In recent years, Latin America has suffered from many natural disasters that have had especially serious impacts on irregular settlements in densely urbanized areas. Drawing on the findings of research in Mexico funded by the World Bank and other institutions, the Lincoln Institute cosponsored a seminar in November 2000 in the port city of Veracruz, focusing on ways to mitigate the risks and results of natural disasters. The seminar explored such issues as:
Representatives from municipal authorities and community organizations shared experiences and learned technical and practical methodologies to identify high-risk zones, implement policies to reduce illegal settlements in those zones, and establish prevention and mitigation measures. Participants also identified the importance of social participation in the process. The principal findings are summarized below:
The Institute has been working on this issue with State, Urban and Municipal Services (SUME), an institution established in late 1999 to raise the quality and efficiency of governance and management at state and local levels in Mexico. SUME aims to accomplish these objectives through consulting, technical assistance and training of government officials. Its activities have been supported by the United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat), which cosponsored this seminar, and by the World Bank and the Interamerican Development Bank.
Douglas Keare is a fellow of the Lincoln Institute and Luis Javier Castro Castro is director general of State, Urban and Municipal Services (SUME) in Mexico City.
Una versión más actualizada de este artículo está disponible como parte del capítulo 4 del libro Perspectivas urbanas: Temas críticos en políticas de suelo de América Latina.
Uno de los aspectos más importantes del estudio de políticas de suelo en América Latina es la falta de tierra urbanizada al alcance de los habitantes de bajos recursos1. Esta carencia, y la consiguiente ocupación ilegal de terrenos carentes de infraestructuras, son características de las ciudades latinoamericanas, especialmente en las periferias urbanas y en áreas no aptas para el mercado inmobiliario (o excluidas del mismo) debido a sus condiciones topográficas o ambientales.
Una consecuencia inmediata de esta escasez es la sobrevaloración de la tierra urbanizada. En efecto, usualmente la provisión de servicios aumenta el precio de la tierra en una cantidad superior al costo de los servicios. Típicamente, los solares designados como urbanos se cotizan en US$ 5-10 por metro cuadrado. La provisión de todos los servicios cuesta alrededor de US$ 20-30 por metro cuadrado, pero el precio de mercado puede llegar hasta US$ 50-100 por metro cuadrado. Así, el precio de un lote de tierra urbanizada de 150 metros cuadrados equivale como mínimo al triple del ingreso anual de la mayoría de las familias de escasos recursos. En la mayoría de las ciudades latinoamericanas, al menos el 25 por ciento de la población por debajo del umbral de pobreza puede escasamente sobrevivir, y mucho menos pagar el precio de tierra sobrevalorada.
Esta población pobre que vive en asentamientos ilegales termina pagando un precio superior por el suelo que los habitantes de otras partes de la ciudad, y pagan más por servicios tales como agua, los cuales deben obtener de empresas privadas, así como también por alimentos, materiales de construcción y otros artículos de consumo. Lo que es peor, su riesgo de contraer enfermedades es mayor debido a las deficientes condiciones higiénicas de sus entornos habitacionales y a su limitado acceso a servicios médicos.
El problema de la ocupación irregular
No es sorpresivo que entre un 60 y un 70 por ciento de las tierras de las ciudades latinoamericanas estén ocupadas de manera irregular, ilegal o incluso clandestina, y que la mayor parte del inventario de viviendas consista en edificaciones autoconstruidas que incrementan con el paso del tiempo. En México, la irregularidad de la tenencia de la tierra es una forma de vida dado su importante contexto político e incluso cultural. Para las familias de bajos ingresos, la única manera de vivir en las ciudades es adquiriendo o invadiendo predios ilegales o irregulares.
El mensaje está muy claro para las generaciones más jóvenes: “Instálense donde quieran y sin preocuparse, porque algún día el Estado regularizará sus lotes”2. Esta actitud cultural refuerza lo perverso del círculo vicioso: mientras más expectativas existen sobre la eventual regularización de los asentamientos irregulares, mayor es el precio cobrado por subdivisores o gestores inmobiliarios por la venta de terrenos parcialmente urbanizados o carentes de servicios. El simple acto de parcelar la tierra dobla o triplica su precio, de manera que nuevamente, el pobre paga más por la tierra que los compradores del mercado formal.
Esta anticipación de la revalorización del suelo como resultado de la regularización futura se relaciona con dos corolarios importantes: Primero , las acciones públicas para regularizar la tierra no han resuelto el problema del acceso a la tierra para la población urbana de pocos ingresos; en cambio, la regularización es parte del problema porque alimenta la “industria de la irregularización”. Es fundamental pensar seriamente en reestructurar o incluso acabar con esta política perversa, y crear otras formas de ofrecer tierra urbanizada a quienes la necesitan.
Segundo, este proceso expone también una falacia referente a la (in)capacidad de los pobres de pagar por algunos servicios urbanos. Ellos ya están pagando al menos por una parte de sus servicios, aunque los están pagando al propietario de la tierra/gestor inmobiliario como un “tributo territorial” que, en otras circunstancias, se hubiera recaudado públicamente. La discusión no está bien encaminada: el problema no es tanto si el pobre debe pagar o no, sino más bien cómo debe pagar y cuáles deben ser los límites de tales pagos. Por ejemplo, ¿deberían las familias de bajos ingresos, beneficiadas por los programas de regularización, pagar directamente por los servicios? o ¿debería capturarse el incremento del valor del suelo generado por las mejoras, y pechar al propietario de la tierra por dicho aumento mediante impuestos y otras políticas tributarias? Este último punto arroja una nueva luz sobre los problemas resultantes de algunos esquemas convencionales de subsidio.
Problemas de los programas de regularización actuales
Es necesario reevaluar los marcos tradicionales del estudio del fenómeno de la irregularidad-regularización de la tenencia de la tierra en colonias urbanas de bajos ingresos en México (al igual que en el resto de América Latina). Con esta idea en mente, en marzo de 1999 se celebró un seminario del Instituto Lincoln en cooperación con el Colegio Mexiquense AC en Toluca, México. Aunque el seminario no pudo resolver el enigma indicado anteriormente ¾ni siquiera proporcionar los medios para romper el círculo vicioso¾, sí generó algunas conclusiones importantes.
Primero que todo, es importante reconocer que el problema de suministro de tierra a los pobres de América Latina no puede resolverse a fuerza de los programas de regularización imperantes. Además de los efectos dañinos de los mismos, existen serias inquietudes sobre su capacidad de sustentación financiera. Los programas de regularización tienden a ser “más cura que prevención”, y a menudo dependen de asignaciones gubernamentales extrapresupuestarias, a excepción de cuando los fondos provienen de agencias multilaterales, organismos no gubernamentales u otros medios.
En México, CORETT, una comisión federal para la regularización de la tenencia de la tierra de predios ejidales, y CRESEM, una comisión estatal para la regularización de la tenencia de la tierra y la regularización de la tierra privada, se han dedicado principalmente al aspecto legal del problema. Ninguna de las dos comisiones ha logrado sus objetivos de proporcionar tierra urbanizada para los estratos bajos de la población o de crear reservas de tierras. En vez de dedicarse al problema básico de la irregularidad de la tierra, ambas se han concentrado en una de sus manifestaciones o consecuencias: la tenencia ilegal.
Segundo, los programas de regularización vigentes adolecen de las fallas resultantes de desvincularlos de una política tributaria amplia, particularmente de la tributación de la tierra (con sus implicaciones obvias para un mercado de suelos más saludable). Como se indicó en el seminario, el manejo exitoso de la tierra urbana requiere, más que métodos regulativos, una mayor disciplina fiscal de los mercados de suelos, principalmente en el ámbito municipal. Esta disciplina debería ser una precondición para captar eficazmente los incrementos del valor de la tierra a fin de generar tierra urbanizada, en vez de ser el sustituto de un tributo más completo sobre el valor de la tierra. Las mismas dificultades en obtener tasaciones adecuadas del valor de la tierra, registros del suelo actualizados, y otras informaciones usualmente atribuidas a la aplicación de impuestos sobre el valor de la tierra, se aplican también (y en ocasiones de manera más dramática) a la mayoría de los instrumentos de captura de plusvalía.
En tercer lugar, los instrumentos fiscales por los cuales se rige la tierra en México, si bien se caracterizan por su diversidad y rigurosidad, son también bastante sensibles desde el punto de vista político y por tanto, tienen una utilidad escasa. Por ejemplo, los impuestos a la propiedad inmobiliaria (principalmente el impuesto predial) se enfrentan a serias limitaciones prácticas para capturar los incrementos del valor de la tierra, sencillamente porque no fueron diseñados para tal fin. Sin embargo, es posible que una reforma fiscal no sea un obstáculo tan insuperable como antes se creía… después de todo se han instituido cambios en otras áreas controversiales, tales como la privatización de activos del estado o de tierras de ejido.
Más allá de estas restricciones técnicas y políticas, no debemos olvidarnos de la importancia de los obstáculos culturales y gerenciales. Es necesario que los planificadores trabajen en cooperación con los administradores fiscales para solventar el problema de la falta de comunicación que desde siempre ha caracterizado a estos dos grupos. Ya se han dado ciertos pasos promisorios, y muchos empleados públicos están conscientes de la urgente necesidad de integrar las políticas fiscales y la planificación urbana dentro del marco de una estrategia global.
Finalmente, hay que visualizar este dilema dentro de un contexto más amplio. Es necesario que tanto el gobierno como el sector privado entiendan que la tierra se ha convertido en el asunto estratégico del dinámico proceso de urbanización. La cuestión principal es la necesidad de regularizar los mercados de tierra, no sólo para satisfacer de otras maneras la enorme demanda por tierra urbanizada, sino también para instituir cambios profundos en la prioridad que tiene este asunto dentro de la política y las normativas urbanas mexicanas.
En suma, el seminario expuso la necesidad multifacética de instaurar políticas eficaces que faciliten tierras urbanizadas a los estratos bajos de la población, y de poner en marcha una mejor coordinación de las políticas existentes relacionadas con los aspectos de finanzas, reservas territoriales, regularización y dinámicas del mercado del suelo. Durante el seminario se demostró que aunque muchos instrumentos fiscales y regulativos son adecuados en teoría, no lo son en la práctica. El problema no es tanto la falta de recursos, sino más bien la capacidad de movilizar los recursos existentes y encaminarlos hacia un programa extenso que enlace la regularización con la política fiscal, así como con la exploración de mecanismos de captura de valores.
Si bien se han estudiado varias propuestas y ofrecido alternativas para futuras agendas de trabajo en el tema, es preciso analizar varias cuestiones para comenzar a entender el fenómeno de una manera diferente. Una pregunta clave es, si la dotación de infraestructuras aumenta el valor de la tierra de una manera tan explosiva, ¿por qué es tan difícil encontrar agentes o gestores privados del mercado formal que estén dispuestos a invertir en el mercado informal? ¿por qué, a pesar de los aspectos atractivos mencionados, se considera que el mercado informal es improductivo?
Hay un cúmulo de respuestas, pero ninguna es fácil: la incertidumbre sobre los riesgos asociados a los problemas judiciales y legales, las confusas reglas del juego, el alto costo de las licencias de aprobación, la falta de información sobre los procedimientos, y las inquietudes sobre la baja rentabilidad a lo largo del tiempo. Debido a los complejos asuntos institucionales involucrados en este dilema, el mismo continuará siendo el centro de atención de los esfuerzos del Instituto Lincoln y de sus copatrocinadores en México y en otros países de América Latina.
Martim O. Smolka es Senior Fellow y Director del Programa para América Latina del Instituto Lincoln. Alfonso Iracheta Cenecorta es presidente del Colegio Mexiquense AC, una institución de investigación y educación de postgrado en ciencias sociales y humanidades, en México.
Notas
1. El término “tierra urbanizada” se aplica a suelos designados para uso urbano, dotados de servicios públicos básicos (aguas, alcantarillado, caminos pavimentados, electricidad y teléfonos, etc.), y con acceso a funciones municipales tales como empleo, educación y transporte público.
2. Por regularización se entiende no sólo la entrega de títulos de propiedad, sino aún más importante, la dotación de infraestructura urbana, servicios y otros cambios necesarios para integrar el asentamiento “informal/ilegal pero al mismo tiempo real” en la red de la ciudad “legal”.
Algunas definiciones
Ilegal. Ocupación de la tierra que contradice expresamente las normas existentes, los códigos civiles y la autorización pública.
Informal. Actividad económica que no se adhiere a las reglas institucionales (ni está protegida por ellas), en oposición a la actividad formal que opera dentro de los procedimientos establecidos.
Irregular. Subdivisión que está aprobada oficialmente pero que no ha sido ejecutada de acuerdo con la ley.
Clandestina. Subdivisión establecida sin reconocimiento oficial.
The potential for sharp and unpredictable assessment increases is an important source of dissatisfaction with the property tax. Rapid price rises that are accurately and promptly reflected in assessed valuations can leave homeowners responsible for cash payments on paper gains that are unexpected, uncontrollable, and possibly short-lived. Two decades ago, this situation paved the way for adoption of California’s Proposition 13, which rejected fair market value as a basis for assessment.
Increasing valuations do not necessarily produce a corresponding rise in property tax bills, since a higher assessment base could raise equivalent revenue with a smaller tax rate. This solution is not feasible, however, when prices increase disproportionately only in particular neighborhoods or for particular types of property.
What other means are available to address price volatility and its impact on property tax rates? A number of states have recently introduced limitations on annual valuation increases. These measures avoid extreme assessment increases but may still allow assessments to match fair market values at some point in the future. They substitute a non-market value basis for assessment and diminish uniformity by distinguishing between those properties that are assessed on the basis of current values and those that are not.
Assessment Limitations in Washington and Texas
In the November 1997 elections, voters in Washington state approved a referendum generally limiting increases in assessed valuation to 15 percent a year on all classes of taxable property. If a property’s market value rises more than 60 percent, one year’s assessment may reflect no more than one-quarter of that increase. A similar measure strongly supported by business representatives was passed by the Republican legislature but vetoed by Gov. Gary Locke (D), who would have limited it to homeowners.
This case raises an important point concerning uniformity and distribution of the tax burden. Phase-in provisions ease the burden on owners of rapidly appreciating property but correspondingly increase the relative share of the tax borne by owners experiencing slower growth, or no growth, in property value. While tax limitations are generally promoted as protection for homeowners, residential benefits may pale in comparison to commercial gains.
Supporters of the Washington referendum urged passage “to soften a tax blow that could be devastating to a homeowner on a fixed income.” Yet major funding for the campaign came from industrial giants, including Microsoft, Intel, Hewlett Packard, Boeing and Weyerhaeuser. Opponents, including King County assessor Scott Noble, argued that the tax benefits “will go disproportionately to the large corporations that are bankrolling the campaign because of their much higher property values.” On the other hand, restricting such provisions to residential property introduces another level of non-uniformity to the tax.
Texas voters chose this split valuation alternative in November, approving a measure that limits increases in assessed values of residential homestead property, but not business property, to 10 percent a year. The president of the Texas Taxpayers and Research Association said this provision will “keep a terribly hot neighborhood from getting sort of a sticker shock.”
Critics saw the irony of this action. One wrote, “If the Texas Legislature had offered voters a chance to cap appraisal increases on their homes a few years ago, lawmakers would have been lauded as heroes. Angry homeowners were storming the offices of appraisal districts in the early and mid-1990s, demanding relief from double-digit increases in the appraised value of their homes and the prospect of significant property tax hikes. . . Nothing happened. Now that appraisal increases have fallen to three percent or so, the Legislature is offering voters a chance to cap the increases by changing the state Constitution. . . .” Ironically, before the price rises of the 1990s, Texas tax protests centered on whether assessments reflected falling property values quickly enough in the regional recession of the 1980s. For example, Harris County, which includes Houston, saw challenges to one-quarter of all its tax valuations in 1984 and 1985.
A Legislative Approach in Montana
Annual increases of 10 or 15 percent do not necessarily prevent assessed valuations from reaching full market levels. However, Montana lawmakers responded this year to dramatic value increases with an even more drastic measure. After studies reported that residential and commercial property values had increased by an average of 43 percent statewide since the last reassessment, the legislature required this change to be phased in at a rate of only two percent annually-taking 50 years to enter the tax rolls completely. Court challenges to this provision could raise an interesting question as to how long a phase-in period is compatible with state constitutional provisions requiring uniformity in assessment.
Assessment Reform in Ontario
Large valuation increases may be due to assessment lags as well as to price rises. One of the most startling examples of outdated tax valuation is found in Toronto-a surprise to U.S. observers who normally expect a high level of administrative efficiency from their northern neighbor. At the September conference of the International Association of Assessing Officers (IAAO) in Toronto, a panel of speakers brought together by the Lincoln Institute explored this situation. The potential for huge valuation increases stems not so much from extraordinary market activity as from extraordinary assessment inactivity. Metropolitan Toronto has not had a full-scale reassessment since1954-and that was based on 1940 market values.
Attorney Jack Walker described the public as generally supportive of current tax reform efforts, which encompass the entire province of Ontario. By contrast, a 1992 reassessment proposal for Metropolitan Toronto alone sparked such protest from residential and small business taxpayers that the proposal was abandoned. As a result, the 1997 measure explicitly addresses the concerns of many taxpayers groups. Professor David Amborski of Ryerson Polytechnic University explained that it would ensure current value assessments and regular updates. In addition, it will eliminate the business occupancy tax, permit different tax rates for different classes of property, provide special treatment for senior citizens and disabled taxpayers, and reduce taxes on agricultural and open space lands.
Thus, Toronto has also chosen to soften the impact of large assessment increases at the expense of uniformity. In this case, where municipal valuations were so out of date, the net effect may be judged an improvement in assessment equity. It will be important to evaluate the experiences of other jurisdictions struggling with the challenge of balancing uniformity and acceptability to see if they can make the same claim.
Joan Youngman is senior fellow and director of the Institute’s Program in the Taxation of Land and Buildings. An attorney specializing in property tax issues, she also writes a column for State Tax Notes, published by Tax Analysts.
Notes
Joseph Turner, “Ref. 47 Debate: Do Tax Savings Justify Change?” Takoma News-Tribune, October 23, 1997, p. A1 (quoting Rep. Brian Thomas (R-Renton))
2 Tom Brown, “Big Guns Back Property-Tax Lid,” Seattle Times, October 24, 1997, p. B3.
3Clay Robison, “Measure Would Cap Hike in Residential Appraisals,” The Houston Chronicle, November 2, 1997, p.2.
4Michele Kay, “Tax Appraisal Cap on Ballot,” Austin American-Statesman, October 20, 1997, p. A1.
Una versión más actualizada de este artículo está disponible como parte del capítulo 2 del libro Perspectivas urbanas: Temas críticos en políticas de suelo de América Latina.
El precio excesivamente alto de la tierra urbanizada en América Latina es una de varias explicaciones del grado y la persistencia de los mercados informales de tierra. Contrario a las creencias populares, la informalidad es costosa y por lo tanto no es lo mejor y ni siquiera es una alternativa ventajosa para combatir la pobreza, pero por lo general es la única salida para las familias urbanas pobres. Una política más consistente para reducir la informalidad, y así reducir la pobreza, debería ser al menos neutra o aportar a la reducción de los altos precios de la tierra.
La Pobreza Sola no puede Explicar la Informalidad
Aunque el mapa de la ilegalidad urbana se parezca al de la pobreza, la extensión y la persistencia de la informalidad no puede ser explicada solamente por la pobreza. No todos los ocupantes de los asentamientos informales son pobres, tal como muchos estudios empíricos en América Latina lo han demostrado en los últimos años. La tasa de ocupación irregular de la tierra es mucho más alto que el aumento del número de familias nuevas pobres. En Brasil, por ejemplo, el número total de residentes en “favelas” ha aumentado cinco veces más rápido que el de residentes pobres, y una tendencia similar se observa en las más grandes ciudades Latinoamericanas.
Este crecimiento espectacular de los asentamientos informales ha ocurrido en las periferias y por densificación de áreas “consolidadas” irregulares urbanas, pese a que los índices de natalidad y de migrantes campo-ciudad hayan caído sustancialmente y el porcentaje de ciudadanos pobres haya permanecido relativamente estable. Otras explicaciones de este crecimiento informal incluyen la falta de programas de vivienda social, la inversión pública inadecuada en infraestructura urbana y, por último aunque no menos importante, debido a la cruda realidad de que los mecanismos informales son rentables para quienes los promueven.
El Alto Costo de la Tierra Urbanizada
La economía convencional formula que los precios de libre mercado reflejan el nivel en el que la capacidad y la disposición a pagar de un comprador coincide con la capacidad y la disposición a vender de un proveedor, pero esto no garantiza que se suplan las necesidades sociales. Es decir, el mercado para la tierra urbanizada puede estar funcionando bien mientras que muchas familias (incluso no pobres) no pueden acceder a él, y mientras algunos terrenos urbanos son mantenidos vacantes intencionalmente.
En las periferias de muchas ciudades Latinoamericanas, el precio de un metro cuadrado (m2) de tierra urbanizada, desarrollado por agentes privados, puede variar entre US$32 Y US$172. Estos niveles son cercanos en términos absolutos a los encontrados en el mundo desarrollado, donde los ingresos per-cápita son típicamente 7 a 10 veces mayores. Hasta una familia encima de la línea de pobreza que ahorre el 20% de su ingreso mensual (US$200) necesita ahorrar de 12 a 15 años para adquirir un lote urbanizado de 150 m2. Estos indicadores sugieren que la dificultad de acceso a la tierra urbana pueda ser uno de los factores que contribuyen a la pobreza.
El precio de la tierra urbana, como en cualquier mercado, es determinado por la oferta y demanda. El suministro de tierra depende de la cantidad habilitada (producida) por año, la cantidad que es retenida, y la intensidad de uso de la existente. La demanda depende de la tasa anual de formación de nuevos hogares, ajustada por su ingreso y/o poder adquisitivo, sus preferencias y los precios de otros artículos en sus presupuestos. Es difícil realizar una explicación completa de todos los factores que afectan el comportamiento de precios de tierra (Ver Smolka 2002), pero basta mencionar ciertos determinantes emblemáticos para entender algunas aparentes idiosincrasias del funcionamiento de mercados de tierra urbanos en América Latina.
Desde el lado de la oferta, los impuestos prediales, la mayor fuente potencial para financiar la producción de tierra urbana, es ridículamente bajo. Típicamente representan menos que el 0.5 por ciento del PIB, comparado al 3 y 4 por ciento en EE UU y Canadá. En general hay la sensación de que América Latina invierte poco en infraestructura y servicios comparado con su PIB per cápita. Los sustanciales incrementos observados en el valor de tierra, como resultado de inversiones en infraestructura urbana y servicios, generalmente son ignorados como una fuente para financiar tales inversiones, debido a mecanismos débiles de captura de la valorización (Smolka y Furtado 2001).
Además, la disposición de considerables áreas de tierra es controlada por agentes que no siguen la racionalidad económica (por ejemplo, las fuerzas armadas, la iglesia o entidades estatales como los ferrocarriles). De otro lado, la limitada disponibilidad de tierra habilitada es a menudo sometida a normas urbanísticas elitistas, diseñadas para “proteger” esos vecindarios haciéndolos inaccesibles para familias de bajos ingresos.
En el lado de la demanda, muchas familias, incluso con buenos ingresos, trabajan informalmente y son excluidos del mercado por no tener las credenciales requeridas por los bancos para otorgar créditos. La necesidad de auto-financiar la producción de la vivienda alarga el tiempo entre la adquisición y la ocupación del lote, aumentando tanto el costo de la financiación como la demanda global por tierra. Además, la herencia de alta inflación, mercados de capital subdesarrollados o inaccesibles, y la limitada cobertura del sistema de seguridad social, son responsables de alimentar una cultura establecida entre sectores de bajos ingresos de usar terrenos como reserva de valor y como un mecanismo popular de capitalización, lo cual también presiona la demanda de tierra. En otras palabras, retener terrenos rústicos y especular con tierra no es una conducta exclusiva de los sectores altos ingresos.
Los precios de los Lotes Informales
Más allá de estos argumentos convencionales acerca de la oferta y demanda, hay que tener en cuenta la interdependencia de los mercados formales e informales de tierra, como factores que contribuyen a su alto precio. Específicamente, el alto precio de la tierra urbanizada en el mercado formal, parece afectar los relativamente altos precios de los loteos informales, y viceversa.
Los precios de tierra revelan la diferencia que un comprador tiene que pagar para evitar caer en una situación peor (esto significa más lejos del trabajo, menos o peores servicios públicos, menos calidad ambiental, y otros). Entonces, si la “mejor” alternativa es un lote en un asentamiento informal, cabe esperar un precio mayor en los terrenos que si tienen servicios, lo cual también refleja el valor de los títulos legales que ostentan estos terrenos. De otra parte, si el precio mínimo de la tierra urbanizada (la tierra bruta más el costo de urbanización) sigue siendo inaccesible, entonces cualquier tipo de tierra que la familia pueda conseguir le representa una mejor alternativa. Esta alternativa puede variar desde el loteo más alejado, la invasión con la mediación de un urbanizador pirata o de movimientos organizados (ambos envuelven comisiones y otro tipo de pagos), hasta el más predominante mercado de tierra, consistente en subdivisiones irregulares de grandes parcelas en pequeños lotes con servicios precarios.
El precio de la tierra en los mercados informales es, por consiguiente, más alto que el precio de tierra bruta, pero normalmente menor que la suma de la tierra bruta más el costo de habilitarla. Al mismo tiempo, el precio tiende a ser menor (aunque no necesariamente por metro cuadrado) que el precio mínimo de la tierra completamente habilitada y comercializada en los mercados formales. En efecto, el mercado aprecia las formas más “flexibles” para acceder a la tierra, como por ejemplo tamaños de lote más pequeños que el mínimo legal, o la construcción sin respetar los códigos de construcción, o incluso la posibilidad de vender la azotea de una casa como espacio construible.
La mayoría de las familias de más bajos ingresos no escogen un asentamiento informal porque les brinde el mejor precio, sino simplemente porque con frecuencia solo tienen esa alternativa. “La decisión” de adquirir un lote informal es de todas maneras costosa. Estimativos conservadores obtenidos de una encuesta informal en diez grandes ciudades de Latinoamérica, muestran que el precio promedio de la tierra en loteos comercializados ilegalmente es de US$27 por metro cuadrado (Ver Tabla 1).
Tabla 1. Precios y rentabilidad en mercados formales e informales de tierra (US$)
Mercado Formal Mercado Informal
1. Tierra rural asignada para uso urbano $4 $4
2. Costo de urbanización Mínima = $5 Máximo = $25
3. Precio final en el mercado $27 $70
4. Beneficio sobre capital avanzado= (3-1-2)/(1+2) 200% 141%
El renglón de las utilidades (4) explica al menos en parte la cuestión (paradójica en apariencia): ¿Por qué, a pesar de los significativos márgenes de ganancia del mercado informal, uno encuentra tan poco interés en desarrollar tierra por parte del sector privado? Como lo indica la Tabla 1, la producción de tierra informal es más rentable que la producción formal. Incluso el resultado para el mercado formal está bastante subestimado, puesto que hay altos riesgos asociados con costos financieros, de seguridad y mercadeo, y otros costos incurrido por el desarrollador que no afectan al urbanizador informal. Estos datos también ayudan a explicar por qué la formalidad genera informalidad, y desnudan el hecho de que las ventajas de los arreglos informales no son necesariamente percibidas por los ocupantes de bajos ingresos, sino por los urbanizadores informales.
Efectos Inesperados de la Normalización
Miremos ahora la cuestión de las políticas utilizadas en esta materia. Dada la aparente imposibilidad o impracticabilidad de adoptar alguna otra política, la noción prevaleciente ha sido tolerar las “soluciones” informales para posibilitar el acceso a la tierra y después normalizar o “desmarginalizar” los asentamientos, como algo más barato en el largo plazo para los fondos públicos, y mejor para los ocupantes de bajos ingresos (Lincoln Institute 2002).
El argumento de las finanzas públicas consiste en que el arreglo existente es más barato porque se apoya en inversiones privadas, relevando las agencias públicas de responsabilidades y gastos que, en caso contrario, se entenderían como parte del “derecho a la ciudad”. Esta visión es cuestionable por dos razones. Primero, las condiciones físicas de las habitaciones son a menudo inaceptables como asentamiento humano, pese a lo imaginativas que resultan las soluciones informales bajo condiciones extremas. Los bajos estándares de utilización de la tierra y la alta densidad en estos asentamientos son tolerados solamente porque el daño ya ha sido hecho. Segundo, en relación con la infraestructura, algunas de alternativas promisorias han mostrado recientemente un pobre comportamiento y demandan gastos excesivos de mantenimiento.
Los impactos sobre las familias de bajos ingresos son también peores de lo esperado. No sólo los precios de la tierra son bastante altos sino que conllevan costos adicionales: aquellos sin una dirección de residencia (por vivir en un asentamiento irregular) a menudo son discriminados cuando buscan un trabajo o servicios; los alquileres como porcentaje del valor de las propiedades son más altos que los cánones observados en los mercados formales; el acceso al agua en camiones u otra fuente temporal resulta más costoso que por acueducto; y el costo de la inseguridad es mayor por vivir en un ambiente más violento.
Las políticas de normalización, evaluadas en un contexto amplio, pueden estar contribuyendo a agravar el problema que buscan remediar. En otras palabras, el enfoque curativo de estas políticas puede tener, al contrario, efectos perversos y contraproducentes , como se anotó antes.
Señales de Precios
La expectativa de que un área va a ser normalizada le permite al urbanizador subir el precio de los lotes. A menudo el comprador obtiene un terreno con evidencia escrita de que el desarrollador no tiene todavía los servicios requeridos por las normas de urbanísticas. Al mismo tiempo el desarrollador le promete que tan pronto como se vendan suficientes terrenos, los servicios y la infraestructura serán instalados, incluso a pesar de que esas promesas poco se cumplen. En el mejor de los casos una relación de complicidad se establece entre el comprador y el vendedor. En el peor, que es por desgracia el más común, el comprador es engañado en cuanto a la existencia de servicios, como por ejemplo tubos en el terreno que el urbanizador señala como parte de la infraestructura. Otros problemas en estos arreglos que pueden lesionar a los residentes pobres son títulos dudosos, formas de pago que esconden los intereses a pagar y detalles contractuales imprecisos y confusos.
Como en cualquier otro segmento del mercado de tierras, el precio refleja o absorbe las expectativas del uso futuro del terreno. El sector informal no es la excepción. Entre mayor sea la expectativa de que un terreno sin servicios los va a tener luego, tanto viniendo del urbanizador o, como es más frecuente, del gobierno a través de algún programa de normalización, más alto será el precio al cual se transa el terreno.
Normalización como una Atracción para Más Subnormalidad
Las investigaciones sobre las fechas de llegada de los habitantes de los asentamientos informales, sugieren que en muchos casos la mayoría de las personas se mudaron justo cuando se anunció o implementó un programa de normalización (Menna Barreto 2000).
La idea de que las expectativas de normalización tienen un efecto en la informalidad, es también corroborada por el gran número de invasiones y ocupaciones que ocurren en los períodos electorales, cuando los candidatos prometen nuevos programas de normalización. La historia latinoamericana de los efectos de las expectativas creadas por promesas populistas, es rica en ejemplos. Varios de los asentamientos existentes que necesitan ser normalizados hoy, deben su origen a la complacencia irresponsable de políticos que cerraron los ojos o, lo que es peor, que cedieron terrenos públicos por propósitos electorales.
Los Costos de Oportunidad de la Normalización
Los programas de normalización, que son de naturaleza remedial o curativa, tienen un costo de oportunidad alto comparado con el de proporcionar la tierra urbanizada en una manera preventiva. El costo por familia de un programa de normalización ha estado en la gama de US$3,000 a US$4,000. Tomando el tamaño de un lote alrededor 50 m2 y agregando el 20 por ciento para calles y otros servicios públicos, el costo se mueve de US$50 A US$70 por m2. Esto es mucho más alto que producir tierra nueva, que es inferior a US$25 por m2, y es similar al precio cargado por urbanizadores privados, incluso con un buen margen de ganancia. ECIA, un urbanizador de Río de Janeiro, vendió lotes completamente urbanizados desde US$70 a US$143 por m2 en precios 1999 (Oliveira 1999). En el mismo sentido, Aristizabal y Ortíz (2001) en Bogotá, estiman que el costo de corrección (“la reparación”) de un asentamiento irregular es 2.7 veces el costo de áreas planeadas.
Estas cifras sugieren las limitaciones de programas curativos a favor de los preventivos. Es también relevante que el permiso de desarrollar una subdivisión, formal puede tomar de tres a cinco años, mientras que la decisión de regularizar un establecimiento informal a menudo toma menos de seis meses.
” El Día Después ” de La Normalización
Un programa de regularización bien ejecutado (es decir el que integra con eficacia al área informal con la malla urbana) generalmente eleva la calidad de vida para todos los ocupantes y fortalece las comunidades. También trae valorización de la propiedad, causando alguna movilidad residencial de familias con ingresos debajo del promedio, que son presionadas a mudarse. Sin embargo, cuando el programa es mal ejecutado, el área puede consolidarse como un asentamiento irregular de bajos ingresos.
El Programa “Favela – Bairro” de Río de Janeiro es a menudo puesto de ejemplo como la experiencia más amplia y exitosa en su clase. Abramo (2002) estudió el impacto del programa y encontró valorizaciones relativamente pequeñas (28%). Aplicando este promedio a una vivienda típica o modesta con precios previos de US$12,000, el valor ganado es cercano a US$3,400, un número parecido al costo medio por familia en programas de regularización. Este resultado contrasta con en incremento de más del 100% obtenido en el proceso de urbanizar tierra rústica por agentes privados. Esta intrigante información parece mostrar que el “mercado” se entera poco del incremento en valor de los asentamientos mejorados. La inserción completa en los tejidos urbanos resulta ser menos frecuente de lo esperado. Muchas “favelas” que recibieron importantes inversiones de mejoramiento, permanecen estigmatizadas como “favelas” 15 años más tarde.
Conclusiones
La informalidad es costosa y exacerba las penurias de vivir en la pobreza. El diagnóstico de agencias como Hábitat, Banco Mundial, Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo y otros, parecen estar en lo correcto respetando los programas de mejoramiento como parte esencial de cualquier política para enfrentar la pobreza urbana. Sin embargo, debido al enfoque fragmentado y limitado de estos programas, no hay ninguna garantía de que la normalización de asentamientos sola contribuya a reducir la pobreza urbana. En efecto estos programas no sólo mantienen intactas y refuerzan las “reglas del juego” del mercado que contribuyen a la informalidad, sino que además generan efectos perversos. Esta situación plantea un dilema y un desafío. El dilema es que no regularizar simplemente no es una opción política (ni humanitaria). El desafío es cómo interrumpir el ciclo vicioso de pobreza e informalidad a través de intervenciones en el mercado de tierra. La tarea por hacer es formidable, pero hay lugares en América Latina donde los gobiernos locales están comenzando a poner nuevas reglas de juego.
Martim O. Smolka es “Senior Fellow” y director del Programa para América Latina y el Caribe del Lincoln Institute.
Andrés Escobar es Gerente de MetroVivienda, Empresa del Distrito de Bogotá, generadora de nuevo suelo urbano.
The Lincoln Institute has long been involved in international activities that deal with land policy and land taxation issues. In the 1970s those activities focused mainly on training and education. For example, Institute faculty have taught joint courses in land and tax policy issues with the International Center for Land Policy Studies and Training (formerly the Land Reform Training Institute) in Taiwan for nearly 30 years. Sponsorship of international congresses on land policy in the 1980s involved the Lincoln Institute in the dissemination of research and analysis by colleagues from both industrial and developing countries. This work heralded further international expansion in the 1990s involving both the Institute’s training programs and its support for research and analysis, particularly in developing countries.
Over the past ten years, the Institute has expanded its program of training and research in Latin America that deals with planning, property taxation, urban development, and land markets. Its program in China, begun in 2001, involves government officials, academics, and researchers with a focus on urban land markets, land taxation, and city expansion issues. The Institute has been active in many Eastern European countries, where it has been involved mainly in training on tax policy and administration. It also has contacts and modest levels of involvement in other countries, including Cuba and South Africa, which face particularly demanding or unique land and tax policy challenges.
The initial motivation for the Institute’s international work was to share its knowledge and expertise in land policy issues with others, as in transition economies seeking to establish land markets and property tax regimes. The Institute provided training in land market fundamentals and policy issues, and in the technical requirements of databases containing cadastral, ownership, and development information.
As the Institute expanded its activities abroad, academic and policy research on urban development and local public finance documented many commonalities across countries in the development patterns of large cities, in the behavior of households and firms, and in the tradeoffs households and firms face when making decisions about location, transport, space consumption, tenure choice, and local services. Predictions based on urban economic theory proved to be robust across both rich and poor countries.
The consequence of this commonality of problems and behavior is that the flow of knowledge is no longer in one direction. Solutions to problems in one city can help inform policy makers in other cities about new approaches that have worked elsewhere. For example, experience with new ways to use benefit charges to finance infrastructure, design exclusive bus lanes, structure new development, or reform housing in one country is of great interest to others. International experience also reinforces old lessons, such as the advantages of property taxation as a local revenue source or the impact of infrastructure on development.
In sum, the Institute’s international work has enriched its own knowledge and expertise as much as it has benefited those who have participated in our training and research programs.
Excess development entitlements and distressed subdivisions are impairing the quality of life, skewing development patterns and real estate markets, damaging ecosystems, and diminishing fiscal health in communities throughout the U.S. Intermountain West. Since the post-2007 real estate bust, which hit many parts of the region severely, eroding subdivision roads now carve up agricultural lands, and lonely “spec” houses continue to dot many rural and suburban landscapes. Some are vacant, but others are partially occupied and require the delivery of public services to remote neighborhoods that generate very little tax revenue. In jurisdictions where lots could be sold before infrastructure was completed, many people now find themselves owning a parcel in what was supposed to be a high-amenity development but is in fact little more than a paper plat.
These arrested developments—known colloquially as “zombie” subdivisions—are the living dead of the real estate market. Beset by financial or legal challenges, once-promising projects are now afflicting their environs with health and safety hazards, blight, decreased property values, threats to municipal finance, overcommitted natural resources, fragmented development patterns, and other distortions in local real estate markets.
This article presents an overview of the economic context that fostered so many excess entitlements in the West and of the local planning and development controls that influence how those market forces play out in a given community. It also describes how three communities in the Intermountain West have redesigned distressed subdivisions in their jurisdictions and how those efforts are facilitating recovery, creating more sustainable growth scenarios, improving property values, and conserving land and wildlife habitat.
The Economic Background that Fostered Excess Development in the West
In the Intermountain West, where land is abundant, and rapid growth is common, it’s not unusual for local governments to grant development entitlements well in advance of market demand for housing. Boom and bust cycles aren’t rare in the region either. The magnitude of the Great Recession, however, amplified the frequency of excess entitlements and exacerbated their harmfulness to surrounding communities. In the Intermountain West alone, millions of vacant lots are entitled. Across a large number of the region’s counties, the rate of vacant subdivision parcels ranges from around 15 percent to two-thirds of all lots (tables 1 and 2).
As the economy continues to recover, will the market correct this surplus of development rights, incentivizing developers to build out distressed subdivisions or to redesign those that do not reflect current market demand? In some locations, yes; in others, it is unlikely. Subdivisions are designed to be near-permanent divisions of land. Although many areas throughout the Intermountain West are rebounding robustly, many subdivisions remain distressed, with expired development assurances, few if any residents, fragmented ownership, partially completed or deteriorating infrastructure improvements, and weak or nonexistent mechanisms to maintain new services. Uncorrected, these arrested developments will continue to debilitate the fiscal health and quality of life in affected areas.
The Complexity of Revising Development Entitlements
Local jurisdictions shape the future of their communities through the entitlement of land, the approval of subdivisions, and the granting of subsequent development permits. These actions result in land use commitments that prove difficult to change in the future, establish development standards, and often commit the community to significant, long-term service costs.
Figure 1 demonstrates that excess entitlements are easiest to address when they’re purely paper subdivisions—with one owner, no improvements, no lots sold, and no houses built. As the status of a subdivision progresses from a paper plat to a partially built development—and more than a few landowners are involved, or the subdivider has begun to install improvements, or more than a few owners have built homes—the challenges grow more complex, and the options for resolving them more constrained.
The revision or revocation of a paper plat requires the agreement of only a single property owner who hasn’t made any major investments that might constrain the ability to alter design plans, allowing for the simplest resolutions (though the situation becomes more complicated if a lender must also approve any changes). The sale of even one lot to an individual landowner makes entitlement issues in the subdivision harder to resolve for three major legal reasons: (1) the need to protect the property rights of lot owners, (2) the need to preserve access to sold lots, and (3) pressure for equal treatment between current and potential future homeowners. Some of these issues can give rise to lawsuits, creating potential liability for the town or county. The revision or revocation of a plat with sold lots will require the agreement of multiple owners—each of whom may decide to file a lawsuit on one or more of these grounds.
Once the developer makes significant investments for infrastructure and other improvements, complications escalate. Although the purchase of land does not in itself create a “vested right” to complete the development, once an owner invests in improvements to serve anticipated houses, it is difficult to stop construction of those homes without reimbursing the developer for the cost of infrastructure.
Completed homes—particularly if a number of them are already occupied—further compound the complexity of resolving distressed subdivisions. Access roads will need to be retained and maintained, even if the homes are widely scattered in inefficient patterns. If the developer committed to building a golf course, park, or other community facilities, individual lot owners could claim a right to those amenities—whether or not they have been built, and whether or not the associations slated to upkeep them exist or have enough members to perform the maintenance. Even if the developer was clearly responsible for constructing the amenities, the local government could become liable for them if it has prevented the developer from building the amenities by vacating parts of the plat where those amenities were to be built.
Larger subdivisions split into several phases at various stages of completion pose the most intricate and extensive challenges. The first phases of construction may be mostly sold lots with most infrastructure in place, but later phases may be mere paper plats—unbuilt, with no lots sold and no improvements in place. Thus, a single distressed subdivision may pose several types of legal entitlement issues, with varying levels of risk and potential liability, in different corners of the development.
How Three Communities Successfully Redesigned Excess Entitlements
Local governments seeking to remedy the potential negative impacts of excess development entitlements and distressed subdivisions have many different land use and zoning measures at their disposal. We identified 48 tools and 12 best practices as a result of our research, which draws on case studies, lessons shared by experts during several workshops, data analysis, and a survey of planners, developers, and landowners in the Intermountain West. (For the scope of preventive and treatment strategies, consult the full Policy Focus Report, Arrested Developments: Combating Zombie Subdivisions and Other Excess Entitlements). Generally, they fall into four categories: economic incentives, purchase of land or development rights, growth management programs, and development regulations:
1. Economic incentives—such as targeted infrastructure investments, fee waivers, and regulatory streamlining—avoid controversial regulations.
2. Purchase of land or development rights is the most direct way to eliminate unwanted development entitlements, but it may be too costly for some communities.
3. Growth management approaches include relying on urban service area boundaries or adequate public facility requirements to limit new development entitlements.
4. Development regulations include rezoning, changes in subdivision ordinances and development assurances, initiation of plat vacating processes, and revised development agreement templates.
The following three case study communities primarily utilized development regulations. Mesa County in Colorado and Teton County in Idaho revised their development agreements to redesign local distressed subdivisions. All three jurisdictions, including the City of Maricopa in Arizona, facilitated voluntary replatting efforts as well.
How Mesa County, Colorado, Revised Its Development Approval Process and Abandoned Paper Plats
During the oil shale boom and bust of the 1980s, Mesa County, Colorado, was one of the regions hit hardest. When ExxonMobil ceased operations in the area, the population of Grand Junction, the county seat, plummeted by 15,000 people overnight. All development halted. In the bust’s wake, more than 400 subdivisions, encompassing about 4,000 lots throughout the county, were abandoned. Nearly 20 percent of Mesa County’s subdivisions were left with unfulfilled development improvement agreements.
When the county’s bond rating dropped in 1988, it put several measures in place to clean up the excess entitlements. It negotiated with local banks and the development community to establish a development improvements agreement form and procedure. It also established a new financial guarantee called the “Subdivision Disbursement Agreement” between construction lenders and the county. The agreement puts the county in a direct partnership with financial institutions to ensure, 1) an agreed-upon construction budget, 2) an established timeline for construction of the improvements, 3) an agreed-upon process, involving field inspections during construction, for releasing loan funds to developers, and 4) the county’s commitment to accept a developer’s improvements, after certain conditions have been met, and to release the developer from the financial security.
It took Mesa County 15 years to fully address the excess entitlements stemming from the 1980s bust, but the work paid off: During the Great Recession, the county had the lowest ratio of vacant subdivision parcels to total subdivision lots among approximately 50 counties examined in the Intermountain West. Not a single developer backed out of a development agreement when only partial improvements were made. While some subdivisions remain vacant, all improvements have been completed to the point that the parcels will be ready for construction once they are sold.
River Canyon (figure 2), for example, was planned as a 38-lot subdivision on 192 acres. When the real estate bubble burst in 2008, the entire site had been lightly graded with roads cut, but no other improvements were complete, and no parcels had been sold. Realizing the lots would not be viable in the near-term, the developer worked with the county to replat the subdivision into one parent lot until the owner is ready to apply for subdivision review again.
The resolution is a win-win: The county escapes a contract with a developer in default and avoids the sale of lots to multiple owners with whom it would be difficult to coordinate construction of subdivision improvements. The developer avoids the cost of installing services and paying taxes on vacant property zoned for residential development.
Now, lenders in Mesa County often encourage the consolidation of platted lots, because many banks will not lend money or extend the time on construction loans without a certain percentage of presales validating the asset as a solid investment. The landowner generally complies as well, to avoid paying taxes on vacant residential property, which carries the second highest tax rate in Colorado. If market demand picks up, property owners may submit the same subdivision plans to the county for review, to ensure compliance with current regulations. If the plans still comply, the developer can proceed from that point in the subdivision process. Mesa County consolidated parcels this way a total of seven times from 2008 to 2012, to eliminate lots where no residential construction is anticipated in the near future.
How Maricopa, Arizona, Partnered to Convert Distressed Parcels to Nonresidential Uses
Maricopa—incorporated in 2003, in the early years of Arizona’s real estate boom—is typical of many new exurban communities within growing metropolitan regions. Faced with an influx of new residents “driving until they qualified,” the community quickly committed the majority of available land to residential subdivision entitlements. At the height of the boom, the small city—37 miles from downtown Phoenix and 20 miles from the urbanizing edge of the Phoenix metro area—was issuing roughly 600 residential building permits per month.
Pinal County had approved many of Maricopa’s residential subdivisions before the city was incorporated, in accordance with the county’s 1967 zoning code. In fact, following standard practice for newly incorporated communities, the city initially adopted the Pinal County Zoning Ordinance. For a time, the county planning and zoning commission also continued to serve as the city’s planning oversight body. But this older rural county code did not consider or create incentives for mixed-use development, areas with a downtown character, a balance between jobs and housing, institutional uses, or social services. The lack of diversity resulted in a shortage of retail and service use areas and a scarcity of designated areas for nonprofits such as churches, private schools, daycare, counseling, and health services. As new residents looked for public services and local jobs, this dearth of land for employment and public facilities became increasingly problematic.
When the Great Recession hit and the housing bust occurred, supply overran demand for residential lots, and many became distressed. Maricopa faced this challenge and seized the opportunity to reexamine its growth patterns and address the multiple distressed subdivisions plaguing the community.
The city chose to partner with the private sector—including developers, banks, bonding agencies, and other government agencies—to address distressed subdivisions and the lack of institutional and public land uses. The first test of this new approach began when a Catholic congregation was looking for a church site in an urban location with existing sewage, water, and other necessary infrastructure. The City of Maricopa served as a facilitator to connect the church with the developers of Glennwilde, a partially built, distressed development. The church chose a site in a late phase of the subdivision—at that point still a paper plat. The city vacated the plat for that site and returned it to one large parcel, which the Glennwilde developer then sold to the church.
Construction has not yet begun, but the project has served as a model for other arrested developments. The collaborative effort among the city, owners of currently distressed subdivisions, and other interested parties has also inspired approved proposals for a Church of Latter Day Saints stake center, a civic center, a regional park, and a multigenerational facility throughout the city.
How Teton County, Idaho, Demanded Plat Redesign, Vacation, or Replatting
Rural, unincorporated Teton County, Idaho—with an estimated year-round population of 10,170—has a total of 9,031 platted lots, and 6,778 are vacant. Even if the county’s annual growth rate returned to 6 percent, where it hovered between 2000 and 2008, this inventory of lots reflects a stockpile adequate to accommodate growth for approximately the next 70 years. This extreme surplus of entitlements —with three vacant entitled lots for every developed lot in the county—stems from three poor decisions the board of commissioners made from 2003 to 2005.
First, the county adopted a quick and easy process for landowners to request the right to up-zone their properties from 20-acre lots to 2.5-acre lots. None of these zone changes were granted in tandem with a concurrent development proposal; virtually all were granted for future speculative development. It was not uncommon for the county to up-zone hundreds of acres in a single night of public hearings; the agenda for one meeting could include up to ten subdivision applications.
Second, the county’s Guide for Development 2004–2010 called for aggressive growth, with a focus on residential construction to drive economic development. The goals and objectives, however, were vague, and the plan failed to specify the type and location of projects. Discredited by the community, the document was ultimately ignored during the approvals process and fostered explosive, random development, resulting in six years of land use decisions made without any coherent strategy.
Third, the Board of County Commissioners adopted a Planned United Development (PUD) ordinance with density bonuses in 2005. Under the PUD cluster development provisions, developers could exceed the underlying zoning entitlements by as much as 1,900 percent. Typical PUD density bonuses for good design range between 10 and 20 percent. Now areas with a central water system that were zoned for 20-acre zoning—with 5 units per 100 acres—could be entitled with up to 100 units. In addition, Teton County’s PUD and subdivision regulations allowed the sale of lots before infrastructure installment, which provided a huge incentive for speculative development.
After the 2008 market crash, some owners of incomplete developments began looking for ways to restructure their distressed subdivisions. In 2010, Targhee Hill Estates approached the county with a proposal to replat their partially built resort (figure 3). At the time, however, there was no local ordinance, state statute, or legal process that would permit the replatting of an expired development.
The Teton County Valley Advocates for Responsible Development (VARD) stepped in and petitioned the county to create a process to encourage the redesign of distressed subdivisions and facilitate replatting. VARD realized that a plat redesign could reduce intrusion into sensitive natural areas of the county, reduce governmental costs associated with scattered development, and potentially reduce the number of vacant lots by working with landowners and developers to expedite changes to recorded plats.
On November 22, 2010, the Board of County Commissioners unanimously adopted a replatting ordinance that would allow the inexpensive and quick replatting of subdivisions, PUDs, and recorded development agreements. The ordinance created a solution-oriented process that allows Teton County to work with developers, landowners, lenders, and other stakeholders to untangle complicated projects with multiple ownership interests and oftentimes millions of dollars in infrastructure.
The ordinance first classifies the extent of any changes proposed by a replat into four categories: 1) major increase in scale and impact, 2) minor increase in scale and impact, 3) major decrease in scale and impact, 4) minor decrease in scale and impact. Any increases in impact may require additional public hearings and studies, whereas these requirements and agency review are waived (where possible) for decreases in impact. In addition, the ordinance waives the unnecessary duplication of studies and analyses that may have been required as part of the initial plat application and approval. Teton County also waived its fees for processing replat applications.
The first success story was the replatting of Canyon Creek Ranch Planned Unit Development, finalized in June 2013. More than 23 miles from city services, Canyon Creek Ranch was originally approved in 2009 as a 350-lot ranch-style resort on roughly 2,700 acres including approximately 25 commercial lots, a horse arena, and a lodge. After extensive negotiations between the Canyon Creek development team and the Teton County Planning Commission staff, the developer proposed a replat that dramatically scaled back the footprint and impact of this project to include only 21 lots over the 2,700 acre property. For the developer, this new design reduces the price tag for infrastructure by 97 percent, from $24 million to roughly $800,000, enabling the property to remain in the conservation reserve program and creating a source of revenue on it while reducing the property tax liability. The reduced scale and impact of this new design will help preserve this critical habitat and maintain the rural landscape, which is a public benefit to the general community.
Conclusion
While recovery from the most recent boom and bust cycle is nearly complete in some areas of the country, other communities will be impacted by vacant lots and distressed subdivisions well into the future. Future real estate booms will also inevitably result in new busts, and vulnerable communities can build a solid foundation of policies, laws, and programs now to minimize new problems stemming from the excess entitlement of land. Communities and others involved in real estate development would be well-served by ensuring they have mechanisms in place to adapt and adjust to evolving market conditions. For jurisdictions already struggling with distressed subdivisions, a willingness to reconsider past approvals and projects and to acknowledge problems is an essential ingredient to success. Communities that are able to serve as effective facilitators as well as regulators, as demonstrated in the case studies presented here, will be best prepared to prevent and then respond and treat distressed subdivisions and any problems that may arise from excess development entitlements.
For More Tools and Recommendations
This article was adapted from a new Policy Focus Report from the Lincoln Institute, Arrested Developments: Combating Zombie Subdivisions and Other Excess Entitlements, by Jim Holway with Don Elliott and Anna Trentadue. For more detailed information—including best practices, policy recommendations, and a how-to guide for communities dealing with excess entitlements—download the full Policy Focus Report or order a print copy. Additional information is available on the companion website (www.ReshapingDevelopment.org).
About the Authors
Jim Holway, Ph.D., FAICP, directs Western Lands and Communities at the Sonoran Institute in Phoenix, Arizona. He also is a local elected official, representing Maricopa County on the Central Arizona Water Conservation District.
Don Elliott, FAICP, is a land use lawyer, city planner, and the director of Clarion Associates in Denver, Colorado.
Anna Trentadue is the staff attorney for Valley Advocates for Responsible Development in Driggs, Idaho.
Resources
Burger, Bruce and Randy Carpenter. 2010. Rural Real Estate Markets and Conservation Development in the Intermountain West. Working paper. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Elliott, Don. 2010. Premature Subdivisions and What to Do About Them. Working paper. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Preston, Gabe. 2010. The Fiscal Impacts of Development on Vacant Rural Subdivision Lots in Teton County, Idaho. Fiscal impact study. Teton County, ID: Sonoran Institute.
Sonoran Institute. Reshaping Development Patterns. PFR companion website www.ReshapingDevelopment.org
Sonoran Institute. Successful Communities On-Line Toolkit information exchange. www.SCOTie.org
Trentadue, Anna. 2012. Addressing Excess Development Entitlements: Lessons Learned In Teton County, ID. Working paper. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Trentadue, Anna and Chris Lundberg. 2011. Subdivision in the Intermountain West: A Review and Analysis of State Enabling Authority, Case Law, and Potential Tools for Dealing with Zombie Subdivisions and Obsolete Development Entitlements in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming. Working paper. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Valley Advocates for Responsible Development. www.tetonvalleyadvocates.org
When people think of growing food in the United States, the images that come to mind are vast stretches of vegetable and fruit tree farms in California’s Central Valley, golden fields of wheat in the Plains states, and cows grazing on verdant rural landscapes in the Midwest and New England. Rarely is the image one of farming inside American cities. Yet, in an increasing number of cities today—especially those substantially affected by structural economic change and population loss over the past several decades—community-based organizations are growing food for the market on vacant lots, in greenhouses, and even in abandoned warehouses. Some of these groups market their products at local farmers markets, roadside stands, restaurants and supermarkets. Others convert their harvests into value-added products like salad dressings, jams and salsas for sale in regional markets.
A Conceptual Three-Legged Stool
Our recently completed study, supported by the Lincoln Institute, explored the characteristics of entrepreneurial urban agriculture in the U.S., key obstacles to its practice, and ways of overcoming these obstacles. The study framework can be visualized as a wobbly three-legged stool that needs to be made sturdier. One leg of the stool represents inner-city vacant land and the government agencies and their policies that affect its disposition and management. The scale of the vacant land problem in many American cities, particularly in the Midwest and Northeast, is significant. Philadelphia, for example, has an estimated 31,000 vacant lots and as many as 54,000 vacant structures that, if demolished, would add considerably to its vacant land supply. Detroit’s inventory of 46,000 city-owned vacant parcels is accompanied by an estimated 24,000 empty buildings. Even smaller cities are faced with a stockpile of vacant land. In Trenton, New Jersey, a city of 85,000 people, eighteen percent of the land is vacant. Despite the spread of gentrifying neighborhoods and new in-town developments in many cities, considerable amounts of vacant land, especially in disadvantaged neighborhoods, will likely continue to lie fallow because of limited market demand.
The second leg represents for-market urban agriculture, a movement of individuals and organizations who wish to produce food in cities for direct market sale. The initiators of these projects are a diverse group-community gardeners, community development corporations, social service providers, faith-based organizations, neighborhood organizations, high schools, animal husbandry organizations, coalitions for the homeless, farmers with a special interest in urban food production, and profit-making entrepreneurs. Proponents of for-market urban agriculture put forth a wide range of benefits, such as instilling pride and greater self-sufficiency among inner-city residents; using vacant lots in disadvantaged neighborhoods to nurture growth rather than to collect trash; supplying lower-income residents with healthier and more nutritious foods; providing local youth with jobs in producing, processing and marketing organically grown food; and reducing the amount of unproductive city-owned vacant land.
The third leg of the conceptual stool represents the institutional environment for urban agriculture within cities. Is it accommodating, neutral, skeptical or restrictive? The more that entrepreneurial urban agriculture is seen positively by local government officials, local foundations and the public, the greater the likelihood of a smoother future. But, when the institutional climate is indifferent or cool, then urban farming advocates will clearly encounter more difficulties. We found the overall climate for entrepreneurial urban agriculture to be mixed, with some supporters, many who seemed indifferent, some skeptics, and even a few who were decidedly hostile to the idea.
A Medley of Projects
Our study uncovered more than 70 for-market urban agriculture projects throughout the country. Four representative examples are summarized here.
Greensgrow Farms, Philadelphia
This small for-profit producer of hydroponically grown vegetables epitomizes the potential that agriculture offers as an urban land use. Greensgrow began in 1997, when two former chefs envisioned a practical way to meet the demand from Philadelphia restaurateurs for fresh, organically grown produce. Greensgrow occupies a three-quarter-acre site in North Philadelphia that has been cleaned of the contamination left from its former use as a galvanized steel plant. After a site lease was arranged through the New Kensington Community Development Corporation, the partners built an extensive hydroponic system to produce gourmet lettuces.
Greensgrow has since taken advantage of an EPA sustainable development grant and a donated greenhouse to grow and market lettuce, heritage tomatoes, herbs and cut flowers to 25 area restaurants after the outdoor growing season ends. The for-profit side of Greensgrow expects to break even in 2000 with revenues of $50,000. Its community-based side has hired three welfare-to-work participants and intends to develop a job training and entrepreneurial program in collaboration with the nearby Norris Square CDC.
Growing Power, Milwaukee
In some cities, farm sites may be part of a larger enterprise. For example, inner-city youth in Milwaukee are providing horticulture and landscaping services on a number of central city sites under the auspices of Growing Power, Inc., which is co-directed by an African-American farmer and a woman active in youth gardening and training. The organization aims to help inner-city youngsters attain life skills by cultivating and marketing organic produce, and to operate a community food center that can serve the broader community through education and innovative programming.
Growing Power’s nerve center, on a 1.7-acre site on Milwaukee’s north side, is a collection of five renovated greenhouses that were in dilapidated condition when purchased from the city in 1992. The center also features a farmstand, a vegetable garden and fruit trees, and an area where food waste from a local supermarket is being converted into compost. The greenhouses contain thousands of starter vegetable and flower plants, ten three-tank aquaculture systems (where tilapia, a freshwater fish, grow in inexpensive 55-gallon plastic barrels) and a vermiculture project consisting of wooden bins in which worm castings are collected by youngsters and sold back to Growing Power for use in its city gardens. Marketing some of its products to the public is also part of Growing Power’s mission.
The Food Project/DSNI Collaboration, Boston
The Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative, a well-known example of community organization and empowerment, considers urban agriculture essential to the transformation of its section of Roxbury into an urban village. Since 1993, this effort has been aided by DSNI’s collaboration with The Food Project, based in the Boston suburb of Lincoln. Like Growing Power, The Food Project aims to link youth development with the enhancement of urban food security. Its core activity is a summer program involving up to 60 high school students, some from the suburbs and some from Roxbury, in cultivating organic produce on a 21-acre farm in Lincoln and on two parcels within DSNI’s target area.
Collards, tomatoes and herbs now grow within sight of the new housing units developed by DSNI’s associated organizations. Much of the harvest is sold at a weekly farmers’ market in the nearby Dudley Town Common. The young farmers have become proficient at presenting their activities to Bostonians visiting the market and at youth gatherings nationwide. For the future, DSNI and The Food Project have identified other sites in Roxbury on which to expand urban food production. In addition, DSNI will convert a former garage in the neighborhood into a 10,000 square foot community greenhouse.
Village Farms, Buffalo
A corporate presence in urban agriculture is rare, but a notable exception is Village Farms in Buffalo. The goal of Village Farms’ parent corporation, AgroPower Development (APD), is simply to maximize profits, although it does provide jobs for central city residents. In its 18-acre greenhouse, the company uses a Dutch growing method whereby tomato plants are grown in porous, rock-wool blocks to produce up to eight million pounds of tomatoes a year, which are marketed primarily to area supermarkets.
A number of incentives lured Village Farms to a vacant 35-acre industrial site close to the downtown that sits in both a federal Enterprise Zone and a city economic development district. Although APD does not release sales figures, it is satisfied with the operation and hopes to replicate it in other cities. For its part, the city of Buffalo points to Village Farms as a success story-an innovative, nonpolluting business that is using vacated industrial land.
Overcoming Obstacles
The obstacles to urban agriculture can be formidable, but persistence, organizational capacity, political savvy, outside support, and some good fortune have demonstrated that they are not insurmountable.
Site-related Obstacles
Several critical problems in producing food inside cities are tied to attributes of the sites themselves. First, vacant urban parcels give visible and sometimes less-visible evidence of past use. While they may be cleared of debris and rubble, almost all sites have some subsurface contaminants that may affect the safety of any produce harvested. This obstacle can be overcome through several approaches that together have come to characterize urban agriculture practice. Planting crops in raised beds of clean, imported soil is the most straightforward approach, and is less costly than the more involved practice of amending existing urban “soil” with truckloads of compost and humus. Soil-free hydroponic practices avoid the contamination issue, as in the elaborate Greensgrow system that sits four feet above cracked concrete, and give urban agriculture the cutting-edge feel displayed at Village Farms.
A second, more challenging site-related obstacle is lack of tenure, since the majority of urban agriculture activities are on sites owned by private landowners or public agencies who view urban food production as a temporary use. This is a common concern for community gardeners, and has carried over into entrepreneurial city farming endeavors. One solution is represented by the growing number of open space land trusts that acquire title to properties on which urban farming is already being practiced.
The logic of the urban land market results in a third site-related obstacle-the view that the value of a vacant parcel is primarily economic and that urban agriculture produces low revenues compared to other forms of land development. One way to overcome this perception is to emphasize that most urban agriculture activities are initiated by non-profit organizations for the community good. Thus, city farming should be seen by the public as a combination of earned revenue (in the case of market operations) and less quantifiable social benefits that are equally if not more important to the larger community interest.
Perceptual Obstacles
The greatest overall obstacle to urban agriculture is skepticism among those who, in different ways, can support and influence its initiation and practice-local government, private landowners, financial supporters and community residents. Their skepticism is based on either a simple lack of awareness or the conventional means of valuing urban land based on market factors. Another group of concerns reflects doubts about the wisdom of growing food in cities because of site contamination, security and vandalism, or the “highest and best land use” argument. A related perception is simply that agriculture is a rural activity that does not belong in the city.
A key to effectively overcoming these perceptions is to understand that the future of city farming depends on the level of acceptance and support it can garner from institutions such as local and state governments, the federal government, local philanthropic foundations, CDCs, the media and neighborhood organizations. Time after time, the city farming advocates we interviewed stressed the importance of “packaging” their activities to decision makers and the public so that the multiple benefits could be seen and valued clearly.
Conclusion
Both vision and reality informed this study. The vision foresees a scenario where vacant land in parts of American cities would be transformed into bountiful food-producing areas managed by energetic community organizations that market some or all of the food they grow for the benefit of community residents. Proponents of such a vision would clearly like to see urban farming’s small footprint enlarged in cities with increased supplies of vacant land. The reality, however, is more sobering. Many for-market urban agriculture projects are underfunded, understaffed, and confronted with difficult management and marketing issues. Nor is urban agriculture on the radar screens of many city government officials as a viable use of vacant inner-city land.
Yet, signs of a more hopeful reality are apparent. A diverse array of innovative for-market city farming ventures are making their presence known, and pockets of support for city farming are found among local and higher-level government officials, community organizations, city residents and local foundations in several cities. Some entrepreneurial urban agriculture projects are beginning to show small profits, while many more are providing an array of social, aesthetic, health and community-building benefits. The legs of the nascent movement of for-market city farming are gradually becoming sturdier.
Reference
Kaufman, Jerry and Martin Bailkey. 2000. “Farming Inside Cities: Entrepreneurial Urban Agriculture in the United States.” Lincoln Institute Working Paper.
Jerry Kaufman, AICP, is a professor in the Department of Urban and Regional Planning at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He teaches and does research on older American cities and community food system planning. Martin Bailkey, a senior lecturer in the Department of Landscape Architecture at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, is conducting research on how community organizations gain access to vacant land in U.S. cities.
Una versión más actualizada de este artículo está disponible como parte del capítulo 5 del libro Perspectivas urbanas: Temas críticos en políticas de suelo de América Latina.
La tierra vacante(1) y su integración al mercado de tierras urbanas son temas raramente investigados en América Latina. Los estudios publicados al respecto tienden a limitarse a los aspectos descriptivos: es decir, principalmente a la cantidad y al tamaño de los vacíos urbanos. El contexto actual de profundas transformaciones económicas y sociales, y de cambios en los patrones de demanda de tierras en las ciudades, está propiciando un giro en la percepción de estos predios en desuso: de ser un problema, se están convirtiendo en una oportunidad.
Como parte de un proyecto de investigación patrocinado por el Instituto Lincoln, en agosto de 1998 se realizó un estudio comparativo de tierra vacante en seis ciudades latinoamericanas: Buenos Aires (Argentina), Lima (Perú), Quito (Ecuador), Rio de Janeiro (Brasil), San Salvador (El Salvador) y Santiago (Chile). Los investigadores participantes examinaron diferentes categorías de tierra vacante, los problemas que ésta genera y sus usos potenciales, así como también los cambiantes papeles de agentes tanto privados como públicos -incluyendo los gobiernos- en el manejo de los mismos. Las conclusiones del estudio destacan que estos espacios libres son elementos integrales de los complejos mercados de tierras de esas ciudades, y que afectan las políticas fiscales en materia de desarrollo urbano; por tal motivo, tienen un gran potencial para el desarrollo a gran escala. El manejo de la tierra vacante podría conducir no sólo a mejorar las condiciones de las áreas urbanas, sino también a reducir la polarización social y fomentar una mayor igualdad para sus habitantes.
Si bien las seis ciudades del estudio varían en tamaño, todas comparten ciertas características comunes, tales como un acelerado crecimiento demográfico y territorial, además de indicadores sociales similares (altas tasas de pobreza, desempleo y subempleo), déficits significativos de vivienda y de servicios públicos, y altos niveles de segregación y estratificación social geográfica. Los mercados de tierras de cada una de las ciudades tienen también características similares, aunque exhiben sus propias dinámicas en cada submercado.
Características de la tierra vacante
Esta investigación estudió cuatro características principales de la tierra vacante: tenencia, cantidad, situación y duración de la condición vacante. Como regla general, la tierra vacante latinoamericana está a cargo de uno o más de los agentes citados a continuación (cada uno con sus políticas respectivas): gestores o subdivisores inmobiliarios -legales o ilegales-; pequeños propietarios que han adquirido las tierras, pero que están incapacitadas para desarrollarlas; especuladores de bienes raíces; agricultores; empresas estatales; y otras instituciones como la Iglesia, el estado militar, el seguro social, etc.
El determinar cuánta tierra vacante hay en cada ciudad es una tarea compleja, debido a las diferentes definiciones que se le da al término en cada país (ver fig. 1), junto con los numerosos obstáculos para obtener informaciones precisas. Todo esto dificulta la comparación de datos y porcentajes en áreas metropolitanas. Aun más, en algunas de estas ciudades (San Salvador, Santiago y Buenos Aires) existe un número significativo de tierra vacante “latente”, consistente en edificaciones total o prácticamente deshabitadas que a menudo estaban ocupadas por ex-empresas estatales, y que actualmente están a la espera de nuevas inversiones que permitan su demolición o desarrollo.
En las seis ciudades estudiadas, el porcentaje de tierra vacante oscila desde un poco menos del 5 por ciento (San Salvador) hasta casi un 44 por ciento (Rio de Janeiro). Si en San Salvador se incluyera toda la tierra vacante “latente”, la suma ascendería a un 40 por ciento de toda el área metropolitana. Como un todo, la tierra vacante de las ciudades representa un porcentaje significativo de las áreas edificables -es decir, con acceso a servicios públicos- que podría albergar a una cantidad considerable de población que actualmente no dispone de acceso a la tierras urbana.
La situación de la tierra vacante es relativamente uniforme dentro de una región. Así, mientras que en los Estados Unidos tienden a estar localizados en el centro de las ciudades (principalmente espacios y sitios industriales abandonados), en América Latina la mayoría se encuentra en la periferia, donde frecuentemente son objeto de una fiera especulación y de estrategias de retención dependiendo de su accesibilidad a las redes de servicios públicos. En cambio, hay diferencias considerables en la duración del desuso de los terrenos: en Lima y en Quito, los vacíos urbanos son relativamente “nuevos”, mientras que en Buenos Aires hay algunos que han estado desocupados durante varias décadas.
Políticas y potencial de desarrollo
Un examen de las condiciones ambientales urbanas de la tierra vacante demuestra que muchos de estos sitios podrían soportar actividades residenciales o productivas, por lo que constituyen un recurso desaprovechado en el que debería construirse una infraestructura urbana a fin de mejorar la eficiencia del uso de las tierras. No obstante, otra cantidad considerable de lotes presenta una serie de importantes factores de riesgo, por ejemplo: inadecuada infraestructura básica; agua contaminada por desechos industriales; riesgo sísmico, de inundaciones o erosión; y vías de acceso deficientes. Tales terrenos no son aptos para ser urbanizados a menos que se realicen inversiones considerables que los resguarden contra tales problemas. Algunos podrían tener un gran potencial para la protección ambiental, aunque la conservación de la tierra sigue siendo un asunto de baja prioridad en América Latina.
En el estudio se afirma que, como norma general, los sectores urbanos de bajos recursos tienen poco acceso a la tierra, debido a los altos precios de la misma (a pesar de que sus valores varían según el submercado). Las áreas de expansión urbana dinámica, que ofrecen mejores vías de acceso y redes de servicios, son sumamente costosas. En varias de las ciudades estudiadas hay una gran cantidad de tierra vacante que no está a la venta y que posiblemente permanecerá desocupada por un tiempo indefinido. Los investigadores del proyecto proponen someter dichas tierras a políticas de abaratamiento de los precios, de manera de aumentar su accesibilidad a la población de bajos recursos.
En la mayoría de las ciudades latinoamericanas no existen políticas explícitas ni marcos jurídicos referentes a la tierra vacante. Donde sí existen leyes (como es el caso de Rio de Janeiro), éstas se limitan a ser meramente declaraciones de principio, y resultan ineficaces. La reciente promulgación de nueva legislación en la ciudad de Santiago ha promovido el aumento de densidad en áreas urbanas, pero todavía es muy temprano para conocer las implicancias de tales medidas(2) . De igual manera, comúnmente las legislaciones urbanas contemplan escasas referencias al medio ambiente. La tierra vacante podría desempeñar un papel importante en la sustentabilidad urbana, pero ello requiere desarrollar una mejor articulación entre las acciones ambientales y las de planificación, especialmente al nivel local.
Otra característica común de las áreas estudiadas (a excepción de Santiago), es la falta de articulación entre las política de desarrollo urbano y, más específicamente, de mercados de tierras con la política tributaria. Incluso en aquellas ciudades en las que teóricamente se ha hecho una distinción impositiva entre la tierra vacante y la ocupada -tales como Buenos Aires y Quito-, no se han producido resultados verdaderos, y los agentes encargados de tales terrenos han podido librarse de sanciones o alzas de impuestos a través de una serie de “excepciones” y exenciones fiscales.
Propuestas y criterios de planificación
Al mismo tiempo que aboga por una mayor influencia gubernamental en los mercados de tierras, en combinación con el establecimiento de programas de creación de instituciones y de capacidad entre otros mecanismos, el estudio presenta varias propuestas para el uso y la reutilización de tierra vacante en América Latina. Una de las propuestas fundamentales es la de incorporar la tierra vacante en el marco de las políticas generales de cada ciudad, desde un enfoque que considere su diversidad de condiciones. Como parte de un programa de objetivos de planificación urbana, se recomienda implementar políticas de expansión de espacios verdes, de construcción de conjuntos de vivienda para población de bajos ingresos, y de construcción de la infraestructura necesaria. Aún más, la tierra vacante debería utilizarse para promover una “racionalidad urbana” de manera de estimular la ocupación de lotes disponibles en las regiones donde ya exista una infraestructura apropiada, y de suprimir el crecimiento urbano en aquellas carentes de dicha infraestructura.
El estudio también recomienda establecer políticas urbanas en tierra vacante mediante políticas fiscales. A este respecto, algunas de las ideas discutidas sugieren ampliar la base y los instrumentos impositivos; incorporar mecanismos de aumento de la recuperación de las inversiones públicas urbanas (“captura de plusvalías”); aplicar una política progresiva de impuestos sobre bienes raíces a fin de desalentar la retención de tierras por parte de propietarios pudientes; y fomentar una mayor flexibilidad en el sistema impositivo municipal.
Estas políticas deben vincularse a otros mecanismos diseñados para frenar la expansión de la tierra vacante y la dinámica de segregación y estratificación social geográfica. Tales mecanismos podrían incluir la concesión de subsidios o créditos a bajo interés para la adquisición de materiales de construcción; la asistencia técnica para la construcción de viviendas; el establecimiento de redes de infraestructura para reducir los costos; y los créditos o períodos de para el pago de impuestos, y tarifas de servicio a la propiedad.
Otras propuestas sugieren desarrollar programas piloto de transferencia de tierras mediante sociedades público-privadas para construir en terrenos que sean propiedad del gobierno, a fin de estimular la creación de viviendas a precios accesibles. También recomiendan reutilizar algunas tierras para producción agrícola y prestar mayor atención a los factores ambientales, con la meta de asegurar la futura sustentabilidad urbana.
Nora Clichevsky, investigadora del CONICET (Buenos Aires, Argentina), es la coordinadora del proyecto de estudio de tierra vacante en seis ciudades latinoamericanas, cuyos integrantes se reunieron en agosto de 1998 para discutir sus hallazgos. Contribuyó a este artículo Laura Mullahy, asistente de investigación del Programa Latinoamericano del Instituto Lincoln.
Otros miembros del grupo de investigación fueron Julio Calderón (Lima, Perú); Diego Carrión y Andrea Carrión, miembros de CIUDAD (Quito, Ecuador); Fernanda Furtado y Fabrizio Leal de Oliveira, de la Universidad de Rio de Janeiro (Brasil); Mario Lungo y Francisco Oporto, de la Universidad Centroamericana (El Salvador); y Patricio Larraín del Ministerio de Vivienda y Urbanismo de Chile.
Notas
1. La traducción para el término vacant land varía según país. Otras traducciones posibles incluyen: terrenos baldíos, predios baldíos, tierras desocupadas, tierras disponibles, terrenos libres, terrenos vacíos, terrenos desocupados, sitios eriazos. En este artículo se usa tierra vacante, la traducción más frecuentemente ocupada en los programas del Instituto Lincoln.
2. El Plan de Regulación para el área metropolitana de Santiago tiene la meta de aumentar la densidad promedio de la ciudad en un 50 por ciento, mientras que ciertas reformas a la Ley de Rentas hechas en 1995 imponen un impuesto predial a las tierras no edificadas con objeto de desalentar la especulación de la tierra.
Una versión más actualizada de este artículo está disponible como parte del capítulo 5 del libro Perspectivas urbanas: Temas críticos en políticas de suelo de América Latina.
México está comenzando a crear un entorno propicio para utilizar las plusvalías para fines del desarrollo. Las recientes reformas constitucionales y jurídicas han permitido un proceso más claro para la adjudicación y comercialización de la tierra. Los mercados de bienes raíces están suplantando gradualmente los rígidos arreglos para la tenencia de la tierra que hicieron surgir los mercados informales caracterizados por acuerdos confusos, a menudo arbitrarios, y por los altos costos de las transacciones. El sector privado se está enfocando hacia las áreas de viviendas de bajos ingresos y los arreglos entre el sector público y privado que buscan un desarrollo urbano equilibrado y sostenible.
El Estado de México ha lanzado un programa integral, llamado PRORIENTE, para promover la interacción entre el gobierno, las empresas y la comunidad con el fin de administrar y financiar conjuntamente el desarrollo urbano en la región oriental del estado. PRORIENTE tiene como visión la creación de “nuevas ciudades” alrededor de la megalópolis de Ciudad de México, que se caractericen por un crecimiento equilibrado entre la densificación demográfica, las actividades generadoras de ingresos y la protección del medio ambiente. La creación de empleos en los mismos asentamientos nuevos y en sus alrededores es un objetivo social y económico primordial del programa.
Dado el patrón intrincado de intereses involucrados, PRORIENTE ha adoptado un enfoque intersectorial e interjurisdiccional. De hecho, PRORIENTE requiere que el Estado de México tome la iniciativa para coordinar las políticas e instrumentos fiscales y de tierras entre el gobierno federal, el gobierno de oposición del Distrito Federal recién elegido y los numerosos municipios que en su mayoría están en control de los partidos de oposición.
PRORIENTE enfrenta enormes desafíos:
En vista de estos obstáculos y desafíos, los dirigentes de PRORIENTE han adoptado un enfoque participativo y negociador cuyos resultados empiezan a ser visibles. Las empresas han integrado conglomerados a gran escala capaces de cubrir las enormes necesidades de capital y tecnología de gestión que tiene la región. El gobierno federal, el Distrito Federal, los municipios y las comunidades son bienvenidos en la mesa de negociación para participar en un proceso continuo que nutre un programa en expansión y no una política o meta institucional específica.
El Instituto Lincoln reconoce que este proyecto constituye una excelente oportunidad para estudiar la compleja función de la tierra como factor estratégico para el desarrollo urbano en toda América Latina. En abril pasado, el Instituto coordinó un seminario sobre mercados urbanos en la ciudad de Toluca y sigue ejerciendo su función como caja de resonancia para los legisladores y oficiales ejecutores de políticas del Estado de México y demás actores públicos y privados que participan en PRORIENTE.
Además, un equipo del Instituto Lincoln coopera actualmente con otras instituciones y profesionales para intercambiar experiencias internacionales en lo que refiere al proceso de creación de políticas y el aspecto operativo del programa PRORIENTE. Se presta atención especial a la sustentabilidad y posibilidad de duplicación de las estrategias que facilitan la transición desde sistemas restrictivos de tenencia de la tierra, gestiones con deficientes impuestos a la propiedad y recursos fiscales sumamente centralizados, hacia mercados inmobiliarios competitivos e iniciativas locales para el uso de la tierra que fomenten el desarrollo. El Instituto utilizará esta experiencia en México para diseñar cursos en otros países que se encuentran en situaciones semejantes.
Fernando Rojas, docente invitado del Instituto Lincoln, es académico en el campo jurídico y analista de políticas públicas en Colombia. Anteriormente ha sido docente invitado en el Centro David Rockefeller para Estudios Latinoamericanos de la Universidad de Harvard. Alfonso Iracheta es secretario técnico de PRORIENTE y director de planeación del Estado de México.
The excessively high price of serviced land in Latin America is one of several explanations for the extent and persistence of informal land markets. Contrary to popular beliefs, informality is expensive and therefore is not the best or even an advantageous alternative to combating poverty, but it is usually the only one available to the urban poor. A more consistent policy to reduce informality, and in so doing reduce poverty, should be at least neutral or contribute to reducing high land prices.
Poverty Alone Cannot Explain Informality
Although the map of illegality corresponds to a great degree with that of poverty, the extent and persistence of informality cannot be explained by poverty alone. Not all occupants of informal settlements are poor, as many empirical studies in Latin America have proved in recent years. The rate of new irregular land occupations is much higher than the rate of increase in the number of new poor families. In Brazil, for example, the total number of favela residents has increased at five times the rate of poor residents, and a similar trend is seen in most large Latin American cities.
This spectacular growth in informal settlements has occurred through expansion on the peripheries and densification in “consolidated” irregular urban areas, even though the birth rate and the number of rural-to-urban migrants have declined substantially and the percentage of poor citizens has remained relatively stable. Other explanations for this growth in informality include the lack of sufficient social housing programs, inadequate public investment in urban infrastructure for public amenities and services (such as drainage and sewage systems) and, last but not least, the reality that informal arrangements are profitable for those who promote them.
The High Cost of Serviced Land
Conventional economics argues that free market prices reflect the level at which a buyer’s ability and willingness to pay matches a supplier’s ability and willingness to sell, but in practice no assurance is given with respect to meeting social needs. That is, the market for serviced land may be functioning well, even though many families (even non-poor ones) are unable to access such land, and some existing urbanized lands are being kept vacant intentionally.
On the peripheries of many Latin American cities, the price of a square metre (m2) of serviced land made available by private agents can vary between US$32 and US$172. These figures are close in absolute terms to those found in cities in the developed world, where the per capita income is typically 7 to 10 times higher than in Latin America. Even a family above the poverty line saving up to 20 percent of its monthly wages (US$200) would need 12 to 15 years to save enough to acquire an urbanized plot of 150 m2. These indicators suggest that the difficulty of gaining access to serviced land may be one of the factors that actually contribute to poverty.
The price of serviced land, like prices in other markets, is determined by supply and demand. The supply of land depends on the amount that is newly serviced (produced) per year, the amount that is retained from the market, and the intensity of the use of the existing serviced land. The demand depends on the annual rate of formation of new households, adjusted by their income and/or purchasing power, their preferences and the prices of other items in their budgets. It is difficult to provide a full discussion of all factors affecting the behavior of land prices (see Smolka 2002), but it suffices to mention certain determinants that are emblematic to understanding some apparent idiosyncrasies of the functioning of urban land markets in Latin America.
On the supply side, property taxes, a major potential source of revenue to finance the production of serviced land, are ridiculously low. Typically property taxes represent less that 0.5 percent of GDP, compared to 3 to 4 percent in the U.S. and Canada. Overall there is a sense that Latin America underspends on infrastructure and services compared to its per capita GDP. The substantive observed land value increments resulting from investments in urban infrastructure and services are basically neglected as a revenue source to finance such investments, due to weak sanctions on capturing land value increments or simply holding improved land from the market (Smolka and Furtado 2001).
In addition, the disposition of considerable amounts of land is controlled by agents that do not follow strict economic rules (e.g., some public agencies, the Army, the Church or even state-owned enterprises like the railroads for whom some statutory restrictions preclude the disposition of land according to the market’s highest and best use criteria). Furthermore, the limited amount of available land that is fully serviced is often subject to overtly elitist urbanistic norms and regulations (zoning) designed to “protect” those serviced neighborhoods by making it difficult for low-income families to comply.
On the demand side, many families, even those with relatively high incomes, work in the informal sector and are excluded from the market because they lack the credentials required by financial agencies to apply for a loan. The need to self-finance housing production on a piecemeal basis through nontraditional funding sources extends the time between acquisition and occupation of land, thereby adding to both the cost of financing and the overall demand for land. Further, the legacy of high inflation, ill-developed or inaccessible capital markets, and limited participation in the social security system are responsible for nurturing a well-established culture and preference by lower-income sectors to use land as a reserve of value and as a popular means of capitalization, which also adds to the demand for land. In other words, holding undeveloped land and the culture of land speculation are not exclusive to high-income areas.
Prices for Informal Plots
Beyond these conventional arguments about supply and demand, one may also consider the dynamics or interdependency of formal and informal urban land markets as a factor contributing to high land prices. Specifically, the high prices for serviced land in the formal market seem to affect the relatively high prices of unserviced land in the informal market, and vice versa.
Land prices reveal the difference that the purchaser has to pay to avoid falling into a worse situation (that is, farther from work; fewer or worse services, lower environmental quality, and the like). Thus, if the “best” alternative is a plot in an unserviced settlement, one would expect a premium on the existing serviced land, which would also reflect the value of the legal title that comes with serviced land. On the other hand, if the minimum price for serviced land (raw land plus the cost of urbanization) is still unaffordable, then whatever land one could have access to would represent an alternative. This alternative could range from outright squatter settlement, to invasion through the mediation of “pirate” operators or organized movements (both of which involve fees and other payments), to the more prevalent land market for irregular subdivision of large parcels into small plots with inadequate services.
The price of land in the informal market is, therefore, higher than the price of raw land but normally less than the sum of the raw land price plus the cost of providing services. At the same time, it tends to be lower (though not necessarily on a per square-metre basis) than the minimum price of fully serviced and commercialized land in the formal market. In effect the market values more “flexible” means to access land, such as plots smaller than the minimum lot size, or construction without building codes, or even the possibility of selling the roof of a house as buildable space.
Most low-income families do not choose an informal arrangement because it provides the best price option, but simply because it is often their only option. The “choice” of acquiring an informal plot is still expensive. Conservative estimates obtained from an informal survey of 10 large Latin American cities show the average price of land on a commercialized illegal plot was US$27 for one square metre (see Table 1).
Table 1: Prices and Profitability of Informal and Formal Land Markets (US$)
1- Rural land designated for urban use
Informal market: $4
Formal market: $4
2- Cost of urbanization
Informal market: minimal = $5
Formal market: full = $25
3- Final price in the market
Informal market: $27
Formal market: $70
4- Profit over advanced capital=(3-1-2)/(1+2)
Informal market: 200%
Formal market: 141%
The profit figure (4) explains at least in part the question (an apparent paradox): Why, in spite of a significant mark-up in the provision of urbanized land in the informal market, does one find so little interest in development from the private sector? As Table 1 indicates, the provision of informal land is more profitable than the provision of formally developed land. In fact, the figures for the formal market are largely underestimated since there are higher risks associated with financial, security and marketing costs, and other costs borne by the developer that are not incurred in informal developments. These data also help explain why formality begets informality and exposes the fact that the advantages of informal arrangements are not necessarily perceived by the low-income occupants, but by the subdivider or informal developer.
Unexpected Effects of Regularization
Let us turn now to the question of policy responses to this state of affairs. Given the apparent impossibility or impracticality of adopting any other policy, the prevailing notion has been that tolerating informal “solutions” to gain access to land and then regularizing the settlements after they are established is cheaper in the long run for public finances, and better for the low-income occupants (Lincoln Institute 2002).
The public finance argument claims that the existing arrangement is cheaper because it capitalizes on private (self-) investments in the consolidated settlements, thus relieving public agencies of social responsibility and expenditures otherwise associated with one’s full “right to the city.” This view is questionable on two accounts. First, the physical conditions and existing housing are often unacceptable as human shelter, in spite of the ingenuity and imagination of informal solutions under extremely unfavorable conditions. The poor standards of land use and density in these settlements are only tolerated because the damage has already been done. Second, with regard to infrastructure, some of the alternative technologies that look promising are ultimately shown to perform poorly and to require overly expensive maintenance.
The impacts on low-income occupants are also worse than expected. Not only are land prices much too high but there are additional costs: those without an official address (because they live in an irregular settlement) are often discriminated against when looking for a job or social services; rents as a percentage of property value are higher than the rates observed in the formal market; access to water from a truck or other temporary source is much more expensive than piped water; and the cost of insecurity is greater because of living in a more violent environment.
Regularization policies evaluated in a broader urban context may actually contribute to aggravating the problem it is supposed to remedy. That is, as a curative approach these policies may instead have perverse or counter-productive preventative effects, as noted below.
Price Signals
The expectation that an area of land will eventually be regularized allows the developer to raise the price. A purchaser often obtains a lot with written evidence that the developer does not yet have the services required by urban planning norms. At the same time the developer promises that as soon as enough lots are sold the services or infrastructure will be provided, even though such promises are often unfulfilled. At best, a relationship of complicity is established between buyer and seller. At worst, and this is quite common, the purchaser is tricked by the existence of services, such as pipes put into the ground, which the developer claims are part of the infrastructure network. Other problems in these arrangements that can harm poor residents are doubtful rights of tenure, payment terms that disguise the full amount of interest to be paid, and confusing or inaccurate details in the contract.
As in any other segment of the land market, the actual prices reflect, or absorb, expectations about the future use of the lot. The informal sector is no exception. The greater the expectation that the plot of land that is currently without services will get them eventually, either from the developer or, as is more likely, from the government through some regularization program, the higher the price at which the land is sold.
Regularization as an Attraction for More Irregularity
Research on the first arrival dates of inhabitants in informal settlements suggests that in many cases more people moved in just when some regularization program (such as the granting of titles or urbanization improvements) was announced or implemented (Menna Barreto 2000).
The idea that expectations about regularization have an effect on informality is also corroborated by the large number of invasions or occupations that take place either just before or just after electoral periods, when candidates promise new regularization programs. The victory of Miguel Arraes as governor of Pernambuco, Brazil, in 1986 led to 13 land invasions in just over a month (Rabaroux 1997, 124), and the Latin American historiography of the effects of the expectations created by populist promises is rich in other examples. Many of the existing settlements that need to be regularized today owe their origin to the irresponsible complacency of politicians turning a blind eye to the irregular occupation of public or unsuitable areas, or, which is worse, who ceded public land for electioneering purposes.
The Opportunity Costs of Regularization
Regularization programs, which are normally of a remedial or curative nature, have a high opportunity cost compared to the cost of providing urbanized land in a preventative manner. The rule of thumb cost per benefited family of a typical upgrading or regularization program has been in the range of $3,000 to $4,000. Taking the size of a plot to be around 50 m2 and adding 20 percent to account for streets and other public services, the cost works out to US$50 to US$70 per m2. This is considerably higher than the cost for servicing new land, which is less than US$25 per m2, and is similar to the price charged by private developers, even when allowing for a handsome profit margin. ECIA, a private developer operating west of Río de Janeiro, offered completely urbanized plots for US$70 to US$143 per m2 at 1999 prices (Oliveira 1999). The Municipal Secretariat of Urbanism in Río de Janeiro has a technical study, from 1997, which demonstrates that it is possible to commercialize urbanized plots for less than US$55 per m2. Along the same lines, Aristizabal and Gomez (2001) in Bogotá estimate that the cost of correction (“reparation”) of an irregular settlement is 2.7 times the cost of planned areas.
These figures suggest the limitations of preventative programs in favor of curative ones. It is also relevent that permission to develop a regular, formal subdivision may take from three to five years, whereas the decision to regularize an informal settlement often takes less than six months.
The “Day After” of Regularization
A well-executed regularization program (that is, one that effectively integrates the informal area with the urban fabric) would ideally result in the improved quality of life for all occupants and a stronger community. In particular, one would expect an appreciation of property values, causing some residential mobility as families with below-average incomes are forced to move. However, when the program is badly executed the area may be consolidated as a low-income irregular settlement.
The Favela-Bairro upgrading program in Rio de Janeiro is often used to exemplify the most comprehensive and successful experience of its kind. Abramo’s (2002) study of the impact of regularization programs found a relatively small increase in property values in the affected areas (28 percent). Applying this average figure to typical or modest houses with an ex-ante value estimated at US$12,000, the added value is about US$3,400, a number close to the average per-family cost of regularization programs. This result contrasts with the mark-up of more than 100 percent obtained in the process of servicing raw land through the market by private agents. This intriguing piece of information seems to show how little notice the “market” takes of the increased value of these regularized settlements. At the same time, full integration into the urban fabric turns out to be less frequent than had been expected. Many of the favelas that received important upgrading investments remain stigmatized as favelas even 15 years later.
Conclusions
Informality is expensive, and it exacerbates the conditions of living in poverty. The diagnoses of such agencies as the UNCHS (Habitat), World Bank, Inter-American Development Bank and others would seem to be correct in regarding upgrading programs as an essential ingredient of any policy to deal with urban poverty. However, because of the piecemeal and limited approach of such programs, there is no guarantee that the regularization of settlements alone will contribute to reducing urban poverty. In effect these programs not only reiterate and keep intact the land market “rules of the game” that contribute to informality, but they also generate some perverse effects. This situation poses both a dilemma and a challenge. The dilemma is that not regularizing simply is not a political option (nor is it a humanitarian option). The challenge is how to interrupt the vicious cycle of poverty and informality through interventions in the land market. The task ahead is formidable, but there are places in Latin America where local governments are beginning to set new ground rules.
Martim O. Smolka is senior fellow and director of the Program on Latin America and the Caribbean at the Lincoln Institute.
References
Abramo, Pedro. 2002. Funcionamento do mercado informal de terras nas favelas e mobilidade residencial dos pobres. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy Research Paper.
Aristizabal, Nora, and Andrés Ortíz Gomez. 2002. Are services more important than titles in Bogotá?” in Land, Rights and Innovation: Improving Tenure Security for the Urban Poor, Geoffrey Payne, ed. 100-113. London: Intermediate Technology Development Group Publishing.
Lincoln Institute. 2002. Access to Land by the Urban Poor: 2002 Annual Roundtable. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Menna Barreto Silva, Helena. 2000. Programas de urbanização e desenvolvimento do mercado em favelas brasileiras. São Paulo: University of São Paulo: LAB-Hab.
Oliveira, Fabrício L. de. 1999. Valorização fundiária e custos de urbanização na XVII R.A. – Campo Grande: uma primeira aproximação com o caso do Rio de Janeiro. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy Research Paper.
Rabaroux, Patrice. 1997. La Regularizacion en Recife (Brasil). In El acceso de los pobres al suelo urbano. Antonio Azuela and François Tomas, eds. México: Centro de Estudios Mexicanos y Centroamericanos del Instituto de Investigaciones Sociales de la UNAM.
Smolka, Martim O. 2002. The High and Unaffordable Prices of Serviced Land. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy Research Paper.
Smolka, Martim O., and Fernanda Furtado, eds. 2001. Recuperación de plusvalías en América Latina: Alternativas para el desarrollo urbano. Santiago, Chile: EURELIBROS.