holds a joint appointment in the Department of Urban and Regional Planning and the Gaylord Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies.

Ellen M. Bassett is an assistant professor in the School of Urban Studies and Planning at Portland State University in Oregon.

Las comunidades locales sustentables necesitarán mecanismos para visualizar y planificar el futuro y para que los residentes participen en el proceso. La planificación de escenarios es una manera crecientemente efectiva de respaldar estos esfuerzos, y Suelos y Comunidades del Oeste (Western Lands and Communities, o WLC), la sociedad conjunta del Lincoln Institute of Land Policy y el Sonoran Institute, está trabajando para desarrollar las herramientas necesarias.

Planificación de escenarios para afrontar la incertidumbre

Las decisiones y los esfuerzos de planificación sobre el uso del suelo son elementos de fundamental importancia para visualizar el futuro en 20 a 50 años y poder guiar opciones políticas e inversiones públicas que sean sustentables a nivel económico, social y medioambiental. A medida que la incertidumbre aumenta y los recursos disponibles disminuyen, es cada vez más importante considerar la gama completa de condiciones emergentes y preservar nuestra capacidad para responder a esos cambios, adoptar políticas y realizar inversiones que se puedan adaptar a una variedad de futuros potenciales.

Las áreas clave de incertidumbre incluyen los cambios demográficos y de población, las tendencias económicas, la variabilidad y el cambio climático, los costos y disponibilidad de recursos, los mercados de suelos, las preferencias de vivienda, la construcción de viviendas asequibles y la salud fiscal de los gobiernos locales. Junto con la creciente incertidumbre y la reducción de recursos, o quizás debido a ello, las autoridades deben enfrentarse con perspectivas conflictivas sobre el futuro deseado y sobre el papel del gobierno en el suministro de servicios e infraestructura, así como en la regulación y planeamiento.

Esta polarización creciente significa que es necesario contar con más participación cívica y una sociedad más informada para respaldar políticas estables e inversiones adecuadas en el futuro de la comunidad. La planificación de escenarios ofrece un mecanismo para afrontar estas necesidades así como los problemas de incertidumbre y conflicto potenciales. Afortunadamente, a medida que el alcance y la complejidad de la planificación y la demanda de una mayor participación han aumentado, los avances en la capacidad de potencia informática y el acceso público a la tecnología permiten desarrollar herramientas nuevas y más poderosas.

El Instituto Lincoln tiene un largo historial de respaldo al desarrollo de herramientas de planificación y la publicación de sus resultados (Hopkins y Zapata 2007; Campoli y MacLean 2007; Brail 2008; Kwartler y Longo 2008; Condon, Cavens, y Miller 2009). Este artículo describe las lecciones aprendidas con el uso de herramientas de planificación de escenarios en varios proyectos realizados por WLC, así como los mecanismos para ampliar su uso.

Superstition Vistas

Superstition Vistas es un territorio vacante de 275 millas cuadradas (700 Km2) propiedad de un fideicomiso de suelos estatal en el borde urbanizado del área metropolitana de Phoenix (figura 1). Los suelos de fideicomisos estatales, como este sitio en Arizona, son la clave de los patrones de crecimiento futuro, porque el estado es dueño del 60 por ciento del suelo disponible para desarrollo inmobiliario. Colorado y Nuevo México, en un grado un tanto menor, cuentan con oportunidades similares con sus suelos de fideicomisos estatales (Culp, Laurenzi y Tuell 2006). El pensamiento creativo sobre el futuro de Superstition Vistas comenzó a tomar impulso en 2003, y el Instituto Lincoln, por medio de su sociedad conjunta WLC, estuvo entre los primeros en proponer estos esfuerzos (Propst, 2008).

Los objetivos iniciales del WLC para la planificación de escenarios en Superstition Vistas incluyeron el desarrollo de capacidades, el desarrollo de herramientas y la identificación de oportunidades para catalizar el proceso de planificación. Específicamente, propusimos:

• analizar el suelo de manera audaz, holística y comprensiva;
• aumentar la capacidad del Departamento de Suelos del Estado de Arizona para elaborar planes en gran escala y dar el ejemplo a otras dependencias estatales de suelos que tienen que enfrentar las oportunidades de crecimiento urbano;
• diseñar un modelo de desarrollo sustentable;
• impulsar el desarrollo de herramientas de planificación de escenarios e ilustrar su uso;

WLC, junto con otras alianzas regionales, jurisdicciones vecinas, la empresa regional de electricidad y agua, dos proveedores hospitalarios privados y una compañía minera local, formaron el Comité Directivo de Superstition V istas para impulsar los esfuerzos de planificación, obtener financiamiento y contratar a un equipo de consultores. Los consultores, que trabajaron con el comité por un período de tres años, realizaron múltiples actividades de consulta pública e investigación en valores, recopilaron datos sobre Superstition V istas, desarrollaron y refinaron una serie de escenarios alternativos del uso del suelo para construir una comunidad de 1 millón de residentes, evaluaron el impacto de los distintos escenarios y produjeron un escenario compuesto para el sitio.

El Departamento de Suelos Estatales de Arizona (el propietario) adaptó el trabajo de los consultores para preparar un borrador conceptual del plan para Superstition Vistas en mayo de 2011 y presentó una propuesta de enmienda al plan comprensivo ante el condado de Pinal. El condado está considerando ahora la enmienda propuesta y se espera que su Junta de Supervisores tome una decisión a fines de 2011.

Lecciones de sustentabilidad

El análisis de escenarios, utilizando las mejoras promovidos por WLC, identificó los factores más importantes que iban a incidir en los patrones de desarrollo y los conflictos potenciales en los resultados deseados (figura 2). La inclusión de costos individuales de edificación e infraestructura para los escenarios alternativos facilitó el examen de sensibilidad, al variar estos factores claves y la efectividad de costo de cuatro niveles crecientes de eficiencia energética e hídrica en cada tipo de edificio.

Los escenarios también examinaron el impacto de la forma urbana sobre las millas de vehículos viajadas (vehicle miles traveled, o VMT). El modelo de escenarios produce indicadores de uso del suelo, uso de energía y agua, VM T, emisiones de carbono y costos de construcción. Este análisis reveló las oportunidades a corto plazo de mejoras en la sustentabilidad. El equipo de consultores, en colaboración con el Comité Directivo, identificó una serie de lecciones que ilustran el valor de las herramientas de planificación de escenarios, y que se pueden aplicar a otros proyectos para diseñar áreas urbanas más sustentables y eficientes (Equipo de Consultores de Superstition Vistas, 2011).

1. Crear centros de uso mixto para reducir el tiempo de viaje, el uso de energía y la huella de carbono.

Una de las maneras más efectivas de reducir los tiempos de viaje, el uso de energía y la huella de carbono resultante son los centros de usos mixtos a lo largo de las rutas de transporte público y cerca de las residencias y los barrios. Las casas más pequeñas, las formas más compactas de desarrollo urbano y los sistemas de transporte multimodal generan beneficios similares (figura 3). No obstante, el modelo de escenarios para Superstition V istas demostró que los centros de uso mixto serían sustancialmente más importantes que un aumento de densidad para mejorar las opciones de transporte, el uso de energía y la huella de carbono.

2. Promover desde el principio las inversiones y puestos de empleo de alta calidad para catalizar el éxito económico.

Una economía local robusta y un equilibrio diverso de puestos de empleo, vivienda y tiendas cercanas son críticos para crear una comunidad sustentable, sobre todo cuando se ofrecen empleos de alta calidad al comienzo del desarrollo inmobiliario. Una inversión pública inicial significativa y la formación de alianzas público privadaspueden suplir la infraestructura crítica y tener un enorme impacto sobre la forma del desarrollo y sobre el valor de los suelos del fideicomiso estatal. El fideicomiso de suelos estatal también podría brindar una oportunidad única para inversions de capital a largo plazo, ya que las autoridades que administran el fideicomiso de suelos podrían proporcionar acceso a los recursos para las inversions iniciales de capital y permitir que se recuperen dichas inversiones cuando más adelante el suelo se venda o arriende a un valor superior.

3. Proporcionar infraestructura de transporte multimodal y conexiones regionales para facilitar un crecimiento eficiente.

Otro paso crítico es establecer cómo introducir gradualmente las mejoras de transporte a medida que la región vaya creciendo y el mercado pueda sostener un aumento en los servicios. Los componentes de introducción gradual pueden comenzar por autobuses y pasar después a un sistema de tránsito rápido de autobuses (Bus Rapid Transit, o BRT), concediendo derechos de paso para corredores eventuales de trenes suburbanos o trenes livianos. Para establecer la cohesión de toda la zona y permitir la evolución hacia infraestructuras de transporte de mayor envergadura financiera a medida que va madurando la comunidad, es necesario identificar y construir corredores de transporte multimodal e infraestructura antes de iniciar las ventas para emprendimientos residenciales y comerciales.

4. Diseñar edificios eficientes que ahorren agua y recursos energéticos y reduzcan la huella de carbono de la comunidad.

La incorporación de costos de construcción y datos de rentabilidad de la inversión en la planificación de recursos permite hacer cálculos de factibilidad financiera y costo-beneficio. El equipo de consultores construyó un modelo de cuatro niveles de uso de agua y energía (modelo de base, bueno, mejor y óptimo) para cada escenario y tipo de edificación. Los resultados demostraron que las inversiones en eficiencia energética darían más resultados en edificios residenciales que en aquellos comerciales e industriales. Otra conclusión es que la generación de energía renovable centralizada en los edificios podría ser una mejor inversión que las medidas extremas de conservación de energía.

5. Ofrecer opciones de vivienda que cumplan con las necesidades de una población diversa.

La construcción de una comunidad viable significa suplir las necesidades de todos los residentes potenciales con una amplia variedad de tipos de emprendimientos y precios al alcance de los trabajadores locales, permitiendo ajustes para condiciones futuras del mercado.

6. Incorporar flexibilidad para responder a los cambios de circunstancias.

Uno de los desafíos para los planes maestros en gran escala que se irán poniendo en práctica en múltiples fases a lo largo de 50 años o más es cómo elaborarlos para que el desarrollo propiamente dicho pueda evolucionar y revitalizarse con el tiempo. Los planes de implementación tienen que incluir mecanismos que limiten futuros problemas de resistencia a que se construya en parcelas vacías y se reurbanice cerca de donde uno vive (“no en mi patio trasero”).

Lecciones de procedimiento

El proceso de previsualización para Superstition Vistas consistió en planificar una ciudad o región de comunidades completamente nuevas en un área vacante propiedad de un solo dueño público y sin población existente. Dada la reciente recesión económica, así como la capacidad limitada de la agencia estatal para ofrecer suelos al mercado, es probable que el desarrollo de esta zona se postergue por varios años. A pesar de estas condiciones particulares, las lecciones de procedimientos aprendidas en este proyecto hasta ahora son relevantes para otros esfuerzos a largo plazo y de gran escala, y para la expansión de la planificación de escenarios para la toma de decisiones comunitarias en general.

El acuerdo sobre los procedimientos y procesos de planificación se ha convertido en un elemento cada vez más importante a medida que se prolonga el período de planificación y desarrollo, y la cantidad de partes interesadas aumenta. Es probable que en cualquier proyecto a largo plazo con múltiples partes involucradas se produzcan cambios significativos en los participantes, las perspectivas y los factores externos, como el reciente colapso de la economía inmobiliaria. Estos desafíos se tienen que tener en cuenta e incorporarse en las tareas del proyecto.

1. Diseñar para el cambio.

Los proyectos a largo plazo tienen que poder adaptarse a los cambios en las partes interesadas, dirigentes e incluso a las perspectivas políticas en el curso de la planificación e implementación. Los proyectos se beneficiarían enormemente si anticiparan estos cambios, acordaran mecanismos para transferir conocimiento a los nuevos participantes, y establecieran ciertos criterios y decisiones que las nuevas partes interesadas deberían cumplir. Para ello deben comprender cómo manejar condiciones políticas o de mercado cambiantes, e incorporar flexibilidad en estos factores al construir escenarios alternativos.

2. Considerar cómo se va a gobernar.

Este es un tema para la planificación y los esfuerzos de implementación, y también para la elaboración de una estructura de toma de decisiones en una comunidad nueva. Al construir una ciudad nueva, es importante considerar cómo crear un sistema de gobierno capaz de implementar una visión coherente y comprensiva para una comunidad que aún no existe.

3. Incorporar nuevos diseños comunitarios en planes comprensivos locales y regionales.

También es crítico considerar cómo un proyecto de la escala de Superstition Vistas, con hasta 1 millón de residentes y un plan de construcción de 50 años o más, se puede integrar en el marco de un plan comprensivo de condado prototípico. Los escenarios y las visiones tienen que reflejar las ideas y planes a que las jurisdicciones locales están políticamente dispuestas y puedan incorporar desde el punto de vista administrativo en su proceso de planificación.

4. Desarrollo en fases.

Las comunidades tienen que establecer mecanismos para permitir la adopción de una visión de construcción a largo plazo y después incorporar una serie de planes flexibles y adaptables por fases para implementar esta visión en forma paulatina.

5. Planificar para condiciones cambiantes del mercado.

Las condiciones del mercado, las preferencias de vivienda y las oportunidades de empleo evolucionarán, y los proyectos a gran escala con visiones creativas y atractivas pueden hasta crear su propia demanda. Nadie sabe a ciencia cierta qué nos ofrecerán los mercados futuros, de manera que es fundamental considerar mercados alternativos y diseños comunitarios adaptables. Las proyecciones de combinaciones residenciales y las estimaciones de absorción inmobiliaria tienen que ser flexibles y no deben partir de la base de las preferencias y tendencias actuales solamente.

6. Conectar con valores comunes.

También es importante demostrar cómo las propuestas de desarrollo se conectan con visiones y valores comunes compartidos y estables a lo largo del tiempo. Para Superstition Vistas, ciertos valores como la oportunidad de llevar adelante un estilo de vida saludable y brindar opciones para residentes de todo el espectro socioeconómico, son ampliamente compartidos. Los planificadores también tienen que reconocer los valores más polémicos o que pueden ser transitorios y probablemente cambiarán.

Desafíos y oportunidades

La experiencia de WLC en la planificación de Superstition Vistas ha sido exitosa en varios niveles. La comunidad se unió a través del Comité Directivo para desarrollar una visión de consenso que representaba una cooperación multijurisdiccional alrededor de la idea de un crecimiento sustentable e “inteligente”. Las comunidades vecinas, a pedido del comisionado estatal de suelos, demoraron cualquier intento de anexo. Además, el Departamento de Suelos del Estado de Arizona elaboró un plan para una escala geográfica, horizonte temporal y nivel de integración mucho más ambicioso que cualquier intento previo. No obstante, la enmienda al plan comprensivo propuesta para Superstition Vistas es, en el mejor de los casos, un primer paso hacia una visión para una comunidad de hasta 1 millón de personas.

El Departamento de Suelos del Estado de Arizona no ha podido, por lo menos hasta ahora, presionar demasiado para crear maneras nuevas y más creativas de conceptualizar emprendimientos a gran escala que puedan mejorar el valor económico de los suelos de fideicomisos estatales y la forma urbana regional. El reciente colapso de los mercados de suelos y de vivienda en todo el país también ha afectado este proyecto y las percepciones locales del potencial de crecimiento en el futuro. Como el esfuerzo general para conceptualizar e implementar planes de desarrollo para Superstition Vistas está sólo comenzando, no se espera que el desarrollo concreto comience hasta por lo menos dentro una década más. Habrá múltiples oportunidades para continuar con estos esfuerzos de planificación y construir previsiones más audaces y comprensivas a medida que la economía inmobiliaria se vaya recuperando y el desarrollo de suelos vuelva a ser más atractivo.

La planificación de escenarios y las visualizaciones efectivas cobran más importancia y son más difíciles de lograr cuando se intenta construir una visión más ambiciosa y a más largo plazo. Las visualizaciones que pueden ilustrar de manera convincente los centros de actividad y los barrios de mayor densidad y uso mixto, pueden ayudar a obtener aceptación del público. También se necesitan mecanismos efectivos para comunicar a los participantes actuales que el proceso de planificación pasa por imaginarse características comunitarias y preferencias de vivienda y estilos de vida para sus nietos o bisnietos, dentro de muchos años.

Como se apuntó previamente, las inversiones iniciales en transporte, desarrollo económico, educación y servicios públicos pueden afectar significativamente a una comunidad y hacer de catalizador para la creación de puestos de empleo de alto nivel y obtener una alta tasa de retorno. Para alcanzar este potencial, hacen falta mecanismos que faciliten estas inversiones, ya sea en suelos privados o suelos de fideicomisos estatales. La continuación del trabajo sobre el valor de contribución de la conservación de suelos, inversiones en infraestructura, planificación y servicios de ecosistemas, así como la integración de esta información en la planificación de escenarios, resultaría de gran ayuda en la tarea de resolver la incertidumbre e impulsar la sustentabilidad comunitaria.

Otros proyectos y lecciones aprendidas

WLC realizó tres proyectos adicionales de demostración para ilustrar y mejorar las herramientas de planificación de escenarios y aplicarlas en distintas situaciones.

Condado de Gallatin, Montana

El personal del Sonoran Institute colaboró con la Universidad Estatal de Montana para organizar un taller con las partes interesadas locales, en el que cuatro equipos distintos produjeron escenarios para concentrar el crecimiento proyectado en la región actualmente desarrollada del “triángulo” de Bozeman, Belgrade y Four Corners. Este esfuerzo integró exitosamente la herramienta de planificación de escenarios Envision Tomorrow con las proyecciones de unidades de vivienda del Modelo de Crecimiento del Sonoran Institute, y demostró el valor de las herramientas de modelación de retorno a la inversión como elemento de verificación del uso propuesto del suelo y los tipos de construcción. El proyecto también demostró el valor de la planificación de escenarios a los expertos locales.

Las lecciones aprendidas incluyeron las siguientes: (1) para muchos participantes, los mapas impresos son más intuitivos que la tecnología de pantalla táctil que utilizamos; (2) se debería usar información adicional sobre las características del suelo, como la productividad de la tierra y los valores del hábitat, para preparar los escenarios de crecimiento; y (3) hacen falta técnicas más efectivas para visualizar la densidad y el diseño de los distintos tipos de uso del suelo, así como para incorporar las realidades políticas y del mercado que las herra mientas de planificación de escenarios generalmente no captan.

Los productos de este proyecto en Montana incluirán la creación de una biblioteca de tipos de construcción apropiados para la región para usar con los modelos de retorno de inversión y escenarios, y un informe que examina los costos y los beneficios, incluyendo el impacto en la sustentabilidad, de un crecimiento futuro en el área del triángulo del valle de Gallatin. Con el respaldo de WLC, la Universidad Estatal de Montana ha podido incorporar el uso de herramientas de planificación de escenarios en sus programas de estudiantes graduados.

Condado de Garfield, Colorado

La oficina de Áreas Legadas del Oeste de Colorado del Sonoran Institute, con el respaldo del Instituto Lincoln, la Agencia de Protección Ambiental de los Estados Unidos y otros contribuyentes locales, utilizó la herramienta Envision Tomorrow como una nueva manera de impulsar la implementación de planes adoptados previamente para contrucción en parcelas vacías y reurbanización de uso mixto en áreas de crecimiento previsto. Este proyecto se concentró en la educación de las partes interesadas sobre los mecanismos necesarios para implementar recientes planes comprensivos adoptados para el desarrollo centrado en ciudades, más que en la generación de escenarios para un plan comprensivo.

Uno de los tres esfuerzos que se llevaron a cabo por separado examinó la factibilidad política y de mercado de la revitalización del centro de Rifle, Colorado. El proyecto de la ciudad de Rifle utilizó exitosamente una herramienta de retorno de la inversión para identificar factores financieros y de regulación que podrían afectar los esfuerzos de revitalización, y congregó a las partes claves necesarias para su implementación: propietarios, emprendedores, corredores inmobiliarios, comisionados de planificación, funcionarios locales, representantes estatales del transporte y personal local.

Una de las lecciones aprendidas en este proyecto fue la importancia de evaluar las visiones audaces a la luz de la realidad del mercado. Por ejemplo, los esfuerzos de la anterior planificación de Rifle se concentraron en edificios de uso mixto de seis a ocho pisos, pero en el mercado actual, incluso los proyectos de tres a cuatro pisos no se consideran factibles (figura 4c). Ahora se presta mayor atención a proyectos de uso mixto de dos pisos y casas adosadas. Las visualizaciones de una parcela subutilizada en el centro de la ciudad ilustran el tipo de opción de un solo piso que puede llegar a ser más factible para el desarrollo comercial inicial (figura 4b). También se identificó como un límite a la inversión las restricciones de estacionamiento de vehículos y un requisito mínimo elevado de cobertura de lotes. Además de identificar cambios en el código de edificación de Rifle, estos resultados generaron un debate sobre el papel de las alianzas público privadas para catalizar el emprendimiento inmobiliario del centro.

Cuenca de Morongo, California

Esta área de gran cantidad de espacio abierto y hábitat silvestre, situada entre el Parque Nacional Joshua Tree y el Centro de Combate Aéreo Terrestre de la Infantería de Marina en el sur de California, puede verse afectada por la expansión regional de población. Este proyecto del Grupo de Espacios Abiertos de la Cuenca de Morongo es un esfuerzo innovador para vincular los resultados actuales de priorización de conservación con una herramienta SIG para analizar y predecir de qué manera los patrones de uso del suelo afectan el hábitat silvestre y la capacidad de planificación de escenarios de Envision Tomorrow.

Estamos evaluando los impactos ambientales de los patrones actuales y de las alternativas potenciales de desarrollo y las opciones de planificación geográfica y del uso del suelo. Las herramientas que se están desarrollando con este empeño serán útiles para todos los fideicomisos de suelos del país que estén interesados en aliarse con otros socios para tratar temas de planificación local y regional e incorporar en sus proyectos objetivos mayores de conservación del paisaje y el hábitat silvestre.

Herramientas de planificación de código abierto

WLC ha concentrado recientemente sus esfuerzos en el desarrollo de herramientas de planificación de código abierto como un mecanismo para aumentar el uso de planificación de escenarios. Los factores claves que entorpecen su uso incluyen: (1) el costo y la complejidad de las herramientas propiamente dichas; (2) el costo y disponibilidad de datos; (3) la falta de normalización, que dificulta la integración de herramientas y datos; y (4) herramientas privadas que pueden ser difíciles de adaptar a las condiciones locales y pueden impedir la innovación.

Los partidarios de las herramientas de modelación de código abierto creen que los códigos normalizados permitirán una mayor transparencia e interoperabilidad entre modelos, lo que daría como resultado una capacidad más rápida de innovación y un mayor nivel de utilización. Como resultado de nuestro trabajo con Envision Tomorrow en el proyecto de Superstition Vistas, WLC y otros miembros de un grupo de herramientas de planificación de código abierto siguen tratando de impulsar las herramientas de planificación de escenarios y la promesa de las herramientas de código abierto para promover comunidades sustentables en muchos más lugares.

Sobre El Autor

Jim Holway dirige Western Lands and Communities, la sociedad conjunta del Instituto Lincoln con el Sonoran Institute, con sede en Phoenix, Arizona. Previamente fue subdirector del Departamento de Recursos Hídricos de Arizona y profesor de práctica en la Universidad Estatal de Arizona.

Referencias

Propst, Luther. 2008. A model for sustainable development in Arizona’s Sun Corridor. Land Lines 20(3).

Superstition Vistas Consulting Team. 2011. Superstition Vistas: Final report and strategic actions. www.superstition-vistas.org

Publicaciones Del Instituto Lincoln

Brail, Richard K. 2008. Planning support systems for cities and regions.

Campoli, Julie, and Alex S. MacLean. 2007. Visualizing density.

Condon, Patrick M., Duncan Cavens, and Nicole Miller. 2009. Urban planning tools for climate change mitigation.

Culp, Peter W., Andy Laurenzi, and Cynthia C. Tuell. 2006. State trust lands in the West: Fiduciary duty in a changing landscape.

Hopkins, Lewis D., and Marisa A. Zapata. 2007. Engaging the future: Forecasts, scenarios, plans, and projects.

Kwartler, Michael, and Gianni Longo. 2008. Visioning and visualization: People, pixels, and plans.