The Lincoln Institute’s Latin America program pursues education and research projects with universities and local governments throughout Central and South America and the Caribbean. These activities are especially salient now given many political and economic changes affecting Latin American land markets. For example, the (re)democratization of the continent is engaging a larger segment of the society in designing viable, innovative programs for local administrations of competing political parties.

In addition, institutional and in many cases constitutional reforms are affecting land values and landownership rights and regulations. Structural adjustment programs to curb inflation and overcome the economic crises of the 1980s are changing attitudes regarding holding land either as an investment or a reserve of value. Frequent speculative switches between land holdings and other financial assets according to the caprices of the prevailing ‘economic environment’ have been a planner’s nightmare in Latin America.

The forces of globalization and urbanization also contribute to significant and changing pressures on the use of land. More and more, Los Angeles-style landscapes can be found in certain suburbs of Sao Paulo, Santiago or Mexico City. While loss of the region’s biodiversity is well documented, Latin America is also at risk of losing its land use diversity.

In spite of these common themes, Latin America is hardly a homogeneous entity. Its diversity emerges clearly when examining the landownership and land market structures of different countries. For example:

The Chilean glorification of land markets contrasts with Cuba’s virtual elimination of land markets and resulting residential segregation.

Mexico had a unique experience with communal (ejido) lands that are now being privatized with important implications for new urban expansion.

In Brazil, frequent land conflicts, many with tragic consequences to the landless, can be attributed to a long-promised land reform yet to be implemented.

In Paraguay, until its recent democratization, land was traditionally attributed by the hegemonic political party, simply by-passing the market. In Argentina, on the other hand, the state uses its considerable stock of fiscal land to facilitate international investments in property developments directly through the market.

Nicaragua’s past land redistribution is probably responsible for the vigor of the recently liberalized property market and the strong land reconcentration processes now under way.

The booming land markets of Ecuador and Venezuela have often been attributed to the ease of laundering drug money from neighboring Colombia, where regulations are stricter.

Given this diversity, the Institute’s Latin America program is focusing its education and research efforts on building a network of highly qualified scholars and policymakers. Representing different countries and a variety of academic and professional backgrounds, they help identify topics of proven relevance for the region. Some examples of current topics grounded in public officials’ actual and anticipated needs are: rekindling the debate on the functioning of urban land markets; closing the gap between formal and informal land markets; and implementing new land policy instruments.

Access to land by the low-income urban population is the issue that best captures the hearts and minds of many researchers and public officials. Two connected research themes are 1) the mechanisms that generate residential segregation or exclusion through the market by private or public agents; and 2) the strategies of ‘the excluded’ to access land and subsequently formalize their ‘inclusion.’ Most of the Institute’s education programs being developed in Latin America to deal with land management and instruments of public intervention are informed directly or indirectly by this issue.

For many public officials in the region, land reform is a sensitive issue and capturing land value increments generated by public action is still seen suspiciously as a subversive idea. Thus, the Lincoln Institute is in a unique position as a neutral facilitator capable of collaborating with Latin American scholars and public officials as well as experts from the United States to provide a comparative, international perspective on land policy ideas and experiences.

_____________

Martim Smolka, Senior Fellow of the Institute since September 1995, is on leave as associate professor at the Urban and Regional Research and Planning Institute at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

I am pleased to report that the Lincoln Institute has signed an agreement of understanding with the Ministry of Land and Resources in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to work together on researching and teaching about land and tax policies. Many places in the world face fundamental problems in land allocation and land taxation, but it is difficult to imagine a place and time where the resources of the Lincoln Institute could be more influential and could help more people than in China during the early twenty-first century.

Land and tax policy makers in China are faced with enormous challenges as a result of the extraordinary urbanization of the past two decades. The number of established cities in China grew from 182 in 1982 to 324 in 1985, and reached 666 by 1996, and the average urban population grew by 227 percent between 1957 and 1995. Some cities grew by 200 percent from 1985 to 1995, and the urbanized area of Beijing doubled from 1985 to 1992. However, the extent of urbanization in the future will dwarf that of the recent past. Based on forecasts of population growth and migration, China must provide enough urban land and infrastructure to accommodate more than 450 million persons over the next 20 years. If all of the additional urban population were put in new cities of 10 million persons each, China would need to develop and finance 45 such cities.

China initiated fundamental and revolutionary land use reforms during the mid-1980s. The first reforms established privately held land use rights. The second set of reforms included multiple elements, such as land banking, land trusts, land readjustments, and development of land markets in both urban and rural areas. We believe that the Institute can make a real difference in assisting these reform measures by sponsoring education and training for government officials, supporting research and publications by U.S. and Chinese scholars, and facilitating more in-depth interactions through workshops and conferences.

Over the past two years the Institute has led two training programs in Beijing and participated in meetings between Chinese officials and scholars and Institute board members, faculty and staff. The Institute also sponsored several sessions on land and housing markets in the PRC at the First World Planning Congress in Shanghai in 2001. We anticipate several more training and exchange programs this year, but we believe this is still just the beginning of an expanded effort by the Institute to have a positive impact on land and tax policy in the world’s most populous country. In this issue, Institute faculty associates Chengri Ding and Gerrit Knaap examine some of the recent reforms and current trends in urban land policy in China.

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

A Worldwide Phenomenon

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

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

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

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

Dual Governance, Rules and Outcomes

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

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

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

Excessive Regulations

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

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

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

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

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

Relief from Subdivision Regulations

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

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

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

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

Design Benefits

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

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

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

Toward Better Subdivisions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The prevailing land use regulation and land tax laws in the United States make the Kelo case and the use of eminent domain for private development particularly dramatic, especially compared to other countries.

Like many schoolchildren, I learned that years ago a squirrel could cross the country from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean never touching the ground, using our magnificent forests as an aerial highway. After massive clearing and development for agriculture, cities, and roads, those forests are now a tattered patchwork, and are nonexistent in many places. More than a squirrel’s dilemma, though, the loss and altering of America’s forests have created both an enormous challenge to climate health and an opportunity for climate policy and action.

Sustaining local communities will require mechanisms to envision and plan for the future and to engage residents in the process. Scenario planning is an increasingly effective way to address these efforts, and Western Lands and Communities, the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy’s joint venture with the Sonoran Institute, is working to advance the necessary tools.

Scenario Planning to Address Uncertainty

Land use decisions and planning efforts are critical as communities look 20 to 50 years into the future to guide policy choices and public investments that are sustainable across economic, social, and environmental dimensions. As uncertainty increases and available resources decrease, it becomes ever more important to consider the full range of emerging conditions and to strive to ensure our ability to respond to those changes, adopt policies, and pursue investments that will be resilient across a variety of potential futures.

Key areas of uncertainty include population and demographic changes, economic trends, climatic variability and change, resource costs and availability, land markets, housing preferences, housing affordability, and the fiscal health of local governments. Simultaneous with increasing uncertainty and decreasing resources, or perhaps in part because of them, decision makers face conflicting perspectives on desired futures and on the role of government in providing services and infrastructure as well as regulation and planning.

Increased polarization means that more civic engagement and an informed and supportive public are needed to ensure stable policies and adequate investments in a community’s future. Scenario planning offers a mechanism to address these needs and issues of potential uncertainty and conflict. Fortunately, as the scope and complexity of planning and the demand for broader engagement have increased, advances in computing power and public access to technology are making new and more powerful tools available.

The Lincoln Institute has a long history of supporting the development of planning tools and publishing the results (Hopkins and Zapata 2007; Campoli and MacLean 2007; Brail 2008; Kwartler and Longo 2008; Condon, Cavens, and Miller 2009). This article covers lessons learned from the use of scenario planning tools in several projects undertaken by Western Lands and Communities (WLC), as well as mechanisms to expand their application.

Superstition Vistas

Superstition Vistas is a 275-square-mile expanse of vacant state-owned trust land on the urbanizing edge of the Phoenix metropolitan area (figure 1). State trust lands such as this site in Arizona are key to future growth patterns because the state owns 60 percent of the available land in the path of development. Colorado and New Mexico to a lesser degree face similar opportunities with their state trust lands (Culp, Laurenzi, and Tuell 2006). Creative thinking about the future of Superstition Vistas began to gain momentum in 2003, and the Lincoln Institute, through the WLC joint venture, was an early proponent of these efforts (Propst 2008).

Initial WLC objectives for Superstition Vistas scenario planning included capacity building, tool development, and opportunities to catalyze a planning process. More specifically, we sought to:

• look at the land in a bold, holistic, and comprehensive manner;
• advance the Arizona State Land Department’s capacity to conduct large-scale planning and establish an example for other state land agencies facing urban growth opportunities;
• design a model sustainable development;
• advance scenario planning tools and illustrate their use;
• catalyze and inform debates about modernizing state trust land planning and development management; and
• stimulate a larger discussion about the Arizona Sun Corridor megaregion.

WLC, along with regional partnerships, neighboring jurisdictions, the regional electric and water utility, two private hospital providers, and a local mining company, formed the Superstition Vistas (SV) Steering Committee to advance the planning effort, secure funding, and hire a consulting team. The consultants, working with the committee over a three-year period, conducted extensive public outreach and values research, assembled data on Superstition Vistas, developed and refined a series of alternative land use scenarios for the development of a community of 1 million residents, evaluated the impacts of the different scenarios, and produced a composite scenario for the site.

The Arizona State Land Department (the landowner) adapted the consultants’ work to prepare a draft conceptual plan for Superstition Vistas in May 2011 and submitted a proposed comprehensive plan amendment to Pinal County. The county is now considering the proposed amendment and its Board of Supervisors is expected to act in late 2011.

Sustainability Lessons

The scenario analysis, utilizing enhancements supported by WLC, identified the most important factors in shaping development patterns and potential conflicts among desired outcomes (figure 2). The inclusion of individual building and infrastructure costs for the alternative scenarios facilitated examining the sensitivity of varying these key factors and the cost effectiveness of four increasing levels of energy and water efficiency in each building type.

The scenarios also examined the impact of urban form on vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Scenario model outputs included land use indicators, energy and water use, VMT, carbon emissions, and construction costs. This analysis revealed the “low-hanging fruit” for sustainability improvements. The consulting team, working with the Steering Committee, identified a number of lessons that illustrate the value of scenario planning tools and can be applied to other efforts to design more sustainable and efficient urban areas (Superstition Vistas Consulting Team 2011).

1. Create mixed-use centers to reduce travel times, energy use, and the carbon footprint. Mixed-use centers along public transportation routes and close to homes and neighborhoods are one of the most effective ways to reduce travel times, energy use, and the resulting carbon footprint. Smaller homes, more compact forms of urban development, and multimodal transportation systems all create similar benefits (figure 3). However, the scenario modeling for Superstition Vistas demonstrated that mixed-use centers would be substantially more important than increased density in affecting transportation choices, energy use, and the carbon footprint.

2. Foster upfront investments and high-quality jobs to catalyze economic success. A strong local economy and a diverse balance of nearby jobs, housing, and shops are critical for a sustainable community, especially when high-quality jobs are provided at the beginning of development. Significant upfront public investment and public-private partnerships can supply critical infrastructure and have an enormous impact on shaping development and increasing the value of state trust land. State owned trust land could also provide unique opportunities for patient capital, with enhanced trust land management authorities providing access to resources for upfront capital investment and the ability to recapture these investments when the land is sold or leased later at a higher value.

3. Provide multimodal transportation infrastructure and regional connections to facilitate efficient growth. Another critical step is determining how to phase transportation improvements as the region grows and the market can support increased services. Phased components may include buses first, then Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), with rights-of-way set aside for eventual commuter or light-rail corridors. Identifying and building multimodal transportation corridors and infrastructure prior to sales for residential and commercial development should establish the cohesiveness of the entire area and enable the evolution to more capital-intensive transportation infrastructure as the community matures.

4. Design efficient buildings that save water and energy resources and reduce the community’s carbon footprint. Incorporating construction costs and return on investment (ROI) data in resource planning allows for financial feasibility and cost-benefit calculations. The consulting team modeled four levels of water and energy use (baseline, good, better, best) for each scenario and building type. Results demonstrated that investments in energy efficiency would be better spent on residential than commercial and industrial buildings. An additional finding showed that building centralized renewable power generation may be a better investment than extreme conservation.

5. Offer housing choices that meet the needs of a diverse population. Ensuring a viable community means meeting the needs of all potential residents with a broad variety of development types and prices that local workers can afford and that allow for adjustments under future market conditions.

6. Incorporate flexibility to respond to changing circumstances. A challenge for large-scale master plans that will take shape in multiple phases over 50 years or more is how to plan so the development itself can evolve and even redevelop over time. Plan implementation needs to include mechanisms to limit future NIMBY (not in my back yard) problems for necessary infill and redevelopment projects.

Procedural Lessons

The visioning process for Superstition Vistas involved planning a completely new city or region of communities in a vacant area with a single public landowner and no existing population. Given the recent economic downturn, as well as the limited capacity of the state agency to bring land to market, development of this area will likely be postponed for a number of years. Despite these particular conditions, procedural lessons learned in the project to date are relevant to other long-term and large-scale efforts, and to the expanded use of scenario planning for community decision making in general.

Agreed-upon procedures and planning processes become increasingly important as the planning and development time period grows and the number of stakeholders increases. Significant changes in participants, perspectives, and external factors, such as the recent collapse of the development economy, should be expected in any long-term, multiparty project. Such challenges need to be considered and incorporated into project tasks.

1. Design for change. Long-term projects need to accommodate changes in stakeholders, decision makers, and even political perspectives during the course of planning and implementation. Projects would benefit enormously from anticipating such changes, agreeing on mechanisms to transfer knowledge to new participants, establishing certain criteria and decisions that new stakeholders would be expected to follow, understanding how to deal with political or market conditions that will change, and building resiliency for such factors into the alternative scenarios themselves.

2. Consider governance. This is an issue for planning and implementation efforts and for the political decision-making structure of a new community. In building a new city it is important to consider how to create a governance system capable of implementing a consistent, comprehensive vision for a community that does not yet exist.

3. Incorporate new community designs into local and regional comprehensive plans. It is also critical to consider how a project at the scale of Superstition Vistas, with up to 1 million residents and a buildout plan of 50 years or more, can be incorporated into the framework of a typical county comprehensive plan. Scenarios and visions must reflect ideas and plans that local jurisdictions will be politically willing and administratively able to incorporate into their planning processes.

4. Phase development. Communities need to establish mechanisms that allow the adoption of a long-term buildout vision and then incorporate a series of flexible and adaptable phased plans to implement that vision in appropriate stages.

5. Plan for market changes. Market conditions, housing preferences, and employment opportunities will evolve, and large-scale projects with creative and compelling visions may even create their own demand. No one knows what future markets may offer, so consideration of alternative markets and adaptable community designs are critical. Projected housing mixes and estimates of development absorption need to be flexible and not based only on current preferences and trends.

6. Connect to common values. Demonstrating how development proposals connect to common visions and values that are shared and stable over time is also important. For Superstition Vistas, values such as an opportunity for healthy lifestyles and choices for residents across the socioeconomic spectrum were found to be broadly accepted. Planners also need to recognize values that are more controversial or may be transient and likely to change.

Challenges and Opportunities

The WLC experience in planning for Superstition Vistas has been successful in several respects. The community came together through the Steering Committee to develop a consensus vision that represented multijurisdictional cooperation around sustainable “smart” growth. Neighboring communities, at the request of the state land commissioner, deferred any consideration of annexation. In addition, the Arizona State Land Department developed a plan for a geographic scale, time horizon, and level of comprehensiveness well beyond anything attempted previously. However, the proposed comprehensive plan amendment for Superstition Vistas is at best a first step toward a vision for a community of up to 1 million people.

The Arizona State Land Department has been unable, at least so far, to push the envelope very far on new and more creative ways to conceptualize large-scale developments that could enhance the economic value of state trust lands and improve regional urban form. The recent collapse of land and housing markets throughout the country has also impacted this project and local perceptions of future growth potential. Since the overall effort to conceptualize and implement development plans for Superstition Vistas is just beginning, initial on-the-ground development is not expected for at least a decade. There will be multiple opportunities to build on these planning efforts to bring bolder and more comprehensive visions forward as the real estate economy recovers and the land becomes ripe for development.

Scenario planning and effective visualizations become both more important and more challenging to achieve when conducting larger and longer-term visioning exercises. Visualizations that provide compelling depictions of activity centers and higher-density, mixed-use neighborhoods can help to gain public acceptance. Effective mechanisms are also needed to convey to current participants that the planning process is imagining community characteristics and housing and lifestyle preferences for their grandchildren or great-grandchildren many years in the future.

As noted earlier, upfront investments in transportation, economic development, education, and utility services can significantly shape a community, serve as a catalyst for higher-level employment, and earn high returns. To achieve this potential, mechanisms are needed to facilitate these investments, whether on private lands or state trust lands. Continued work on the contributory value of land conservation, infrastructure investment, planning, and ecosystem services, as well as the integration of this information into scenario planning, would greatly aid efforts to address uncertainty and advance community sustainability.

Other Projects and Lessons Learned

WLC conducted three additional demonstration projects to further enhance scenario planning tools and apply them in different situations.

Gallatin County, Montana

Sonoran Institute staff worked with Montana State University (MSU) to engage local stakeholders in a workshop where each of four teams produced scenarios for concentrating projected growth within the currently developed “triangle” region of Bozeman, Belgrade, and Four Corners. This effort successfully integrated Envision Tomorrow scenario planning with housing unit projections from the Sonoran Institute’s Growth Model and demonstrated the value of ROI tools as a reality check on proposed land use and building types. The project also demonstrated the value of scenario planning to local experts.

Lessons learned include recognizing that (1) for many participants working with paper maps was more intuitive that the touch screen technology we had employed; (2) additional information on land characteristics, such as soil productivity and habitat values, should be used in preparing growth scenarios; and (3) more effective techniques are needed to visualize the density and design of different land use types, as well as to incorporate political and market realities that are not typically captured with scenario planning tools.

Products from this Montana project will include the creation of a library of regionally appropriate building types for use with ROI and scenario modeling and a report examining the costs and benefits, including sustainability impacts, of directing future growth to the triangle area of Gallatin Valley. With WLC support MSU has been able to incorporate the use of scenario planning tools in its graduate program.

Garfield County, Colorado

Sonoran Institute’s Western Colorado Legacy Area office, with support from the Lincoln Institute, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and other local contributors, utilized the Envision Tomorrow tool in a new way to advance implementation of previously adopted plans calling for mixed-use infill and redevelopment in target growth areas. This project focused on stakeholder education regarding the mechanisms necessary to implement recently adopted comprehensive plans calling for town-centered development, rather than on scenario generation for a comprehensive plan.

Examination of policy and market feasibility for redevelopment in downtown Rifle, Colorado, was one of three separate efforts undertaken. The City of Rifle project successfully utilized an ROI tool to identify financial and regulatory factors that could impact revitalization efforts and engaged the key parties necessary for implementation, including property owners, developers, realtors, planning commissioners, local officials, state transportation representatives, and local staff.

Among the lessons learned from this project was the importance of grounding bold visions with market reality. For example, previous planning efforts in Rifle had focused on six-to-eight-story mixed-use buildings, but in the current market even three-to-four-story projects are not considered feasible (figure 4c). Most attention now is given to two-story mixed-use projects and townhomes. Visualizations for an underutilized parcel in the center of town illustrated the type of one-story option that may be most feasible for initial commercial development (figure 4b). Constraints related to parking requirements and high minimum lot coverage requirements were also identified as limits on investment. In addition to pinpointing changes in Rifle’s building code, these findings spurred discussion about the role of public-private partnerships in catalyzing downtown development.

Morongo Basin, California

This area of high open space and wildlife habitat values between Joshua Tree National Park and the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center in Southern California may be impacted by spillover from regional growth. This project with the Morongo Basin Open Space Group involves an innovative effort to link results from the ongoing conservation priority-setting efforts with both a GIS tool to analyze and predict how land use patterns impact wildlife habitat and the scenario planning capability of Envision Tomorrow.

We are evaluating the environmental impacts of the current and potential alternative development patterns and location-specific planning and land use options. The tools being developed for this effort will be useful to land trusts throughout the country that are interested in engaging partners on local and regional planning issues and incorporating larger landscape conservation and wildlife habitat goals into their projects.

Open Source Planning Tools

Western Lands and Communities has recently been focusing on efforts to develop open source planning tools as a mechanism to increase the use of scenario planning. Key factors that hinder their use include: (1) the cost and complexity of the tools themselves; (2) the cost and availability of data; (3) a lack of standardization, making integration of tools and data difficult; and (4) proprietary tools that may be difficult to adapt to local conditions and may impede innovation.

Proponents of open source modeling tools believe open and standardized coding will facilitate increased transparency and interoperability between models, ultimately resulting in faster innovation and greater utilization. As a result of our work with Envision Tomorrow on the Superstition Vistas project, WLC and other members of an open source planning tools group are continuing to advance scenario planning tools and pursue the promise of open source tools that can foster sustainable communities in many more locations.

About the Author

Jim Holway directs Western Lands and Communities, the Lincoln Institute’s joint venture with the Sonoran Institute, based in Phoenix, Arizona. He was previously assistant director of the Arizona Department of Water Resources and a professor of practice at Arizona State University.

References

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

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

Lincoln Institute Publications

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alan Mallach es senior fellow no residente en el Programa de Políticas Metropolitanas del Instituto Brookings y senior fellow en el Centro para el Progreso Comunitario, ambos de Washington, DC; y académico visitante en el Banco de la Reserva Federal de Filadelfia. Ha sido profesional, promotor y académico en temas de vivienda, planificación y desarrollo comunitario por casi 40 años, durante los cuales ha realizado aportaciones en muchas áreas, como el desarrollo de viviendas sociales y de ingresos mixtos, la revitalización de barrios y la regeneración urbana. En 2003, fue nombrado miembro del Colegio de Socios del Instituto Norteamericano de Planificadores Certificados, en reconocimiento a sus permanentes logros como líder de la profesión de planificación urbana.

Mallach es también profesor visitante en el programa para graduados en Planificación Urbana del Instituto Pratt de Nueva York, y ha enseñado en la Universidad Rutgers y en la Escuela de Arquitectura de Nueva Jersey. Ha publicado numerosos libros y artículos sobre vivienda, desarrollo comunitario y uso del suelo; su libro Bringing Buildings Back: From Abandoned Properties to Community Assets (Reconstruyendo edificios: de propiedades abandonadas a activos de la comunidad) es reconocido como el estándar en la materia. Su libro más reciente: Rebuilding America’s Legacy Cities: New Directions for the Industrial Heartland (Reconstruyendo las ciudades industriales históricas de los EE. UU.: nuevas direcciones para el corazón industrial), fue publicado en 2012 por la American Assembly de la Universidad Columbia. Reside en Roosevelt, Nueva Jersey, y tiene una licenciatura por la Universidad de Yale.

Land Lines: ¿Cómo se involucró en el Instituto Lincoln?

Alan Mallach: Ya había sabido del Instituto Lincoln desde hacía muchos años, e inicialmente me involucré en la década de 1990 con mi trabajo sobre la revitalización de áreas industriales abandonadas. Desde entonces, trabajé como profesor en una serie de sesiones de capacitación patrocinadas por el Instituto y participé en reuniones y conferencias en Lincoln House. Hace alrededor de siete años, Nico Calavita, profesor emérito del Programa de Graduados en Planificación Urbana de la Universidad Estatal de San Diego, y yo comenzamos a investigar el tema de vivienda inclusiva. Este proyecto llevó a que el Instituto publicara en 2010 el libro que coeditamos: Inclusionary Housing in International Perspective: Affordable Housing, Social Inclusion, and Land Value Recapture (Vivienda inclusiva en perspectiva internacional: vivienda económica, inclusión social y recuperación de plusvalías). Más recientemente he estado trabajando con Lavea Brachman, directora ejecutiva del Centro de Políticas del Gran Ohio, en un informe de enfoque sobre políticas de suelo que investiga temas relacionados con la regeneración de las ciudades industriales históricas de los Estados Unidos (ver página 28).

Land Lines: ¿A qué se refiere como «ciudades industriales históricas»?

Alan Mallach: «Ciudades industriales históricas» es un término que se ha comenzado a usar en vez de «ciudades en retroceso», como una manera de describir las ciudades del país que han perdido una cantidad significativa de población y puestos de trabajo en los últimos 50 años o más. Ciertas ciudades icónicas, como Pittsburgh, Detroit y Cleveland se mencionan generalmente en este contexto, pero la categoría también incluye a muchas ciudades más pequeñas, como Flint, Michigan; Utica, Nueva York y Scranton, Pensilvania.

Land Lines: ¿Cómo se conectan los temas de las ciudades industriales históricas con las preocupaciones principales sobre la política de suelo del Instituto Lincoln?

Alan Mallach: Hay muchos puntos de conexión, pero creo que el más importante es cómo debería usarse el suelo en estas ciudades. Todas estas ciudades tienen una sobresaturación significativa de oferta tanto de edificios residenciales como no residenciales en relación con la demanda, por lo menos desde la década de 1960. Como consecuencia de una demolición extensiva a lo largo de décadas, se ha acumulado un gran inventario de suelo vacante o subutilizado. Sólo Detroit tiene más de 100.000 parcelas de suelo vacante separadas y otros 40.000 a 50.000 edificios vacíos. Si bien este inventario es una carga, también podría convertirse en un enorme activo para el futuro de la ciudad. Uno de los temas centrales que enfrentan estas ciudades industriales es cómo desarrollar estrategias efectivas para usar este suelo no solo de forma que beneficie al público sino que también estimule el crecimiento económico y la demanda del mercado.

Land Lines: ¿Cómo compararía este desafío con su trabajo en vivienda inclusiva?

Alan Mallach: Desde el punto de vista económico, es la otra cara de la moneda. La vivienda inclusiva es una manera de usar el proceso de aprobación de planificación para canalizar una fuerte demanda del mercado y crear un beneficio público en forma de vivienda social, ya sea de manera directa, incorporando una cierta cantidad de unidades de vivienda social en un emprendimiento inmobiliario que quiere ser aprobado, o en forma indirecta por medio de desarrollo de predios o contribuciones en efectivo por parte del emprendedor. Como tal, involucra, ya sea explícita o implícitamente, la recuperación de la plusvalía del suelo que se crea en el proceso de aprobación de planes. La vivienda inclusiva parte de una gran demanda en el mercado, y no puede suceder sin ella.

Las estrategias de reúso del suelo en ciudades industriales tratan de generar demanda donde hoy en día no existe, o alternativamente encontrar maneras de usar el suelo para beneficiar al público y que se puedan implementar aun en condiciones donde no se puede inducir demanda en el mercado, por lo menos en un futuro previsible. Estas estrategias se llaman frecuentemente de usos «verdes» del suelo, como es el caso de la agricultura urbana, los espacios abiertos, la restauración de humedales o la gestión del aguas lluvias. Puede ser difícil conseguir que los funcionarios locales y los ciudadanos reconozcan que las formas tradicionales de revitalización, como la construcción de casas nuevas, centros comerciales, etc., requieren de la existencia de un mercado para dichos productos. No obstante, en muchas de estas zonas devastadas la demanda simplemente no existe. Más aún, la demanda no se puede inducir artificialmente por medio de subsidios públicos masivos, si bien los fondos públicos pueden, bajo ciertas condiciones, actuar como un estímulo para crear demanda.

Land Lines: ¿La falta de demanda es evidente en todos lados en las ciudades industriales históricas?

Alan Mallach: No, y esta es una de las cosas más interesantes sobre estas ciudades. En algunas ciudades la demanda crece mucho más que en otras, pero en la mayoría de los casos la revitalización se limita a ciertas partes de la ciudad.

Una tendencia perceptible es que las zonas del centro, o cercanas al centro, particularmente aquellas que tienen un carácter urbano peatonal fuerte, como el corredor de Washington Avenue en St. Louis, o el Distrito de Almacenes de Cleveland, están mostrando un gran dinamismo, si bien en muchas otras partes de estas dos ciudades sigue habiendo pérdida de población y abandono de viviendas.

Parte de este dinamismo se debe al carácter peatonal y la fuerte forma urbana (ver el nuevo libro del Instituto Lincoln por Julie Campoli, Made for Walking: Density and Neighborhood Form (Hecho para caminar: densidad y forma del barrio) (2012), que examina 12 barrios peatonales y las fuerzas que han generado su reciente popularidad). Un segundo factor importante es que estas áreas atraen a un segmento demográfico en particular: individuos y parejas jóvenes. Este grupo no sólo está orientado cada vez más a la vida urbana, sino que su porcentaje en el total de la población norteamericana está creciendo.

Land Lines: ¿Qué otros temas está explorando en su trabajo sobre las ciudades industriales históricas?

Alan Mallach: Me estoy centrando en dos áreas de investigación: una más cualitativa y otra más cuantitativa. En el primer caso, estoy examinando cómo muchas de estas ciudades están pasando por una pronunciada reconfiguración espacial y demográfica, un proceso que está exacerbando las disparidades económicas entre distintas áreas geográficas y poblaciones en estas ciudades. Si bien los centros de las ciudades más viejas, como los de St. Louis, Cleveland, Baltimore y hasta Detroit, son cada vez más atractivos, particularmente para los adultos jóvenes, y están ganando población y actividad económica, muchos otros barrios en estas ciudades están perdiendo población a una velocidad cada vez mayor. En muchos lugares estas tendencias están acentuando divisiones raciales que ya eran problemáticas.

Mi segunda área de investigación gira alrededor de lo que hace falta para promover una regeneración exitosa y sostenida. Lavea Brachman y yo hablamos de esto en nuestro informe de enfoque sobre políticas de suelo, pero espero poder investigar este tema más profundamente, examinando incluso algunas ciudades europeas que se han visto en situaciones similares a las de las ciudades industriales norteamericanas. Creo que las experiencias de las ciudades del norte de Inglaterra, por ejemplo, o el valle del Ruhr en Alemania, son similares a nuestras ciudades industriales históricas.

Land Lines: ¿Qué quiere decir con «regeneración exitosa»?

Alan Mallach: Esta es una cuestión muy importante. Yo creo que frecuentemente hay una tendencia a ver un evento en particular (las Olimpiadas de Barcelona o un edificio importante como el Museo Guggenheim en Bilbao, España, por ejemplo) como evidencia de regeneración, cuando en el mejor de los casos es un impulso discreto para obtener un cambio más sustancial. Creo que la regeneración tiene que ser consecuencia de cambios en tres áreas fundamentales: primero, el bienestar de la población, que se refleja en parámetros tales como el desempeño en educación superior, nivel de ingresos y menor desempleo; segundo, un mercado inmobiliario más fuerte y mayor fortaleza de los barrios; y tercero, la creación de nuevos sectores económicos orientados a la exportación para reemplazar el sector industrial perdido. El crecimiento de población por sí solo (es decir, la reversión de la disminución histórica de población) puede ser o no una prueba de regeneración. Es más probable que sea una consecuencia de estos tres cambios en vez de una causa.

Land Lines: ¿Cómo ve el futuro de las ciudades industriales norteamericanas?

Alan Mallach: Veo un futuro mixto. Como hemos mostrado en el informe sobre enfoque en políticas de suelo, a algunas ciudades les está yendo mucho mejor que a otras. Pittsburgh y Filadelfia están mostrando signos fuertes de resurgimiento, mientras que Cleveland, Detroit y Buffalo están perdiendo terreno. Creo que las ciudades industriales tienen dos desafíos importantes a medida que miran hacia el futuro.

El primer tema es cuál será el motor económico de estas ciudades. Las ciudades que han tenido mayor éxito hasta ahora han podido concentrar los grupos más significativos de universidades de investigación nacional y centros médicos. Estas instituciones tienden a dominar las economías de sus ciudades. Si bien han ayudado a ciudades como Pittsburgh y Baltimore a reconstruirse en la era postindustrial, creo que quedan muchas preguntas por contestar en lo que se refiere a su sostenibilidad como motores económicos de largo plazo.

La segunda cuestión es demográfica. Los centros pueden estar atrayendo a personas solteras y parejas jóvenes, pero muchos de los barrios residenciales de estas ciudades fueron construidos hace alrededor de 100 años, como comunidades principalmente para parejas casadas que estaban criando a sus hijos. Ahora se están descomponiendo incluso muchos barrios que habían permanecido estables hasta hace relativamente poco. Esta demografía de parejas casadas con niños está disminuyendo en todo el país, y más aún en las ciudades más viejas. Hoy, por ejemplo, sólo el 8 por ciento de los hogares de Baltimore está en esta categoría. Creo que el futuro de estos barrios es muy importante para el destino de estas ciudades, y estoy muy preocupado por sus perspectivas.

Land Lines: A pesar de estos desafíos, ¿cree que su trabajo marca la diferencia?

Alan Mallach: El hecho es que muchas ciudades están avanzando. Pittsburgh ha realizado una excelente tarea al valorizar sus activos para desarrollar nuevos motores económicos, mientras que Baltimore y Filadelfia están haciendo grandes avances al reorganizar muchas de sus funciones gubernamentales para resolver los desafíos de propiedades vacantes y problemáticas. Baltimore, por ejemplo, ha iniciado un programa llamado De vacantes a valor (Vacants to Value) que integra el cumplimiento de códigos de edificación y las propiedades problemáticas con estrategias más abarcadoras de construcción de mercados. He tenido la fortuna de haber participado directamente en algunas ciudades, como Filadelfia y Detroit; por otro lado, siempre me gratifica cuando funcionarios locales o líderes comunitarios me cuentan que usan mi trabajo, o que mis pensamientos han influido en ellos. Esto hace que el esfuerzo valga mucho más la pena.

Antonio Azuela, a fellow of the Institute for Social Research at Mexico’s National University, holds law degrees from the Universidad Iberoamericana (Mexico) and the University of Warwick (England), as well as a Ph.D. in sociology from Mexico’s National University (UNAM). Since the late 1970s, he has been engaged in research and teaching on urban and environmental law from a sociolegal perspective. His book Visionarios y pragmáticos: Una aproximación sociológica al derecho ambiental (Visionaries and Pragmatists: A Sociological Approach to Environmental Law), Mexico: UNAM, 2006, is a sociological reconstruction of his experience as General Attorney for the Environment in the Mexican Federal Government, from 1994 to 2000. He has recently edited the book Expropiación y conflicto social en cinco metrópolis latinoamericanas (Expropriations and Social Conflict in Five Latin American Metropolises), published by UNAM and the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy in 2013.

Land Lines: How did you get involved with the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy?

Antonio Azuela: In 1991, I met several of the Institute’s officers while they were on an exploratory trip to Mexico. I stayed in touch, because I was interested in the Institute’s approach to urban policy. My relationship grew stronger in 1998 through a meeting in Cairo organized by the International Research Group on Law and Urban Space (IRGLUS), where the Institute expressed interest in a sociolegal approach to urban land problems. In 2000, I was honored with an invitation to join the Institute’s Board of Directors. Since then, I have been in permanent contact with the Lincoln Institute staff and programs.

Land Lines: Why has the public acquisition of land become such a critical issue, particularly in Latin America?

Antonio Azuela: Expropriation, also known as eminent domain (i.e., the compulsory acquisition of land by the state) is an important subject all over the world, because it is a way of procuring land for public urban projects. But in Latin America it is even more critical, due to the weak nature of the state regarding urban matters. Before the democratic transition in the region, it was easier for governments to procure land using mechanisms that would be questionable in a democracy. But the transition has strengthened the judicial branch, which is generally unsympathetic to government interventions in the marketplace. Now, it’s increasingly possible for private owners to interfere with the public acquisition of land in the region (with the notable exception of Colombia, where a wide-ranging coalition of professionals, judges, and social organizations supports the doctrine of the social function of property). This trend can be seen, for example, in the exorbitant compensation that some courts have granted for land expropriations in Mexico City and São Paulo.

Land Lines: What are the main watershed issues?

Antonio Azuela: The first is the adoption of economic policies that advocate a lesser role for the state. The second pertains to the legal status of property rights. When constitutional reforms empower judges to limit the power of eminent domain, this restriction is not necessarily bad, because it can lead to higher quality public administration, but in the short term it has interfered with government power to purchase urban land for public projects. There are two notable exceptions: In Brazil and Colombia, constitutional reforms have established urban policies inspired by ideas of social justice—though only in Colombia do we find a new generation of judges who act in accordance with these principles. In Brazil, the courts are dominated by the classic liberal view of private property, which interferes with the ability to implement the social function of property—an idea that has been circulating in Latin America for almost a century.

Land Lines: Many jurisdictions prefer to acquire land in the open market instead of using instruments such as eminent domain.

Antonio Azuela: Eminent domain should not be the first option for acquiring land. The challenge is for governments to regulate a variety of instruments in order to achieve a general goal, which is to reduce the land component of the total cost of urban development. The use of eminent domain must be guaranteed by a strong legal framework that can establish an adequate balance between the power of the state and the power of the landowners, and it should be the last option when acquiring land for public urban projects.

The big problem is the cost of land, but the mechanisms of government intervention can inflate prices. For example, if the use of eminent domain is not expected to increase land value, and the judges determine it’s the right approach, it can have a positive impact on land markets. At the very least, we can expect from governments that their acquisition of land does not raise prices.

Land Lines: What are the main outcomes of your research on the use of eminent domain for urban development in the region?

Antonio Azuela: While there is a general trend to strengthen property rights, which interferes with the power of eminent domain, this trend shows several variations, depending on the relationship between the judicial and executive branches in the post-authoritarian governments of the region. The process of institutional change depends less on global trends than on domestic and even local forces, as certain cities follow different paths from others in the same country. Even if all local governments were to adopt the same strategy, the courts in one region will protect landowners more than the courts in other regions. The metropolitan area of Buenos Aires, for example, illustrates how the institutional system of eminent domain is not homogeneous, even within the same metropolitan area. In the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires, for example, people who live in informal settlements (villas miseria) have gone to court and prevented evictions. In the Province of Buenos Aires, however, the political climate is such that there is no threat of eviction; eminent domain is used to ensure that settlers can remain where they are.

Another important lesson is that there is no authentic dialog in Latin America on the significance of eminent domain or on the various ways the courts have tackled the dilemmas it presents. While the constitutional thinking in the region is very rich in ideas about certain legal issues, such as the rights of indigenous people and the elderly, urban policies—in particular, eminent domain—have not triggered deep discussions among legal scholars. Unfortunately, these issues seem to be viewed as exceptions, despite the enormous number of people who live (suffering or enjoying) in large urban centers.

Land Lines: Are eminent domain compensations arbitrary or unfair? If so, for whom?

Antonio Azuela: Inadequate compensation is, no doubt, one of the great challenges for the future development of eminent domain as a land policy instrument. In some cases, governments may take advantage of the powerlessness of certain social groups and offer them ridiculously low compensation for their land or homes. In other cases, however, the landowner’s economic power and influence can result in exorbitant compensations. Beyond these two extremes, in which the affected landowner is either very vulnerable or very powerful, it is difficult to discern a dominant trend.

A precise answer to your question would require a market study of a large number of eminent domain cases in order to determine if the compensation is high or low when compared to preestablished criteria. The existing research has shown, however, that in general the courts do not possess clear and widely shared criteria for determining whether compensations are fair. Moreover, courts lack the capacity to understand what is at stake during the process of urban transformation in which eminent domain is used. Consider, for instance, the case of a prominent family from Ecuador that received a very high compensation for the expropriation of agricultural land on the periphery of Quito. What is remarkable is that this case was decided by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and it was obvious that the court did not establish clear criteria to determine the amount of compensation; it simply averaged the assessments submitted by the different parties. The compensation was the highest ever awarded by this high court, which was created to address violations of human rights committed by dictatorships yet ended up benefiting private property owners at the expense of the public interest. The fact that this case did not create a scandal among constitutionalists in the region indicates how marginalized urban legal issues are in Latin America.

Land Lines: What are some changing trends you have observed?

Antonio Azuela: I observe, with some optimism, that many courts and local governments in the region are undergoing a learning process, trying not to repeat prior judicial mistakes. Unfortunately, these lessons rarely transcend the affected local area and become incorporated into the common regional juridical knowledge.

Land Lines: What sort of education or training would you recommend?

Antonio Azuela: Logically, we need to intensify exchanges among different disciplines and countries, placing the courts at the center of the discussion, as they will make the final decisions. These decisions should express the best possible synthesis of a body of knowledge that we need to build around the urban dynamics of the region. In the contact we have had with the courts, with the support of the Lincoln Institute, we have found that once a dialog is established, judges understand the need to learn more in order to grasp the effects of their decisions. In other words, while the courts do not seem to show a great interest in urban problems, as evidenced by the routine attitude shown in their day-to-day decisions, they can see new perspectives for their own professional development in the context of a critical analysis of urban issues.

Land Lines: What are the critical issues that need to be investigated more deeply? What is it that we do not yet know?

Antonio Azuela: We should try to understand the logic of court decisions in the region. We frequently make a simplistic interpretation of the actions taken by the courts, because the media tend to amplify the worst cases. However, many judges make an effort to find the best possible solution to each case. Under what conditions do they operate? One of the challenges of investigating these issues in Latin America is to understand the real world in which these decisions are made, apart from the common but always relevant themes of corruption and incompetence. We need to analyze statistical information to observe general trends, combined with an ethnographic approach to the functioning of the courts. Only then will we be able to understand what needs to be reformed in order to improve the court performance in urban conflicts. While it is important to ascertain who is being favored by the court decisions—which can be done by analyzing the contents of judicial decisions—we need better understanding of the conditions under which these decisions are made. In order to do that, we need to get closer to the courts themselves.

Liz Wood quería comprar una casa. Corría el año 2006, había estado alquilando por una década y sus pagos mensuales le estaban resultando muy altos. Tenía 43 años de edad y un empleo estable como educadora familiar en el que ganaba US$34.000 al año más beneficios. No quería nada lujoso; simplemente un lugar donde pudiera “crear amor y tener estabilidad”. No quería vivir más allá de sus recursos.

De todas maneras, las cuentas no le cuadraban. Wood vive en Duvall, Washington, un pueblo de aproximadamente 7.500 habitantes al pie de las Montañas Cascade. Duvall, inmerso en un bosque frondoso, se encuentra a alrededor de 48 kilómetros de Seattle y apenas 13 kilómetros de la ciudad de Redmond, sede de Microsoft. La mediana de ingresos en Duvall es casi el doble de la del estado de Washington en general, y las viviendas de la zona son caras. En 2010, la mediana del valor de las viviendas ocupadas en Duvall era de US$373.500, en comparación con US$262.100 del estado, según la Oficina del Censo de los EE.UU.

Entre las pocas opciones que tenía, Wood se decidió finalmente por una casa prefabricada de segunda mano de US$55.000 en Duvall Riverside Village, una comunidad de dos hectáreas con 25 viviendas prefabricadas, ubicada en el centro de Duvall. “Vivir aquí es increíble”, declaró. “Mi propiedad da sobre el río, así que cuando salgo de mi casa veo agua, pinos y un sendero por el cual puedo caminar hasta el pueblo vecino. Me despierto por la mañana escuchando a los pájaros. Conozco a todos mis vecinos; estoy conectada con mi comunidad. Estoy a una cuadra de la comisaría. Me siento segura”.

Pero aun así, su situación era complicada. Wood era dueña de su casa, pero no del terreno donde estaba ubicada. Alquilaba el terreno por US$450 mensuales, más el pago del agua y los demás servicios públicos, como el resto de los residentes de Duvall Riverside Village. Por lo tanto, Wood y sus vecinos estaban básicamente a merced del dueño de la propiedad, y no gozaban de la autonomía y seguridad legal asociadas con los modelos de propiedad de vivienda más tradicionales.

El propietario prohibía la construcción de garajes, limitando las opciones de almacenamiento de los residentes. Cobraba US$25 al mes por cada automóvil o persona adulta adicional que no se hubiera registrado en el momento de la mudanza. Cobraba US$5 al mes por cada mascota y los perros no podían quedar sueltos en ningún momento. Había que pagar una cuota mensual de US$5 por cada dos metros cúbicos de leña extra, que Wood necesitaba para alimentar su estufa. Aunque el propietario había contratado un empleado de mantenimiento, no había instalado alumbrado exterior ni mantenía las calles de la comunidad, que estaban llenas de baches y grietas.

En 2012, Wood y sus vecinos recibieron un aviso por escrito de que el propietario estaba vendiendo el suelo. A diferencia de otros propietarios, que preferían vender su terreno a un emprendedor inmobiliario, este propietario estaba dispuesto a vendérselo a los residentes. Había aceptado organizar una reunión entre los inquilinos, un corredor de bienes raíces y el Centro de Desarrollo Cooperativo del Noroeste (Northwest Cooperative Development Center), una organización sin fines de lucro que apoya a las cooperativas. Las partes consideraron la posibilidad de establecer una cooperativa de residentes sin fines de lucro para comprar la propiedad. De esa manera podrían conservar el suelo para las casas prefabricadas, seguir viviendo en comunidad y administrar colectivamente un lugar seguro, económico y de alta calidad.

Los residentes votaron a favor de esta propuesta. El propietario tenía dos demandas. Quería vender su propiedad a un valor justo de mercado, y quería completar la venta antes del fin del año. Estaban ya en agosto. Tenían cinco meses.

Además de colaborar con el Centro de Desarrollo Cooperativo del Noroeste, los residentes también comenzaron a trabajar con ROC USA, una organización sin fines de lucro de Nueva Hampshire que ofrece a los residentes de comunidades de casas prefabricadas una combinación de asistencia técnica y financiamiento asequible para comprar su suelo alquilado cuando se pone a la venta. Desde su fundación en 2008, ROC USA ha facilitado con éxito 80 transacciones de este tipo en todo el país y consiguió préstamos de financiamiento por más de 175 millones de dólares.

ROC USA trabaja con una red de ocho filiales regionales, una de las cuales es el Centro de Desarrollo Cooperativo del Noroeste. En Duvall, las organizaciones sin fines de lucro trabajaron con los residentes para hacer un análisis económico de la oferta y confirmar que era una buena oportunidad para que los residentes fueran propietarios de la comunidad. A continuación, las organizaciones ayudaron a los residentes a contratar a un abogado independiente y establecer su cooperativa, que funcionaría como una democracia, en la que los residentes elegirían a sus propios dirigentes. ROC USA ayudó a los residentes a contratar a un ingeniero independiente para realizar la diligencia debida de la propiedad; a conseguir financiamiento a través de la subsidiaria de préstamo de ROC USA, llamada ROC USA Capital; a comprar la propiedad y realizar las reparaciones indispensables; y a organizar la transferencia inmobiliaria.

El 27 de diciembre de ese año, la nueva cooperativa compró Duvall Riverside Village con US$1,3 millones en financiamiento de ROC USA Capital, y Wood y los demás propietarios pasaron a controlar sus propias viviendas y a preservar de forma permanente 25 viviendas económicas en un pueblo donde la oferta de este tipo de viviendas es escasa.

Los residentes continuaron pagando US$450 mensuales para alquilar el terreno, pero ahora votan para establecer las reglas de la comunidad, y usan el pago del alquiler para realizar mejoras y pagar la hipoteca, los impuestos y los gastos de comunidad.

“Ahora puedes tener un garaje si quieres”, explica Wood, que es la presidente de la cooperativa de residentes de Duvall y miembro de la junta directiva de ROC USA. “E invertimos US$35.000 para arreglar las calles. Ya no tenemos que vivir con temor, así que la gente está dispuesta a invertir en sus casas. Tenemos reuniones anuales para votar sobre proyectos. Si en el presupuesto hay cosas que no necesitamos, podemos reducir nuestro alquiler mensual. En última instancia, controlamos nuestro propio destino”.

Después de completar la venta, ROC USA y el Centro de Desarrollo Cooperativo del Noroeste han seguido proporcionando a los residentes asistencia técnica para garantizar el buen funcionamiento de la comunidad.

“Si simplemente nos hubieran prestado dinero y nos hubieran dicho: ‘Estas son las pautas, y esto es lo que tienen que hacer’, hubiéramos fracasado”, explica Wood. “Pero son un recurso constante. Nos ayudan en situaciones difíciles o cuando no sabemos hacer algo de forma legal. Nuestra meta es independizarnos y poder administrar nuestra comunidad como un negocio. Pague sus cuentas y su casa puede quedarse donde está. Punto. Para siempre”.

Beneficios

Más de 18 millones de estadounidenses viven en casas prefabricadas, lo cual representa el 5 por ciento del inventario de viviendas en las áreas metropolitanas de los Estados Unidos, y un 15 por ciento en las comunidades rurales. Su calidad tiene variaciones significativas. Aproximadamente el 25 por ciento de las casas prefabricadas son las casas rodantes frágiles desvencijadas de la década de 1960 y comienzos de la de 1970, fabricadas antes de que el gobierno federal introdujera controles de calidad en 1976. El 75 por ciento restante cumple con las normas federales, y muchas son viviendas agradables y térmicamente eficientes, que a simple vista no se pueden distinguir de las viviendas tradicionales construidas sobre el terreno. Si bien las casas prefabricadas han sido despreciadas durante mucho tiempo como el último recurso para vivienda, los modelos actuales son robustos, eficientes y atractivos, con el potencial de aliviar la carencia de viviendas seguras y económicas en el país.

Las casas prefabricadas modernas cuestan aproximadamente la mitad que las construidas sobre el terreno, y se pueden construir cinco veces más rápido, convirtiéndose en una opción realmente viable para los consumidores de bajos ingresos. El proceso de producción es menos costoso y los modelos que cumplen con las normas Energy Star del gobierno federal ofrecen a los propietarios un importante ahorro de energía. Y son duraderas. Mientras que las casas prefabricadas construidas antes de las regulaciones de 1976 fueron diseñadas para ser portátiles, como vehículos recreativos, los modelos modernos están construidos con materiales más fuertes y diseñados para ser permanentes. Las casas prefabricadas de hoy pueden sustentarse en los mismos tipos de cimientos que se usarían para una estructura construida sobre el terreno, ofreciendo flexibilidad para usarlas en una amplia gama de geografías y ambientes.

“El inventario de casas prefabricadas es un componente fundamental de las viviendas económicas del país”, dice George McCarthy, presidente y Director Ejecutivo del Instituto Lincoln de Políticas de Suelo. “Supera fácilmente dos o tres veces el inventario de viviendas subsidiadas en casi todos los mercados”.

Las casas prefabricadas son más baratas de producir que las casas construidas sobre el terreno, debido a su proceso de manufactura. Andrea Levere, presidente de Corporation for Enterprise Development, ha escrito en The Huffington Post que “el término ‘casa prefabricada’ tiene menos que ver con la calidad que con el proceso de producción, que deriva de las cadenas de montaje creadas por Henry Ford. Este modelo permite construir las casas prefabricadas en un ambiente de trabajo más controlado, con costos más predecibles, mayor eficiencia y menos residuos” (Levere 2013).

En 2013, el costo de una nueva casa prefabricada térmicamente eficiente era de US$64.000, en comparación con los US$324.500 de una nueva casa construida sobre el terreno, según el Censo de los Estados Unidos, si bien el precio de la segunda incluye el suelo. Pero incluso cuando se descuenta el costo del suelo, las casas prefabricadas siguen siendo significativamente más baratas, con un promedio de US$4 por metro cuadrado, en comparación con US$8,7 por metro cuadrado para las casas construidas sobre el terreno. Y no son viviendas subsidiadas, lo cual es una ventaja cuando se tiene en cuenta la oferta extremadamente escasa de viviendas subsidiadas en comparación con la demanda. En la actualidad, sólo una de cuatro familias que reúne los requisitos debido a sus bajos ingresos recibe una vivienda subsidiada, de acuerdo a la Comisión Bipartidista de Políticas, dejando al 75 por ciento restante en necesidad de una alternativa económica sin subsidiar. Al ayudar a cubrir ese vacío, las casas prefabricadas pueden aliviar algo esta demanda de casas subsidiadas que los gobiernos estatales y el gobierno federal tienen tanta dificultad para ofrecer debido a la reducción de sus presupuestos. “La mayoría de las familias que viven en casas prefabricadas serían elegibles para viviendas subsidiadas, pero en su lugar eligen esta opción más barata y sin subsidio”, dice McCarthy.

El inventario es también muy versátil, señala McCarthy, citando el papel que las casas prefabricadas cumplieron en el periodo inmediatamente posterior al Huracán Sandy. “Los trabajadores de emergencia instalaron 17 casas prefabricadas en Nueva Jersey a pocas semanas del huracán. Estas eran casas permanentes para inquilinos desplazados, no los problemáticos ‘tráileres Katrina’. Y lo hicieron antes de que la mayoría de las organizaciones elaborara siquiera un plan de vivienda. Esto es una muestra de la eficiencia y flexibilidad de las casas prefabricadas. Los plazos de producción son aproximadamente 80 por ciento más cortos que los de las casas construidas sobre el terreno, convirtiéndolas en la mejor opción de vivienda como respuesta a las catástrofes”.

De todas maneras, las casas prefabricadas con frecuencia tienen mala reputación, debido en gran medida a la percepción equivocada de que los modelos de hoy en día son los mismos que los de las primeras generaciones de casas móviles, antes de la introducción de normas de control de calidad por el Departamento de Vivienda y Desarrollo Urbano en 1976. Hoy en día hay aproximadamente 2 millones de casas construidas antes de 1976; muchas de ellas apenas se sostienen erguidas, y alojan a la población más vulnerable, como los ancianos y discapacitados. Si bien el inventario de viviendas anteriores a 1976 no tiene casi relación con sus contrapartes de la actualidad, estas viviendas más viejas y deterioradas dominan la percepción pública de las casas prefabricadas en los Estados Unidos.

La reputación del inventario de estas viviendas es aún menor por las vulnerabilidades que tienen los residentes que no son dueños del terreno donde viven. Aproximadamente 3 millones de personas viven en una de las 50.000 comunidades de viviendas prefabricadas del país, mientras que otros 3 millones alquilan una casa prefabricada en terrenos privados. Hay comunidades de casas prefabricadas en todos los estados del país. Como en el caso de Duvall Riverside Village, muchas se encuentran en terrenos privilegiados, y los propietarios de esos terrenos reciben habitualmente ofertas de emprendedores inmobiliarios.

Los promotores de casas prefabricadas y de su viabilidad como alternativa de vivienda económica se han enfocado en tres áreas fundamentales de innovación: conservar los parques de casas móviles; reemplazar las unidades anteriores a 1976 por casas térmicamente eficientes; y aumentar el acceso a financiamiento asequible para los compradores potenciales, ya que es prácticamente inaccesible en el mercado actual, y es imperativo para acumular un patrimonio neto y preservar el valor de reventa de la casa.

Conservación de las comunidades de casas prefabricadas

La conversión de una comunidad de casas prefabricadas de propiedad privada a una cooperativa de residentes, como se hizo en Duvall Riverside Village, no es frecuente. Por cada comunidad que se ofrece a la venta y se preserva satisfactoriamente como vivienda económica, hay muchas más que se terminan vendiendo para realizar emprendimientos inmobiliarios, desplazando a los residentes, quienes quizás no tengan ninguna otra buena alternativa.

“No es tan sencillo como sólo mover la casa”, dice Ishbel Dickens, presidente de la Asociación Nacional de Propietarios de Casas Prefabricadas. “Primero está la cuestión de si la casa se puede mover. Puede ser demasiado vieja o inestable para moverse. Y aunque se pueda mover, esta operación es cara, y es muy difícil encontrar un espacio en otra comunidad. En la mayoría de los casos, cuando un parque de casas cierra, los residentes probablemente van a perder la casa y todos sus recursos. Lo más probable es que nunca puedan ser propietarios de una vivienda. Probablemente terminarán en una lista de viviendas subsidiadas, o acabarán viviendo en la calle”.

Hasta cierto punto, es un accidente histórico que tantos parques de casas móviles ocupen terrenos valiosos, dice Paul Bradley, presidente de ROC USA. En las décadas de 1950 y 1960, los estadounidenses comenzaron a comprar casas rodantes, en parte debido al surgimiento de una cultura de recreación al aire libre, y en parte debido a que las fábricas comenzaron a producirlas para utilizar la capacidad de manufactura excedente después de la Segunda Guerra Mundial, haciéndolas atractivas y asequibles. A medida que las unidades se fueron haciendo más populares, pasaron de ser estructuras transitorias a permanentes, y la gente comenzó a agregar garajes provisionales para sus automóviles y solarios. En ese momento, los planificadores urbanos aceptaron la evolución hacia la permanencia. Desde su punto de vista, la mayoría de las casa rodantes se encontraban en terrenos periféricos que no se usaban para emprendimientos inmobiliarios. ¿Qué tenía de malo dejar estas casas móviles por un tiempo hasta que las ciudades se expandieran hasta llegar allí, y en ese momento desarrollar el suelo?

“Estas comunidades originales se construyeron con un plan en mente para eliminarlas”, dice Bradley. “En ese entonces, nadie contempló las consecuencias de crear un inventario de viviendas donde los propietarios no podían controlar el suelo donde se encontraban. Nadie anticipó que estas comunidades se llenarían de propietarios de bajos y moderados ingresos, quienes invertían su dinero para comprar estas casas y tenían muy pocas alternativas viables. Y hoy en día todavía estamos tratando de resolver este problema. Esta falta de control del suelo significa que los propietarios de las viviendas viven con una profunda sensación de inseguridad, y de que es absurdo efectuar inversiones en su vivienda, porque nunca las van a poder recuperar. ¿Cuál es la consecuencia para un propietario que no puede invertir racionalmente en su casa? ¿Qué significa esto para el inventario de viviendas? ¿Para los barrios?”

Las políticas de corto plazo para el uso del suelo no son el único problema para preservar las comunidades de casas prefabricadas. Otro obstáculo igualmente oneroso es la falta de protección legal para los residentes. En 34 estados y el Distrito de Columbia, el propietario puede vender el terreno sin dar a los residentes la oportunidad de comprarlo. De hecho, en la mayoría de los estados el propietario no tiene siquiera que notificar a los residentes que la comunidad está a la venta; puede esperar hasta que la propiedad se haya vendido antes de informar a los residentes de la transacción, dejándolos de golpe en una situación muy frágil. Incluso los 16 estados que exigen al propietario la notificación previa a la comunidad de la venta de viviendas prefabricadas no brindan necesariamente las protecciones que requieren los inquilinos. “En la mayoría de los estados con notificación previa, hay tantas limitaciones en los requerimientos de la notificación que pocas veces sirve de algo a los residentes”, dice Carolyn Carter, directora de promoción en el Centro Nacional de Derecho del Consumidor (National Consumer Law Center).

Para proteger mejor a los promotores respaldan reformas legislativas a las leyes estatales e incentivos tributarios para que los propietarios vendan el suelo a los residentes. La estrategia más efectiva consiste en promulgar leyes estatales que requieren al dueño que dé un aviso anticipado de la venta a los residentes (idealmente de 60 días) junto con la oportunidad de comprar la propiedad, señala Carter. Según ella, hay seis estados que tienen leyes que “funcionan en la práctica, y brindan oportunidades reales para que los residentes compren sus comunidades”: Nueva Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Florida, Vermont y Delaware. Dice también que Oregón promulgó una legislación prometedora en enero de 2015. “En estos estados con avisos efectivos y leyes que brindan la oportunidad de comprar, está tomando fuerza el que los residentes se conviertan en propietarios”, explica Carter.

Aproximadamente el 46 por ciento de las 80 comunidades respaldadas por ROC USA se encuentra en Nueva Hampshire o Massachusetts, dos estados pequeños con algunas de las protecciones más efectivas del país para los residentes. Hay 89 cooperativas de residentes adicionales en Nueva Hampshire anteriores al lanzamiento de ROC USA.

Para comprender el valor de las leyes de protección firmes para los residentes, basta con contar la historia de Ryder Woods, un parque de 174 casas móviles en Milford, Connecticut, a 18 kilómetros al sur de New Haven, pegado a una carretera principal. Connecticut es uno de 19 estados que ofrecen incentivos tributarios o brindan a los residentes “algunas” protecciones cuando se vende la comunidad, aunque también presenta “importantes vacíos”, según Carter. En 1998, el dueño de Ryder Woods vendió su propiedad a emprendedores inmobiliarios. Informó a los residentes por medio de avisos de desalojo, en contravención de las leyes estatales, que le exigían no sólo dar un aviso por adelantado de la venta pendiente sino también ofrecerles la oportunidad de ser los primeros en comprar el suelo. Ryder Woods tenía una asociación de propietarios activa y rápidamente se organizaron protestas, peticiones y campañas ante la legislatura estatal para cancelar la venta. Finalmente, los medios de comunicación se hicieron cargo de la historia, y una abogada de Milford ofreció sus servicios de forma voluntaria para ayudarlos. A medida que profundizaba en el caso, se dio cuenta de que la ley estaba del lado de los residentes, y que la comunidad necesitaba más respaldo legal que el que ella podía ofrecer por sí sola. Pidió ayuda a un amigo y colega, socio de una importante compañía de Hartford, que aceptó tomar el caso pro bono y asignó la tarea a un equipo de abogados. El caso finalizó en un juicio y en última instancia llegó hasta la corte suprema estatal. El comprador original, que no estaba interesado en este embrollo legal, vendió la propiedad a un segundo emprendedor.

Cuatro años después de la venta original, el tribunal falló a favor de los residentes. En un pacto sin precedentes, y como parte del acuerdo, el segundo emprendedor compró un nuevo terreno a un kilómetro y medio de la parcela original y reconstruyó completamente allí la comunidad. El emprendedor compró 174 casas móviles nuevas y se las vendió a los residentes a un precio significativamente reducido, con hipotecas más favorables que cualquier otro financiamiento convencional del mercado. Construyó un centro comunitario y un estanque que completó con cisnes. Y como parte del acuerdo dio a los residentes la oportunidad de formar una cooperativa y comprar el terreno, lo cual hicieron en 2009 con un financiamiento de compra de US$5,4 millones de ROC USA Capital. La escritura de compra se firmó en las oficinas de la mencionada compañía de Hartford, la cual siguió prestando sus servicios de forma voluntaria a los residentes hasta que se completó la venta. Hoy, en el suelo que ocupaba la comunidad original de Ryder Woods, hay una tienda de Walmart.

“A veces, cuando recordamos lo que pasó, pensamos que fue una locura. Contratamos un autobús, fuimos a Hartford, hablamos con la legislatura, y luchamos. Nos juntamos y ganamos contra dos emprendedores multimillonarios”, explica Lynn Nugent, de 68 años de edad, vendedora a tiempo parcial en una tienda de Sears, y una de los residentes que ayudó a organizar la campaña junto con su marido, cerrajero jubilado. “Yo siempre digo: Antes pertenecíamos a otra persona; ahora nos pertenecemos a nosotros mismos”.

Mejor acceso a casas prefabricadas económicas y de calidad

A diferencia de los residentes de Ryder Woods, muchos propietarios de casas prefabricadas tienen problemas para conseguir una unidad de calidad con un financiamiento asequible. De nuevo, el principal responsable es la legislación. Según la ley federal, las casas prefabricadas se consideran una propiedad personal, como un automóvil o una embarcación, y no una propiedad inmueble como las casas tradicionales. Por lo tanto, los compradores no pueden acceder a préstamos hipotecarios. En cambio, el financiamiento se realiza por medio de préstamos personales. Estos préstamos son más caros que las hipotecas, con un promedio de tasas de interés 50 a 500 puntos básicos mayor, y con menores protecciones al consumidor. Más del 70 por ciento de los préstamos para la compra de casas prefabricadas es de este tipo, considerado un sustituto de productos subprime.

“Esta situación de pertenecer a un segundo nivel es una de las mayores limitaciones para aumentar el inventario de casas prefabricadas permanentemente asequibles”, dice McCarthy. “Es un obstáculo al financiamiento de las casas, incrementando su costo y reduciendo el potencial de acumulación de patrimonio neto, porque reduce la demanda efectiva de unidades existentes”.

Si bien la solución ideal sería cambiar las leyes federales de la titulación, no es probable que ocurra. En cambio, Next Step, una organización sin fines de lucro de Kentucky, ha establecido el concepto de “Viviendas Prefabricadas Hechas Correctamente” (Manufactured Housing Done Right o MHDR)”. Esta estrategia innovadora pone casas prefabricadas asequibles de alta calidad —junto con el financiamiento correspondiente— a disposición de consumidores de ingresos bajos a moderados, por medio de una combinación de casas térmicamente eficientes, educación a los compradores y financiamiento barato. Funciona de la siguiente manera.

Primero, Next Step brinda a los compradores de bajos ingresos acceso a casas prefabricadas de alta calidad. La organización creó una cartera de modelos sólidos y asequibles. Cada casa de Next Step cumple o excede las normas Energy Star, reduciendo tanto los costos de los servicios públicos para el propietario como la huella medioambiental. De acuerdo a Next Step, las pruebas han demostrado que estas casas son un 30 por ciento más eficientes que una casa básica que cumple con el código de edificación, y 10 a 15 por ciento más eficiente que una casa Energy Star básica. En promedio, esto genera un ahorro de energía de US$1.800 al año por cada casa móvil anterior a 1976 reemplazada, y US$360 al año por cada casa nueva establecida.

Además, las casas de Next Step están “diseñadas para garantizar que sean económicas al tiempo que cumplen con las normas de calidad”. Se instalan sobre cimientos permanentes, proporcionando un mayor soporte estructural contra el viento y reduciendo los problemas de asentamiento. Las casas tienen pisos y aislamiento de alta calidad, lo cual ayuda a aumentar su durabilidad y reducir los gastos de energía. Y como el problema principal de los cimientos es el agua, las casas de Next Step tienen protecciones adicionales contra la humedad.

Mejor acceso a financiamiento sostenible

Next Step también asegura a los compradores de vivienda un financiamiento seguro, sostenible y económico. “Uno de los problemas de esta industria es que los mercados de capital no participan de forma importante”, explica Stacey Epperson, Directora Ejecutiva de Next Step. “No hay un mercado secundario significativo, de manera que hay muy pocos prestamistas en el mercado y muy pocas opciones para los compradores. Nuestra solución es preparar a nuestros prestatarios para que sean propietarios, y después conseguirles buenos préstamos”.

Next Step trabaja con una combinación de prestamistas con y sin fines de lucro, aprobados por la organización, que proporcionan un financiamiento seguro a precios razonables. Como contrapartida, Next Step reduce el riesgo de los prestamistas. Las casas están diseñadas para cumplir con los requisitos de los prestamistas, y los compradores reciben capacitación financiera integral para que puedan tener éxito como compradores. Por lo tanto, los compradores de casas de Next Step no sólo obtienen una mejor hipoteca inicial, sino que tienen la capacidad para acumular patrimonio neto y obtener un buen precio de reventa cuando decidan vender su casa.

Además, cada casa de Next Step se instala sobre un cimiento permanente para que el propietario pueda cumplir con los requisitos de ciertos programas hipotecarios con garantía gubernamental, que son menos onerosos que un préstamo personal. Next Step estima que ha ahorrado a sus 173 propietarios aproximadamente US$16,1 millones en pagos de interés.

“En estos momentos, cerca del 75 por ciento del financiamiento de casas prefabricadas se hace con préstamos personales. Pero el 70 por ciento de casas nuevas prefabricadas se instala en suelos privados donde, en muchos casos, la casa se podría colocar sobre un cimiento permanente, y el dueño podría obtener una hipoteca de largo plazo con una baja tasa de interés”, dice Epperson.

El modelo de MHDR es innovador en parte porque es escalable. Next Step capacita y depende de una red de organizaciones miembros sin fines de lucro para implementar el modelo en sus comunidades respectivas. Next Step vende casas a sus miembros a precios competitivos, y después las organizaciones miembros supervisan el proceso de identificar y educar a los compradores, ayudando a conseguir el préstamo y administrando la instalación.

“En el modelo tradicional de la industria, no había manera de que una organización sin fines de lucro pudiera comprar una casa prefabricada a precios de mayorista. Esto es lo que hemos diseñado, y como resultado podemos ofrecer una vivienda mucho más económica que si la organización sin fines de lucro o el propietario tratara de comprarlas por sí mismos”, explica Kevin Clayton, presidente y Director Ejecutivo de Clayton Homes, uno de los productores más grandes de casas prefabricadas del país, y uno de los proveedores de largo plazo de Next Step.

“El programa Next Step funciona porque prepara a la gente para tener éxito”, dice Clayton. “Next Step les ofrece asesoramiento para ser propietarios y les brinda apoyo si tienen problemas económicos en el futuro. Pueden comprar su casa por mucho menos dinero, acumular patrimonio neto y pagar una cuota mensual baja por su préstamo y sus costos de energía”.

Cyndee Curtis, una propietaria de Next Step, está de acuerdo. Curtis tenía 27 años de edad, era soltera y estaba embarazada cuando compró una casa móvil usada modelo Fleetwood de 1971 por US$5.000 en 2001. La colocó en un lote de su propiedad en las afueras de Great Falls, Montana.

“No tenía dinero, no tenía un título universitario, y no tenía opciones”, dice Curtis. “El viejo tanque séptico de acero tenía agujeros por el óxido, era como una bomba de tiempo. La alfombra estaba completamente gastada, el linóleo debajo de la alfombra tenía agujeros de quemaduras, y el cielorraso tenía fugas donde se había colocado una extensión de la casa. Todos los años compraba libros de construcción, iba a Home Depot y preguntaba cómo arreglar esa fuga. Y todos los años me encontraba en la situación de arreglarla sola. Había moho en el umbral de la puerta debido a esa fuga, y tenía un recién nacido viviendo en la casa”.

En 2005, Curtis volvió a la universidad por dos años, obtuvo su título de enfermera y comenzó a trabajar como enfermera práctica registrada, ganando US$28.500 por año. “Ahora que estaba ganando un sueldo decente, podía explorar mis opciones”, dijo Curtis, madre soltera de dos hijos. “Quería conseguir un lugar donde mis hijos pudieran crecer con orgullo, y aprovechar el lote al máximo”.

Pero su historial de crédito no era bueno, y finalmente recaló en NeighborWorks Montana, un miembro sin fines de lucro de Next Step, que le informó sobre el programa de Next Step. En los dos años y medio siguientes, Curtis trabajó con el personal de NeighborWorks Montana para reparar su historial de crédito. Con su ayuda, consiguió una hipoteca y compró una casa de Next Step por US$102.000, que incluía no sólo la casa sino también la extracción, eliminación y recambio de su viejo sistema séptico. Como la casa de Next Step está instalada sobre un cimiento permanente que reúne ciertas calificaciones, y debido a haberse mejorado el historial de crédito, los ingresos y las condiciones de vivienda de Curtis, pudo conseguir una hipoteca del programa de Desarrollo Rural del Departamento de Agricultura de los EE.UU., mucho menos onerosa que los préstamos personales comunes. Además, mientras que la casa móvil anterior de Curtis tenía un título equivalente a un automóvil, su casa de Next Step tiene una escritura similar a la de una casa construida sobre el terreno. Por lo tanto, un futuro comprador también estará en condiciones de solicitar una hipoteca tradicional.

Curtis dice que su casa de Next Step le ha proporcionado ahorros de energía significativos. “Tengo 40 metros cuadrados más que antes. Antes tenía un baño; ahora tengo dos. Y sin embargo, mis gastos de gas y electricidad se han reducido en dos tercios”.

Dice además: “Mi casa es mil por ciento mejor que donde vivía antes. Si una persona entra a mi casa, no se da cuenta de que es prefabricada. Tiene lindas puertas, con paredes texturizadas. Se parece a cualquier otra casa nueva donde uno quisiera vivir. A veces la gente cree que tiene que sufrir con una vivienda en malas condiciones. Yo sé lo que es vivir así, y les quiero decir que si trabajan con dedicación pueden mejorar su vida y la de su familia”

Loren Berlin es escritora y consultora de comunicaciones del área metropolitana de Chicago.

Referencias

Levere, Andrea. 2013. “Hurricane Sandy and the Merits of Manufactured Housing.” Huffington Post. 8 de enero. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrea-levere/hurricane-sandy-manufactured-housing_b_2426797.html

This issue of Land Lines highlights many aspects of the Institute’s international education program. We are engaged with colleagues around the world who share our interests in land and tax policy issues, which are often the most critical issues facing developing and transition countries. Policy makers, academics and citizens look to the Lincoln Institute for guidance and training on both the policy and practice of land use planning and development and the valuation and taxation of land and buildings.

However, I believe our international program can also provide important lessons for U.S. policy makers. For example, the participatión en plusvalías in Colombia is an effort to capture for public benefit the land value increments that result from public actions, such as infrastructure investment. The fairness of this policy seems very persuasive, and the Colombian effort to implement a practical instrument to capture this value can provide important insights.

Over the past six years, most of the Institute’s international work has been in Latin America and the Caribbean. Extensive networks of colleagues help us clarify the issues, identify partners, convene appropriate audiences and develop relevant pedagogical materials that supplement our basic curriculum. In learning from them we have been instrumental in fostering the debate on land and tax policy and have had a real impact in the region.

The Institute is also actively engaged with colleagues facing the challenges of implementing new tax policies in South Africa and Eastern Europe. The editors of a new Lincoln Institute book on property taxation in South Africa are using that volume in a series of seminars and workshops with municipal officials this spring, thus providing direct input to legislation now being debated in that country. Another recently published book by Institute faculty offers a comparative analysis of property taxation in six Central and Eastern European countries whose economies are in transition from a centralized to a market-based system.

The Institute also has a 30-year relationship with the Republic of China, in conjunction with the International Center for Land Policy Studies and Training, and we are beginning a new program in the People’s Republic of China through the Ministry of Land and Resources with Beijing and Renmin universities and the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

On a sad note, the Institute, Brazil and the world mourn the loss of Mayor Celso Daniel of Santo Andre, a city near São Paulo. He was tragically assassinated in January. Daniel had been a regular faculty member in our courses in Brazil and throughout Latin America. He was a progressive mayor and leader of the Workers Party in Brazil, and in 2000 he was re-elected for the third time with over 70 percent of the votes cast. He was a wonderful person and a close friend who will be missed.

In these turbulent times in so many countries worldwide, we will continue to reach out to those who are taking leadership roles in forging new alliances within their cities and regions to develop the most appropriate land use and taxation policies and practices.