SHARE
Una versión más actualizada de este artículo está disponible como parte del capítulo 1 del libro Perspectivas urbanas: Temas críticos en políticas de suelo de América Latina.
En el marco de una reestructuración económica, la privatización y la globalización, el problema de las tierras urbanas y los conflictos sobre su uso representan una prioridad fundamental para El Salvador. Son muchos los factores que contribuyen al estado crítico de la administración de la tierra en el país:
El Instituto Lincoln trabaja junto con el Programa Salvadoreño de Investigación y Medio Ambiente (PRISMA) para lograr la presentación de una serie de seminarios para funcionarios de alto nivel en el gobierno nacional y municipal, así como agentes de la industria de desarrollo privada y representantes de organizaciones no gubernamentales. Los dos grupos patrocinaron un curso sobre el funcionamiento de los mercados de tierra urbanos durante la primavera pasada, y durante este otoño proseguirán con un curso sobre “Los instrumentos de regulación para el uso de las tierras urbanas”.
Este programa se enfoca en la necesidad urgente de crear instrumentos económicos y de regulación para promover la administración estratégica de las tierras urbanas, para contribuir con el proceso de democratización en curso y apoyar el desarrollo sustentable. El curso es particularmente oportuno porque El Salvador está en el proceso de establecer un ministerio del ambiente y redactar una legislación para encargarse de problemas de organización territorial.
Mario Lugo Ucles es investigador afiliado de PRISMA (Programa Salvadoreño de Investigación y Medio Ambiente) en El Salvador.
SHARE
Within the framework of economic restructuring, privatization and globalization, the issue of urban land and conflicts over its use is a top priority for El Salvador. Numerous factors contribute to the critical status of land management in the country:
The Lincoln Institute is working with the Salvadoran Program for Development and Environmental Research (PRISMA) to present a series of seminars for high-level municipal and national government officials, private development agents and representatives of non-governmental organizations. Last spring the two groups cosponsored a course on the functioning of the urban land markets and this fall will follow up with a course on “Regulatory Instruments for the Use of Urban Land.”
This program addresses the urgent need to create economic and regulatory instruments to promote strategic urban land management, contribute to the ongoing process of democratization and support sustainable development. The course is particularly timely because El Salvador is in the process of establishing a Ministry of the Environment and drafting legislation to address issues of territorial organization.
Mario Lungo Ucles is a researcher affiliated with PRISMA, the Salvadoran Program for Development and Environmental Research, in San Salvador.
SHARE
As sprawling, low-density development patterns consume thousands of acres of natural habitat, the force of urban growth is increasingly bumping up against the need to protect biodiversity. The fastest growing states and regions in the South and West are also those with high numbers of endemic species, and species endangered or threatened with extinction.
One tool that has emerged for reconciling species-development conflicts is the habitat conservation plan (HCP). Authorized under Section 10 of the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), HCPs allow for limited “take” of listed species in exchange for certain measures to protect and restore habitat. These plans vary in their geographical scope from a single parcel or landowner to large areas involving many landowners and multiple governmental jurisdictions.
The HCP mechanism grew out of a controversy over development plans on San Bruno Mountain in the Bay Area of California that threatened several species of butterflies, including the federally listed mission blue. A collaborative planning process generated a biological study of the butterflies’ habitat needs and a conservation plan that allowed some development in designated nodes while setting aside about 87 percent of the butterfly habitat as permanent open space. The HCP also included a funding component, procedures for carefully monitoring development and minimizing its impact, and a long-term program of habitat restoration.
The positive experience of San Bruno led to a 1982 amendment to the ESA specifically allowing HCPs. Since then, their use has grown slowly but steadily. About 40 plans have been approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and another 150 are in progress, most of them initiated in the last five years.
The Typical HCP Process
Regional habitat conservation plans usually follow a similar process. They start with the formation of a steering committee with representation from the environmental community, landowners and developers, local governments, and state and federal resource management agencies, among others. Frequently, consultants are hired to prepare background biological and land use studies as well as the actual plan and accompanying environmental documentation. The content of these plans can vary substantially depending on the species and potential threats at issue, but most create habitat preserves through fee-simple acquisition or land dedication. Plans also include provisions for habitat management, ecological restoration, and research and monitoring. Much of the deliberation in preparing a plan centers on how much habitat must be preserved, the boundaries and configuration of proposed preserves, how funds will be generated to finance the plan, and which entities or organizations will have management responsibility for the protected habitat once secured.
While the HCP process has encountered problems, the experience to date suggests it can be a viable and constructive mechanism for resolving species-development conflicts. For the development community, the stick of ESA brings them to the table and keeps them there, realizing that without a strong plan any development might be jeopardized. For the environmental community, the plan represents a way to generate funds to acquire habitat that would be difficult to raise otherwise. The HCP process, thus, provides a useful pressure valve under the ESA–a tool to provide flexibility in what is frequently criticized as being an overly rigid and inflexible law.
Successes and Concerns
From the perspective of preserving biodiversity, the plans, even those not officially adopted or approved, have lead to the acquisition of important habitat. The Coachella Valley HCP in California sets aside three preserves totaling nearly 17,000 acres of desert habitat to protect the fringe-toed lizard. Other plans preserve biologically rich hardwood hammocks in the Florida Keys, desert tortoise habitat in Nevada, and forested habitat for the northern spotted owl in California. The ambitious Balcones Canyonlands Conservation Plan in Austin, Texas, would protect more than 75,000 acres of land, including a newly created 46,000 acre national wildlife refuge. Though this plan has encountered political and financial obstacles, more than 20,000 acres have already been secured.
One of the key concerns about HCPs is the effectiveness of their conservation strategies, especially whether the amount of habitat set aside is sufficient to ensure the survival of threatened species. The long-term ecological viability of preserves is another problem, because many will become mere “postage stamps” surrounded by development. These concerns suggest that more habitat should be protected, that preserves should be configured in larger, regional blocks, and that plans should seek to protect multiple rather than single species within broad ecosystem functions. The Balcones example suggests a positive direction for future HCPs in its emphasis on a regional, multi-species approach, including endangered migratory songbirds, cave-adapted invertebrates and plant species.
Another criticism of HCPs is that they have failed to change the ways we allow development to occur because they generally accept the current pattern of low-density sprawl and wasteful land consumption. In addition, it often takes four or five years before a plan can be prepared and approved. Even given that seemingly long timeframe, plans are often based on limited biological knowledge.
One of the most difficult issues in the HCP process is funding. Habitat acquisition in fast-urbanizing areas is extremely expensive. The Coachella Valley plan cost $25 million; the Balcones plan could cost more than $200 million. Most plans are funded through a combination of federal, state and local funds, with some private funding. At the local level the plans usually impose a mitigation fee assessed on new development in habitat areas ranging from a few hundred dollars per acre to the $1950 per acre in the case of the Stephens’ kangaroo rat HCP in Southern California.
Ideas for future funding sources include the creation of habitat acquisition revolving funds (similar to state revolving funds for financing local sewage treatment plant construction) and the use of special taxing districts designed to capture land value increases of property located adjacent to habitat preserves. Greater reliance needs to be placed on less expensive alternatives than fee-simple acquisition, such as transfers of development rights, tradable conservation credits, mandatory clustering and other development controls.
The Future of HCPs
The considerable progress in habitat conservation made through this mechanism to balance development and conservation could be halted if current proposals in Congress to substantially weaken ESA prevail. Clearly it is the “teeth” of ESA that gets opposing parties to the bargaining table. Without a strong ESA, there will be little reason to expect this form of collaborative habitat conservation to occur.
The experience to date suggests that flexibility does exist under current law, and that the problems encountered with HCPs do require some fine tuning. The challenge is to make the HCP process an even more effective tool for conserving biodiversity. At the same time, if habitat conservation is incorporated into local comprehensive plans, then new development can be steered away from important habitat areas and public investment decisions can minimize potential species-development conflicts.
Timothy Beatley is chair of the Department of Urban and Environmental Planning in the School of Architecture at the University of Virginia and the author of Habitat Conservation Planning: Endangered Species and Urban Growth, University of Texas Press, 1994. He spoke at the Institute’s May 1995 meeting of the Land Conservation in New England Study Group.
Additional information in printed newletter:
Map: Balcones Canyonlands, Austin, Texas. Source: Adapted from maps by Butler/EH&A Team, City of Austin Environmental and Conservation Services, Balcones Canyonlands Conservation Plan, Preapplication Draft, Austin, 1992
SHARE
Lawrence Susskind is the Ford Professor of Urban and Environmental Planning at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and president of the Consensus Building Institute, in Cambridge, Massachusetts. He graduated from Columbia University and received his Masters of City Planning and his Ph.D. in Urban Planning from MIT. As current head of the Environmental Policy Group in MIT’s School of Architecture and Planning, he teaches courses on international environmental treaty negotiation, public sector dispute resolution and environmental planning. He also holds a joint appointment at Harvard University as visiting professor of Law and director of the Public Disputes Program at the interuniversity Program on Negotiation, which he helped to found. Susskind has published many books and reports and held many visiting appointments and guest lectureships. He is a faculty associate of the Lincoln Institute.
Land Lines: How did you become interested in land use mediation?
Lawrence Susskind: Land use planners are supposed to ensure that the public is involved in all growth management decisions. Yet, most efforts to ensure such public participation lead to protracted political battles. Within the planning profession it is not clear how competing conceptions of appropriate land uses ought to be reconciled. Since the early 1970s I have been trying to introduce the concept of mediation as well as other conflict management tools into the lexicon of professional planners. In my view, in the absence of consensus building strategies of some kind, most communities are doomed to use resources inefficiently, unfairly and unwisely. I got interested in land use mediation as a way of helping the planning profession do a better job.
LL: What types of land use disputes are most difficult to resolve?
LS: Land use disputes that revolve around values or identity are the most difficult to resolve. When values (as opposed to economic interests) are at stake, people often feel that their identity is threatened and in such situations they are rarely open to considering the views of others. For example, proposed changes in land use that would eliminate agriculture as a way of life are not likely to be accepted, even if financial compensation is offered to the landowners involved.
LL: When did you start collaborating with the Lincoln Institute?
LS: My ties to the Lincoln Institute go back a long time. When Arlo Woolery was executive director in the late 1970s, we worked together on a multiyear effort to analyze the impacts of the Property Tax Limitation Law (Proposition 2 1/2) in Massachusetts and on the state’s Growth Policy Development Act. Two decades later, in 1997, I began working with Rosalind Greenstein and later Armando Carbonell, co-chairs of the Institute’s Department of Planning and Development, on a series of research projects that evolved into the training programs on land use mediation that we (LILP and CBI) currently offer together.
LL: Explain a little more about CBI.
LS: The Consensus Building Institute is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1993 to provide consensus building services to clients involved in complex disputes. Building on the “mutual gains” approach to negotiation developed at the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School, CBI offers conflict management assistance, negotiation training, dispute system design services and evaluative research to public agencies, corporate clients and nongovernmental agencies on five continents.
Our staff now includes a dozen full-time professionals, mostly based in Cambridge, and a network of more than 30 experienced affiliates around the world. We have become known as expert public and environmental dispute mediators and have helped to resolve complex disputes related to the siting of controversial facilities, the setting of public health and safety standards, the formulation and implementation of development plans and projects, and conflicts among racial and ethnic groups.
LL: When did the joint Lincoln and CBI training programs begin?
LS: After several years of careful analysis of land use mediation efforts throughout the United States, CBI developed a curriculum with Lincoln Institute for public officials and planners, and that course has been offered since 1999 at a number of locations. During the first few years we offered only a basic course designed to familiarize participants with assisted negotiation as a method to resolve land use disputes, and then we expanded our offerings to include more detailed skill building for experienced mediators and practitioners. Today we offer a full range of courses at multiple locations around the country.
LL: Who are the primary participants in these introductory and advanced courses?
LS: We are trying to reach three different audiences. First, we have identified and invited local elected and appointed officials who preside over land development disputes and administer land use regulatory systems at the local, regional and state levels. They need to know that there are techniques they can use to help resolve land use disputes before they escalate.
Second, we are trying to attract real estate developers and their attorneys so they know how to participate effectively in dispute resolution efforts when they are offered or suggested by public officials. Third, we have a special interest in attracting professionals of all kinds who want to learn how to be better facilitators, particularly of multiparty land use dialogues that involve complex technical dilemmas.
LL: What are the key goals and lessons of these programs?
LS: The introductory course offers a quick overview of the reasons that land use disputes seem to escalate so quickly and often end up in court. We then introduce the basic principles and tools of dispute resolution and show how they can head off such escalation. They are presented in a very interactive way using gaming and simulations. Participants are given a number of hands-on opportunities to apply what they are learning in hypothetical situations and to bring their own cases before the group. We spend some time talking about techniques for overcoming resistance to the use of mediation and other consensus building strategies.
The advanced course is aimed at experienced mediators or planners and lawyers who think they might want to become mediators. It assumes that the participants have mastered the material presented in the introductory course and moves to a set of dilemmas at the next level, including methods of handling science-intensive disputes through the use of joint fact finding. We also review key theoretical debates, such as managing unequal power relationships in a mediation context.
LL: How do you incorporate both theory and practice into the curriculum?
LS: We expect many of the participants to bring their own stories about land use disputes in which they have been intimately involved. We model in real time how the theory we are teaching can be applied in their cases. We also try to ground all of our theoretical presentations in detailed case accounts of actual practice. Finally, as mentioned above, we use role playing simulations. Students can’t just sit back and take notes. They have to wrestle with the application of the ideas we are presenting.
LL: What other projects have you undertaken with the Institute?
LS: About a year ago, in May 2004, I joined Institute President Jim Brown at a Lincoln-sponsored seminar in Cuba on the problems of restoring and redeveloping Havana Harbor. Energy production and inadequate attention to pollution control have spoiled one of the most beautiful harbors in this hemisphere. Some of the many different committees and groups concerned with economic development, environmental cleanup, restoration of the harbor ecology, historic preservation of Old Havana, and enhanced tourism are seeking advice on strategies for balancing these (sometimes) competing objectives.
CBI is beginning to develop a new joint course with the Lincoln Institute and some of its partners involved in local economic development efforts around the country. We believe conflict resolution tools and negotiation skills can be of great use in neighborhood development disputes, not just growth management conflicts in the suburbs. With Roz Greenstein CBI is creating a new set of training programs for community-based organizations that we plan to offer for the first time next summer.
Another new initiative is a collaborative Web site that highlights recent research by the Lincoln Institute and CBI, as well as timely news articles, background material on consensus building, and links to related programs and publications. One section of the site will provide an interactive platform that will permit hundreds of alumni of our joint courses to remain in touch with each other and share their mediation experiences. This “virtual learning community” will be a valuable resource for public- and private-sector stakeholders involved in land use disputes (even if they haven’t taken the course).
LL: What is the outlook for future joint programs?
LS: I believe our ongoing CBI–Lincoln Institute partnership holds incredible promise. We have conducted an Institute-sponsored study on the use of consensus building to resolve land reform disputes in Latin America and hope to expand on that work, as well as to address land issues facing China and the newly independent states of Eastern Europe. The Institute is already involved in research and training programs in these regions, and land use disputes are at the core of many of the challenges facing national and local policy makers.
The Lincoln Institute is an ideal partner for CBI. We both care about applied research, theory building and sharing new knowledge through educational programs of all kinds. We both measure our success in terms of real improvements on the ground, and we share interests in both domestic and international arenas.
SHARE
The Pawcatuck Borderlands illustrates what is fast becoming one of the major puzzles in land use policy—how to plan across boundaries. Countless examples across the country (and arguably the world) demonstrate two fundamental points (Foster 2001; Porter and Wallis 2002; McKinney et al. 2002). First, the territory of many land use problems transcends the legal and geographic reach of existing jurisdictions and institutions (public, private, and other). In the Borderlands area, the spatial dimension of the problems created by increasing population growth and demand for municipal services cuts across multiple jurisdictions.
This mismatch between the geography of the problem and the geography of existing institutions leads to the second point: the people affected by such problems have interdependent interests, which means that none of them have sufficient power or authority to adequately address the problems on their own, yet self-interest often impedes cooperation.
These observations are not new. The history of regionalism in America dates back to at least the mid-nineteenth century and the writing of John Wesley Powell (McKinney et al. 2004). As we move into the twenty-first century, there seem to be two basic responses to this planning puzzle. The first is to create new regional institutions or realign existing institutions to correspond to the territory of the problem, and the second is to start with more informal, ad hoc regional forums.
Some of the more notable examples of regional land use institutions include the Lake Tahoe Regional Planning Authority (1969), Adirondack Park Agency (1971), New Jersey Pinelands Commission (1979), and the Cape Cod Commission (1990). The impetus to establish such entities requires a significant amount of political commitment upfront, or sometimes legal pressure from influential court cases. Once the regional organizations are established, they tend to require a great deal of effort to sustain. This largely explains why there have been so few proposals to create such institutions in the past few decades (see Jensen 1965; Derthick 1974; Robbins et al. 1983; and Calthorpe and Fulton 2001).
Rather than create new institutions, leaders in more than 450 regions across the country have realigned existing institutions to form regional councils, which generally do not have the authority to make and impose decisions per se, but are designed to foster regional cooperation and the delivery of services. In New England, these organizations have evolved to fill the vacuum left by weak county government, and their boundaries often follow county boundaries, which may or may not correspond to the territory of the problem.
The second response, which is more common these days, is to bring together the “right” people with the best available information in tailor-made, ad hoc forums. This approach, which might be termed “regional network governance,” is more bottom-up than top-down, and depends largely on the ability of the participants to build and sustain informal networks to get things done. In some cases these ad hoc forums lay the groundwork to create more formal regional institutions in the future.
Obstacles to Regional Networks
Of course, building and sustaining regional networks is easier said than done. Our research and experience suggest there are four primary obstacles to planning across boundaries. First, the very nature of thinking and acting like a region raises questions about the participants and scope of the problem: Who should take the lead in organizing and convening regional conversations, and who else should be involved? What issues should be on the agenda? How should the region be defined? How can multiple parties—public, private, and nonprofit—share the responsibilities and costs to achieve identified goals? Even where regional planning councils exist, the rules governing or guiding such efforts are not clear.
Second, the value of working together is not always apparent or shared. As with other forms of multiparty negotiation, it is difficult to mobilize and engage people unless and until they believe that they are more likely to achieve their objectives through regional collaboration than by acting independently. Public officials may be reluctant to engage for fear that such efforts will undermine their authority, and business leaders and real estate developers may view collaboration as something not worth their time. Local citizens often cringe at the idea of regional planning, thinking that someone who does not live in the local area will be making decisions about their land. Other stakeholders may simply have different priorities or a better alternative to satisfy their interests.
Third, many people are unfamiliar with the process of regional collaboration, and that uncertainty makes them feel uncomfortable and reluctant. In addition, people may lack the skills to organize and represent their constituency, deal with scientifically complex issues, and negotiate effectively in a multiparty setting. Others may be uneasy with the organic nature of ad hoc regional forums, and how they should be linked to formal decision-making processes.
Even if participants can overcome these obstacles, their effectiveness at regional collaboration is often limited by a fourth factor: lack of resources. In an assessment of about 75 established regional initiatives in the West, nearly all participants said that “limited resources” was the primary obstacle to more effective collaboration (McKinney 2002). Among the resources cited were time, money, information, and knowledge. People trying to initiate and support regional land use projects in three recent projects (in the San Luis Valley in south-central Colorado, the Flathead Valley in northwestern Montana, and the Upper Delaware River Basin) reported struggling due to a lack of financial resources and staffing capabilities.
In sum, the challenge of addressing multijurisdictional land use issues is not primarily a scientific or technical challenge, nor is it simply about managing land use more effectively and efficiently. At its core, regional land use is a sociopolitical challenge. It is a question of whether we can integrate the needs, interests, and visions of multiple jurisdictions, sectors, and interests. It is also a question of how society addresses shared and competing interests—in this case, land use.
An Emerging Framework
During the past few years, the Lincoln Institute has taken a leadership role in studying and evaluating regional collaboration on land use issues through policy and research reports, educational programs, and regional land use clinics. This collective body of work suggests at least three overarching lessons.
First, regional initiatives vary greatly in terms of who leads the project, as well as its scale, purpose, issues, activities, and structure, including funding and time frame. While some initiatives augment existing government institutions, others are more ad hoc in nature, filling gaps in governance at different levels. Whether formal or ad hoc, regional initiatives create public opportunities that would not otherwise exist to address land use issues that cut across multiple jurisdictions.
Second, regional collaboration includes both a procedural element (how to plan across boundaries) and a substantive element (policies, programs, activities, and other outcomes to address a particular regional land use issue). The Lincoln Institute’s work on the procedural aspects of regional collaboration complements and builds on its land use dispute resolution program, although it is different in two fundamental ways: regional collaboration deals primarily with multiple jurisdictions, which raises the key question of convening diverse stakeholders; and it has more to do with designing new systems of governance (both formal and informal) than with resolving disputes per se.
Third, there is no single model for planning across boundaries, but rather a set of principles to guide regional collaboration (see Figure 1). This “theory of change” posits that the implementation of something like this set of principles leads to better informed, more widely supported, and more effective solutions to multijurisdictional land use issues (see www.umtpri.org).
Guiding Principles for Regional Collaboration
Some Outstanding Questions
Who should take the lead in organizing and convening regional conversations?
In many professional circles there is an ongoing debate about the role and ability of government to convene effective collaborative processes. Many people argue that government cannot successfully organize and convene such efforts given its built-in institutional resistance and lack of responsiveness. Citizens, by contrast, often can provide more effective forums through organic, grassroots initiatives. Throughout the West, there is a growing movement where citizens, frustrated by government’s lack of responsiveness, are convening place-based groups to address a variety of land use issues—ranging from growth management to endangered species to water allocation (Kemmis 2001). In the Northeast, citizens in adjacent towns and states are recognizing their shared resources, values, threats, and opportunities. They are committing to joint planning projects, regional economic development campaigns, and applications for official designation for their regions.
Recent studies indicate, however, that participation by one or more levels of government is essential to the effectiveness of the more ad hoc, citizen-driven processes (Kenney 2000; Susskind et al. 1999; Susskind et al. 2000). Governments not only provide financial and technical assistance, but also become critically important if the intent of a regional initiative is to shape or influence land use policy. Official government institutions, after all, constitute the formal public decision-making processes in our society.
Neither top-down nor bottom-up approaches are inherently superior, and in the final analysis the two ends of the spectrum need to come together to facilitate positive change. Whether a regional initiative is catalyzed and convened by citizens, nongovernmental organizations, businesses, or public officials, it is most effective when the people initiating the process exercise collaborative leadership. Such leaders facilitate development of a shared vision by crossing jurisdictional and cultural boundaries; forging coalitions among people with diverse interests and viewpoints; mobilizing the people, ideas, and resources needed to move in the desired direction; and sustaining networks of relationships. In this respect, regional collaboration is more like organizing a political campaign than preparing a regional plan.
Three vignettes—the first two based on regional clinics sponsored by the Lincoln Institute—illustrate the need to have the right convener and to employ the characteristics of collaborative leadership. In the Upper Delaware River Basin, two government agencies initiated a regional conversation, but they framed the problems and solutions prior to consulting with other stakeholders or citizens. Not surprisingly, many people who were not part of the initial process criticized both the definition of the region and the scope of the project.
In the San Luis Valley in Colorado, citizens and interest groups tried to organize a regional land use planning effort, but the local elected officials dragged their feet and characterized the participants as “rabble rousers.” This experience shows what can happen when citizens get ahead of decision makers, that is, when civic will outpaces political and institutional will.
On a more encouraging note, leaders from the public, private, and nonprofit sectors, as well as academics, the media, and others, have jointly convened Billings on the Move—a conversation on what is needed to promote and sustain the economic vitality of the region in and around Billings, Montana. One of the primary reasons for this project’s success is that all of the key stakeholders bought into the project from the beginning, and they jointly identified problems and framed solutions.
Is it possible to mobilize and engage people “upstream” in a proactive, preventive way, rather than “downstream” after a crisis, threat, or regional land use dispute has emerged?
In the San Luis Valley, citizens and leaders from all walks of life came together some years ago to fight and defeat a proposal to export precious groundwater out of the valley. This effort clearly demonstrated sufficient civic will and political capacity to organize regionally in response to a real external threat. However, the same people are now struggling to organize around land use issues when there is no immediate crisis. Some observers believe that if they do not act soon, however, the valley will eventually become another expensive tourist destination like Aspen, Sun Valley, or Jackson Hole.
In response to this concern, we are working with the Orton Foundation to determine if the use of technology—in particular the visualization and scenario-building software known as Community Viz—may provide the necessary leverage to mobilize and engage people, to help them see what is at stake, and to evaluate how regional collaboration can help to address issues of common interest. The challenge here is not only to focus on a tangible problem, but also to build the social and political capacity of the region to think and act more proactively.
How do we measure the success of regional collaboration?
The question of what criteria or metrics should be used to evaluate efforts to plan across boundaries takes us back to the distinction between the procedural and substantive aspects of regional collaboration. If one agrees with this distinction, then any framework to evaluate success should include metrics that focus on both process and outcomes.
A recent study evaluated the success of 50 community-based collaborative initiatives in the Rocky Mountain West that were regional in nature, encompassing two or more jurisdictions (McKinney and Field 2005). Twenty-seven indicators measured participants’ satisfaction with the substantive outcome of the effort, its effect on working relationships, and the quality of the process itself. The evaluation framework also allowed participants to reflect on the value of community-based collaboration relative to other alternatives.
The people who responded to the survey were generally satisfied with the use of community-based collaboration to address issues related to federal lands and resources. Seventy percent of the respondents said that all 27 indicators were important contributors to their satisfaction with both the process and its outcomes. Eighty-six percent of participants stated they would recommend a community or regional process to address a similar issue in the future.
Participants tended to rank “working relationships” and “quality of the process” as more important than “outcomes,” suggesting that people are at least as interested in opportunities for meaningful civic engagement and deliberative dialogue as in achieving a preconceived outcome. These results also support the value of community-based or regional collaboration—particularly when compared to other forums to shape land use policy and resolve land use disputes. Future evaluation research is necessary to affirm or refine these findings, and to clarify the impact of regional collaboration on various social, economic, and environmental objectives.
Conclusion
Planning across boundaries—or regional collaboration—is slowly emerging as an essential component of land policy and planning in the twenty-first century. For example, the 2005 White House Conference on Cooperative Conservation—only the fourth White House conference ever held on conservation—convened several sessions on reaching across boundaries to promote shared governance. Whether the issues to be addressed in such forums focus on rapid growth and its consequences or the need to retain and expand the local economic base, these problems are often best addressed by planning across the boundaries created by government jurisdictions, economic sectors, and academic disciplines. Indeed, in many cases, this is the only way these problems will be resolved effectively.
The Pawcatuck Borderlands
The Pawcatuck Borderlands on the Connecticut and Rhode Island state line is part of a largely undeveloped region within the megalopolis that stretches from Boston to Washington, DC. This landscape is one of the largest intact, forested areas in southern New England, and its abundant wildlife ranges from bears to songbirds. The remarkable diversity of the Borderlands includes hardwood forests, pitch-pine woodlands, wetlands, lakes, and rivers, as well as numerous small, rural communities where people have lived and worked for centuries.
Nearly 40 percent of the Borderlands is protected by the Pachaug State Forest and the Arcadia Management Area, and the relatively undisturbed natural character of the region creates a high quality of life for its residents. However, this open space in the heart of the northeastern megalopolis is also popular with visitors for its recreational opportunities and world-class tourist attractions. Located between Providence and Hartford, the Borderlands faces increasing demands for housing, roads, and shopping centers. Unlike many other rural areas, the opportunities for employment and investment are good, making this a financially attractive location for families and businesses.
Between 1960 and 2000, the population of Borderlands towns grew by more than 95 percent. Traffic is escalating on local roads and highways, and finite water resources are being overused, impacting both the quality and quantity of water in local watersheds. This increasing activity is eroding the existing infrastructure and requiring local residents to pay for additional roads, schools, and other essential services. All of these trends threaten longstanding social, historic, and environmental values.
Choices about the rate and pattern of future land conservation and development in the Borderlands must be addressed by decision makers in two states and ten towns. As in much of New England, each town retains land use authority and is governed through town meetings and the decisions of numerous local commissions and boards. Each of these jurisdictions has historically tackled land use issues independently, but the nature of existing trends and emerging challenges calls out for a different approach.
About the Authors
Matthew McKinney is director of the Public Policy Research Institute at the University of Montana, Helena. He was founding director of the Montana Consensus Council and has taught many courses for the Lincoln Institute on both regional collaboration and land use dispute resolution.
Kevin Essington is director of the Pawcatuck Borderlands Program for the The Nature Conservancy in Connecticut and Rhode Island. He works on land acquisition, land and watershed restoration, planning, and consensus building.
References
Calthorpe, Peter, and William Fulton. 2001. The regional city: Planning for the end of sprawl. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Derthick, Martha.1974. Between state and nation: Regional organizations of the United States. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
Foster, Kathryn A. 2001. Regionalism on purpose. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Jensen, Merrill. 1965. Regionalism in America. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press.
Kemmis, Daniel. 2001. This sovereign land: A new vision for governing the West. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Kenney, Doug. 2000. The new watershed sourcebook. Boulder: The University of Colorado Natural Resources Law Center.
McKinney, Matthew, et al. 2002. Regionalism in the west: An inventory and assessment. Public Land and Resources Law Review: 101–191www.ars.org.
———. 2004. Working across boundaries: A framework for regional collaboration. Land Lines 16(3): 5–8.
McKinney, Matthew, and Pat Field. 2005. Evaluating community-based collaboration. Submitted to Society and Natural Resources.
Porter, Douglas R., and Allan D. Wallis. 2002. Exploring ad hoc regionalism. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Robbins, William G., Robert J. Frank, and Richard E. Ross. 1983. Regionalism and the Pacific Northwest. Corvallis: Oregon State University Press.
Susskind, Lawrence, Ole Amundsen, and Masahiro Matsuura. 1999. Using assisted negotiation to settle land use disputes: A guidebook for public officials. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Susskind, Lawrence, Mieke van der Wansem, and Armand Ciccarelli. 2000. Mediating land use disputes: Pros and cons. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
SHARE
The prevailing land use regulation and land tax laws in the United States make the Kelo case and the use of eminent domain for private development particularly dramatic, especially compared to other countries.
SHARE
En vista de que, en los Estados Unidos, existen más de 25.000 gobiernos municipales involucrados en el análisis y aprobación de cambios propuestos en referencia a la zonificación, planificación y desarrollo de propiedades, la cantidad de decisiones sobre el uso del suelo que se toma a nivel municipal por año probablemente ronda los millones. Si bien la gran mayoría de estas resoluciones siguen el curso normal, los cambios en el uso del suelo y la zonificación que resultan más complejos y conflictivos con frecuencia implican conflictos amargos y duraderos. El exceso de derechos de desarrollo en la región intermontañosa del oeste de los Estados Unidos (página 4) es un ejemplo de este problema tan complicado sobre el uso del suelo.
Los conflictos sobre el uso del suelo y el desarrollo inmobiliario están clasificados entre los tipos más comunes de desacuerdos civiles en los Estados Unidos y, por lo general, involucran a muchas partes, propiedades e intereses. Estos conflictos generan costos para todas las partes directamente implicadas, así como también para el público en general. Sin embargo, una larga experiencia en la resolución de conflictos sobre el uso del suelo indica que los cambios en el proceso de toma de decisiones sobre el uso del suelo pueden producir mejores resultados a un costo menor.
Los gobiernos municipales por lo general tienen una junta encargada de tomar las decisiones referentes a los cambios en el uso del suelo, para lo cual emplean un proceso de cuatro pasos. En primer lugar, la parte que desea obtener un cambio o permiso para desarrollar una propiedad debe presentar una solicitud ante dicha junta. En segundo lugar, la junta analiza la solicitud y puede requerir al solicitante respuestas adicionales o modificaciones. En tercer lugar, se da la oportunidad al público para que realice comentarios, lo que puede derivar en un diálogo más entre la junta y el solicitante, así como en nuevas modificaciones a la solicitud. Finalmente, la junta emite su decisión. Este proceso funciona bien en la mayoría de las solicitudes que se procesan con una celeridad razonable. No obstante, la junta invierte la mayor parte de su tiempo en aquellos casos, una minoría, que involucran muchos intereses y numerosos derechos que pueden superponerse o ser contradictorios o imprecisos.
El proceso típico de cuatro pasos se centra en la adjudicación de derechos; así, cuando se trata de pocas cuestiones simples y los derechos se encuentran bien definidos en relación con las propiedades en cuestión, este método funciona bien. Sin embargo, en los casos más complejos, resulta más prometedor utilizar un enfoque más amplio centrado en el beneficio mutuo de todas las partes involucradas. El enfoque de beneficio mutuo resulta más productivo cuando se dan las siguientes condiciones: existen muchas partes interesadas; la junta que toma las decisiones posee algún nivel de discreción en la decisión en particular; el impacto de la decisión es de largo plazo y largo alcance; y es probable que todo resultado que no sea colaborativo finalmente sea apelado por una o más de las partes interesadas. El enfoque de beneficio mutuo no debe considerarse como una alternativa al proceso normal de los cuatro pasos, sino como una ampliación del mismo, básicamente, mediante la suma de pasos adicionales o la ampliación de los pasos existentes en el proceso estándar.
La clave para utilizar con éxito el enfoque de beneficio mutuo es lograr descubrir los intereses subyacentes de las partes interesadas, es decir, de aquellos intereses situados tras la posición adoptada públicamente, y, luego, desarrollar nuevas opciones o soluciones que den respuesta a dichos intereses. La situación ideal se da cuando este paso tiene lugar en las primeras etapas del proceso cuando las posiciones de las partes interesadas todavía son flexibles.
Este proceso de investigación y detección es un elemento de la primera etapa del enfoque de beneficio mutuo, la cual implica identificar a las partes interesadas, escuchar atentamente sus motivos de preocupación y tomar como base sus intereses. En el proceso habitual de cuatro pasos, estas actividades probablemente tendrían lugar en una fase previa a la solicitud, en la que se considerarían los conceptos de desarrollo y diseño antes de formular las propuestas definitivas. La segunda etapa del enfoque de beneficio mutuo consiste en diseñar un proceso de colaboración que involucre a todas las partes interesadas y ofrezca oportunidades para que dichas partes compartan información y aprendan unas de otras. La tercera etapa consiste en promover un diálogo exitoso entre las partes interesadas, por lo general mediante la intermediación de un buen facilitador que logre generar relaciones y confianza entre las partes involucradas. La etapa final consiste en implementar los acuerdos que se hayan logrado, garantizando que las soluciones propuestas incluyan los acuerdos que se hayan alcanzado entre los participantes, a la vez que cumplen con los requisitos que establezca la junta encargada de tomar las decisiones.
El nuevo libro publicado por el Instituto Lincoln, Land in Conflict (Suelo en conflicto), escrito por Sean Nolon, Ona Ferguson y Pat Field, que contiene una descripción más detallada del enfoque de beneficio mutuo, junto con estudios de casos informativos. Está disponible tanto en formato impreso como electrónico.
SHARE
With more than 25,000 local governments in the United States involved in the review and approval of proposed changes in zoning, planning, and property development, the number of local land use decisions made annually likely runs into the millions. While the vast majority of such determinations proceed in a routine fashion, more complex and contentious changes in land use and zoning frequently involve lengthy and acrimonious conflicts. Excess development entitlements in the Intermountain West (p. 4) exemplify such a challenging land use issue.
Land use and real estate development disputes are ranked among the most common types of civil disagreements in the United States, and they generally include multiple parties, properties, and interests. These contests produce costs for all parties directly involved as well as for the public more generally. Yet long experience with the resolution of land use disputes indicates that changes in the land use decision-making process can produce better outcomes at lower cost.
Local governments normally have a board charged with making decisions about changes in land use, and such boards employ a four-step process. First, the party seeking a change or permission to develop a property files an application with the board. Second, the board reviews the submission and may seek responses or modifications from the applicant. Third, there is an opportunity for public comment, which may lead to an additional dialog between the board and the applicant and further modifications in the application. Finally, the board renders a decision. This process works well for the majority of applications that are processed reasonably quickly. However, most of the board’s time is spent on the minority of cases that involve many interests and numerous rights that can be overlapping, contradictory, or imprecise.
The typical four-step process focuses on adjudicating rights; when the issues are few and simple, and the rights are well defined for the properties in question, this method works well. For more complex cases, however, an expanded approach that focuses on mutual gains for all concerned parties is more promising. The mutual gains approach is most productive when: there are many interested stakeholders; the deciding board has some discretion in the particular decision; the impacts of the decision are long-term and far-reaching; and a non-collaborative outcome is likely to be challenged by one or more of the involved stakeholders. The mutual gains approach should not be viewed as an alternative to the usual four-step process but as an expansion of it—essentially through the addition of extra steps or the expansion of existing steps in the standard procedure.
The key to successful use of the mutual gains approach is to discover stakeholders’ underlying interests—behind their publicly announced positions—and then to develop new options or solutions that are responsive to those interests. It is ideal if this step occurs early in the process when positions are still flexible.
This process of investigation and discovery is an element of the first stage of the mutual gains approach, which involves identifying the stakeholders, listening carefully to their concerns, and building on their interests. In the usual four-step process, this would likely occur in a pre-application phase addressing development and design concepts before final proposals are formulated. The second stage of the mutual gains approach is to design a process for collaboration that involves all stakeholders and offers opportunities for them to share information and learn from each other. The third stage is to promote successful deliberation among the stakeholders—typically by using a good facilitator who can build relationships and trust among those involved. The final stage is to implement the agreements that have been forged, ensuring that the proposed solutions incorporate the accords reached by the participants while also meeting the requirements of the decision-making board.
A much more detailed description of the mutual gains approach, along with informative case studies, is available in the recent Lincoln Institute book, Land in Conflict, authored by Sean Nolon, Ona Ferguson, and Pat Field. This title is available in both print and ebook formats.
SHARE
Antonio Azuela, fellow del Instituto de Investigaciones Sociales de la Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, posee títulos de grado en Derecho de la Universidad Iberoamericana (México) y de la Universidad de Warwick (Inglaterra), así como también un doctorado en Sociología por la Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM). Desde finales de la década de 1970, Azuela se ha dedicado a la investigación y la enseñanza del derecho urbano y medioambiental desde una perspectiva sociolegal. Su libro “Visionarios y pragmáticos: Una aproximación sociológica al derecho ambiental”, México: UNAM, 2006, es una reconstrucción sociológica de sus experiencias como procurador general en la Procuraduría Federal de Protección al Ambiente (PROFEPA) de México desde 1994 hasta 2000. Recientemente editó el libro “Expropiación y conflicto social en cinco metrópolis latinoamericanas”, publicado por la UNAM y el Lincoln Institute of Land Policy en 2013.
Land Lines: ¿Cómo se involucró usted con el Lincoln Institute of Land Policy?
Antonio Azuela: En 1991, conocí a varios funcionarios del Instituto mientras realizaban un viaje de exploración por México. Mantuve el contacto con ellos porque me interesaba el enfoque del Instituto respecto de la política urbana. Mi relación con el Instituto se afianzó en el año 1998 en una reunión que tuvo lugar en El Cairo, organizada por el Grupo Internacional de Investigaciones sobre Derecho y Espacio Urbano (IRGLUS), en la que el Instituto expresó su interés en un enfoque sociolegal de los problemas del suelo urbano. En el año 2000, tuve el honor de que me invitaran a formar parte del directorio del Instituto. Desde entonces, he mantenido un contacto permanente con el equipo y los programas del Instituto Lincoln.
Land Lines: ¿Por qué la adquisición pública de suelo se ha convertido en un problema tan crítico, en especial en América Latina?
Antonio Azuela: La expropiación (es decir, la adquisición obligatoria de suelo por parte del Estado) es un tema muy importante en todo el mundo, ya que es una manera de obtener terrenos para proyectos urbanos públicos. Sin embargo, en América Latina este problema es aún más crítico, debido a la naturaleza débil del Estado en cuanto a los asuntos urbanos. Antes de la transición democrática que experimentó la región, los gobiernos obtenían terrenos fácilmente mediante el uso de mecanismos que se considerarían cuestionables en una democracia. Pero la transición fortaleció al poder judicial, que, por lo general, no es proclive a las intervenciones del gobierno en el mercado. Hoy en día, los propietarios privados tienen cada vez más posibilidades de interferir en la adquisición pública de suelos en la región (con la notable excepción de Colombia, donde una amplia coalición de diferentes profesionales, jueces y organizaciones sociales apoya la doctrina de la función social de la propiedad). Esta tendencia puede observarse, por ejemplo, en la compensación exorbitante que algunos tribunales han otorgado en casos de expropiación de suelo en la ciudad de México y en São Paulo.
Land Lines: ¿Cuáles son los principales puntos en conflicto?
Antonio Azuela: El primero es la adopción de políticas económicas que defienden un rol menor del Estado. El segundo tiene que ver con la condición legal de los derechos de propiedad. Cuando las reformas constitucionales permiten a los jueces limitar la facultad de expropiación, dicha restricción no es necesariamente mala, ya que puede dar como resultado una administración pública de mayor calidad, aunque, a corto plazo, ha interferido en la facultad del gobierno de adquirir terrenos urbanos para proyectos públicos. Existen dos excepciones notables: en Brasil y en Colombia, las reformas constitucionales han establecido políticas urbanas inspiradas en ideas de justicia social, aunque solamente en Colombia existe una nueva generación de jueces que actúan conforme a estos principios. En Brasil, los tribunales se encuentran dominados por la visión liberal clásica de la propiedad privada, lo cual interfiere en la capacidad de implementar la función social de la propiedad, una idea que ha circulado por América Latina durante casi un siglo.
Land Lines: Muchas jurisdicciones prefieren adquirir terrenos en el mercado abierto en lugar de utilizar instrumentos tales como la expropiación.
Antonio Azuela: La expropiación no debería ser la primera opción para adquirir terrenos. El desafío es que el gobierno pueda regular diferentes clases de instrumentos con el fin de lograr un objetivo general: reducir el componente del suelo en el costo total del desarrollo urbano. La utilización de la expropiación debe estar garantizada por un marco legal sólido que establezca un equilibrio adecuado entre el poder del Estado y el poder de los propietarios, y debería representar la última alternativa a la hora de adquirir terrenos para proyectos urbanos públicos.
El gran problema es el costo del suelo, pero los mecanismos de intervención del gobierno pueden inflar los precios. Por ejemplo, si no se espera que el uso de la expropiación aumente el valor del suelo y los jueces determinan que la expropiación es el enfoque adecuado, entonces este instrumento puede tener un impacto positivo en los mercados inmobiliarios. Al menos, podemos esperar que la adquisición de terrenos por parte del gobierno no genere un aumento de precios.
Land Lines: ¿Cuáles son los principales resultados de su investigación en torno a la utilización de la expropiación para el desarrollo urbano en la región?
Antonio Azuela: Aunque existe una tendencia general de fortalecer los derechos de propiedad, que interfiere en la facultad de expropiación, se observan diferentes variaciones en dicha tendencia dependiendo de la relación entre el poder judicial y el poder ejecutivo en los gobiernos post autoritarios de la región. El proceso de cambio institucional depende menos de las tendencias mundiales que de las fuerzas nacionales o incluso locales, ya que puede observarse que ciertas ciudades siguen caminos diferentes a otras ciudades de un mismo país. Aun cuando los gobiernos municipales adoptaran la misma estrategia, los tribunales de una región protegerán a los propietarios en mayor medida que los tribunales de otras regiones. El área metropolitana de Buenos Aires, por ejemplo, ilustra de qué manera el sistema institucional de la expropiación no es homogéneo, aun dentro de la misma área metropolitana. Así, en la Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, las personas que viven en asentamientos informales (denominados “villas miseria”) han recurrido a los tribunales y han impedido el desalojo. Sin embargo, en la provincia de Buenos Aires, el clima político es tal que no existe amenaza de desalojo: la expropiación se utiliza con el fin de garantizar a las personas la permanencia en el lugar donde se han asentado.
Otra lección importante que podemos extraer es que, en América Latina, no existe un diálogo auténtico acerca de la importancia de la expropiación o de las diferentes maneras en que los tribunales han abordado los dilemas que la expropiación presenta. Aunque el pensamiento constitucional de la región es muy rico en ideas sobre ciertos problemas legales, tales como los derechos de los aborígenes y de los ancianos, las políticas urbanas (en particular, la expropiación) no han generado debates profundos entre los juristas. Lamentablemente, estos problemas parecen ser considerados como excepciones, a pesar de la enorme cantidad de personas que vive, ya sea sufriendo o disfrutando, en los grandes centros urbanos.
Land Lines: ¿Las compensaciones por expropiación son arbitrarias o injustas? De ser así, ¿para quién?
Antonio Azuela: La compensación inadecuada es, sin duda alguna, uno de los mayores desafíos para el futuro desarrollo de la expropiación como instrumento de política de suelo. En algunos casos, los gobiernos pueden aprovecharse de la impotencia de ciertos grupos sociales y ofrecerles una compensación ridículamente baja por sus tierras o casas. En otros casos, el poder económico y la influencia de ciertos propietarios pueden generar compensaciones exorbitantes. Pero más allá de estos dos casos extremos, en los que el propietario afectado es o muy vulnerable o muy poderoso, resulta difícil discernir una tendencia dominante.
Una respuesta más precisa a su pregunta requeriría un estudio de mercado sobre una gran cantidad de casos de expropiación a fin de determinar si la compensación es alta o baja al compararla con criterios preestablecidos. No obstante, según las investigaciones existentes, los tribunales generalmente no poseen criterios claros o ampliamente compartidos para determinar si las compensaciones son justas. Además, los tribunales carecen de la capacidad de comprender lo que está en juego en un proceso de transformación urbana en el que se utiliza la expropiación. Consideremos, por ejemplo, el caso de una familia prominente de Ecuador que recibió una compensación muy alta por la expropiación de suelo de cultivo que poseía en la periferia de Quito. Lo notable aquí fue que el organismo que falló en este caso fue el Tribunal Interamericano de Derechos Humanos, y resulta evidente que este tribunal no estableció criterios claros para determinar la suma de la compensación, sino que simplemente realizó un promedio de las valuaciones presentadas por cada una de las partes. La compensación zen este caso fue la más alta que haya otorgado este tribunal superior, que fue creado con el fin de atender las violaciones a los derechos humanos cometidas por dictadores, aunque terminó beneficiando a los propietarios privados a expensas del interés público. El hecho de que este caso no haya generado un escándalo entre los constitucionalistas de la región indica el grado de marginalización que presentan los problemas legales urbanos en América Latina.
Land Lines: ¿Cuáles son las tendencias que usted ha observado que están cambiando?
Antonio Azuela: Observo con cierto optimismo que muchos tribunales y gobiernos municipales de la región están atravesando un proceso de aprendizaje e intentando no repetir los errores judiciales del pasado. Lamentablemente, estas lecciones raramente trascienden el área local afectada para incorporarse al saber jurídico regional común.
Land Lines: ¿Qué tipo de educación o capacitación recomendaría usted?
Antonio Azuela: Lógicamente, debemos intensificar el intercambio entre las diferentes disciplinas y países y colocar a los tribunales en el centro del debate, ya que estos son los que tomarán las decisiones finales. Sus fallos deberían expresar la mejor síntesis posible de un acervo de conocimientos que debemos construir en torno a la dinámica urbana de la región. En los contactos que hemos tenido con diferentes tribunales, con el apoyo del Instituto Lincoln, descubrimos que, una vez establecido el diálogo, los jueces ven la necesidad de aprender más a fin de comprender los efectos de sus decisiones. En otras palabras, aunque los tribunales parecen no mostrar un gran interés en los problemas urbanos, tal como se demuestra en la actitud rutinaria de sus decisiones diarias, pueden igualmente entrever nuevas perspectivas para su propio desarrollo profesional dentro del contexto de un análisis crítico de problemas urbanos.
Land Lines: ¿Cuáles son los problemas críticos que deben analizarse en mayor profundidad? ¿Qué es lo que aún no sabemos?
Antonio Azuela: Deberíamos intentar comprender la lógica de las decisiones emanadas de los tribunales de la región. Con frecuencia interpretamos de manera simplista las medidas tomadas por los tribunales, ya que los medios de comunicación tienden a amplificar los peores casos. No obstante, muchos jueces se esfuerzan por encontrar la mejor solución posible para cada caso. ¿Y en qué condiciones realizan su labor? Uno de los desafíos que conlleva investigar estos problemas en América Latina es el de comprender el mundo real en el que se toman dichas decisiones, además de los temas de la corrupción y la incompetencia, tan comunes pero siempre relevantes. Debemos analizar los datos estadísticos con el fin de obtener tendencias generales, junto con la aplicación de un enfoque etnográfico sobre el funcionamiento de los tribunales. Sólo entonces seremos capaces de entender qué es lo que debe reformarse para mejorar el rendimiento de los tribunales en los conflictos urbanos. Aunque es muy importante determinar quién resulta favorecido por las decisiones de los tribunales (lo que puede lograrse analizando el contenido de los fallos judiciales), necesitamos comprender mejor las condiciones en las cuales se toman dichas decisiones. Y para ello, debemos acercarnos mucho más a los tribunales.
