SHARE
In a report titled A Rise in Downtown Living, the Brookings Institution and the Fannie Mae Foundation (1998) highlighted an emerging land use movement in 24 U.S. cities. The release of the 2000 U.S. Census data verified the progress in those cities in another brief, Downtown Rebound (Sohmer and Lang 2001). While these publications alerted the nation to a possible trend, they did have some limitations, which inspired Eugenie Birch’s follow-up study, A Rise in Downtown Living: A Deeper Look, funded by Lincoln Institute, the University of Pennsylvania and the Fannie Mae Foundation.
This study, initiated in summer 1999, employs census data analysis, survey research, personal interviews and field visits to the sample cities. Birch draws on a larger and more representative sample of 45 cities, including 37 percent of the nation’s 100 most populous cities selected for balanced regional distribution, and of these 100 percent of the top 10 and 62 percent of the top 50. The sample includes 19 percent of the 243 cities having a population of 100,000 or more. Birch defined each city’s downtown by census tracts to create a baseline for mapping and collected data on nine population and housing factors for the downtowns and their cities and Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) over three decades. Birch administered two mail surveys, in 1999 and 2001, of city officials and business improvement district leaders to identify their respective roles in encouraging downtown housing, and she is currently making site visits to all 45 cities to verify the census data and survey results.
In this article, Birch summarizes seven key findings of her research, which were also presented at a Lincoln Institute lecture in March 2002 and reported in the APA Journal (Birch 2002).
The Definition of Downtown
Although most people think they understand what downtown is, there is no single socioeconomic meaning or geographical definition for the term. While U.S. downtowns share several common characteristics (a central business district at the core, access to substantial transportation networks, a supply of high-density buildings, expensive land), they differ dramatically in their age, size, functions, contents and character. Furthermore, downtowns are in a state of flux as their boundaries and contents are changing. Tracking downtown boundaries over time reveals that in almost all the cities in the sample, the downtowns of today are remarkably different in size (measured in the number of census tracts included) than they were 20 years ago. Downtowns that are incorporating residences are also attracting more community-serving facilities, such as supermarkets or cineplexes that used to be in neighborhoods. Maps of the several downtowns, created as part of this study, illustrate the size variations.
Residential Populations by the Numbers
The rates of increase in downtown residential populations vary enormously among cities. While downtown growth rates are impressive, numerical counts for MSAs still overshadow those of downtowns. Measuring the growth against basic benchmarks (1970 population levels for the defined downtowns and comparative growth rates with city and MSA) reveals just how fragile this movement is. For example, only 38 percent of the sample cities had more downtown residents in 2000 than in 1970. Only one-third had a downtown population growth rate between 1970 and 2000 that was greater than that of their cities. For the same period, 42 percent of the sample showed a negative downtown growth rate even when their cities had positive numbers. Finally, only seven cities (Chicago, Cleveland, Los Angeles, New York, Norfolk, San Francisco and Seattle) had downtown growth rates that exceeded those of their MSAs in the entire 30-year period.
Looking at the data decade-by-decade tells a different story. Not surprisingly, downtown population declined most severely in the 1970s, when 89 percent of the sample showed losses that ranged from 2.4 percent (Des Moines) to 60 percent (Orlando). In contrast, by the 1990s more than three-quarters (78 percent) of the sample posted increases. However, only four cities (Los Angeles, New York, San Diego and Seattle) had gains in all three decades. Comparing city and MSA data shows similar nuances.
Downtowns also vary in the amount and level of residential development. In 2000 for example, 24 percent of the sample cities had 20,000 or more downtown residents, while 20 percent had fewer than 5,000, and a great deal of diversity exists within the categories. Denver’s downtowners number just over 4,200, but most observers perceive the city’s record in attracting residents as a stand-out success, while Cincinnati, with about 3,200 downtown residents, is struggling to maintain a critical mass. At the other end of the scale, Chicago’s 73,000 and Philadelphia’s 78,000 downtowners are integrated into their larger metropolises.
Differences in the proportion of a city’s population that lives downtown are also striking. For example, Boston and Philadelphia have roughly equal downtown populations, but Boston’s comprises 14 percent of the total while Philadelphia’s is only 5 percent. Finally, a simple numerical listing of the sample downtowns is misleading. Downtown population growth has occurred at varying rates with some cities experiencing the phenomenon for a longer time than others. This may account for the greater success of some cities. Also, given the varying geographical size of the different downtowns, density measures as well as demographic analysis should be added to any assessment in order to gauge the potential impact (economic, political, social) of new residents.
Approaches to Creating Downtown Housing
Over the past decade, policy makers and investors have relied on six types of approaches to create downtown housing, and they often blend more than one of these:
To accomplish these ends, cities have engaged in creative financing, leveraging public funds, tax credits, gap financing pools and other tools at their disposal. Philadelphia, Boston and Lower Manhattan present examples of the office conversion trend, while Atlanta, Minneapolis, Cincinnati and Cleveland have employed warehouse store adaptive reuse. Charlotte represents a combination of HOPE VI, new construction and historic preservation. The found-land approach is seen in Milwaukee with its riverfront redevelopment (including brownfields remediation), Cincinnati with its expressway diversion/riverfront development, Des Moines with its construction of a new downtown neighborhood, and New York at Battery Park City. Chicago is the king of mixed-use new construction. Columbus (Georgia), Lexington and Chattanooga have fostered historic districting as a means to protect older, downtown residential neighborhoods.
Deep Roots of Success
Today’s growth in downtown living is the fruit of more than five decades of sustained attention to downtown revitalization. It has come about because cities have steadily improved their environments through downtown planning and additions of new elements to reinvent their old central business districts. In so doing, they have transformed their downtowns into new, hip places, thus making them competitive and attractive for housing. Although specific municipal policies such as favorable tax treatment, zoning amendments and infrastructure investments have, without doubt, flamed the private market activities in downtown housing, public investment in large-scale projects dating from the mid-1950s to the present have helped create a sympathetic climate for this investment. Preliminary evidence shows a strong relationship between investor choices and the presence of new downtown amenities. For example, developers in Los Angeles, Denver, Baltimore, Detroit and Memphis cite the presence of stadiums or sports arenas as important factors in their location decisions.
Demographic Characteristics of Downtowners
Downtowners are more affluent, more highly educated and more white than the city dwellers overall, but more diverse than those in the MSA. Singles, empty-nesters, gays, and childless or small households are more highly represented in downtowns than in MSAs. Families with children are present but not dominant. Other submarkets are students and the elderly. In some cities where the housing market is tight, notably Boston, New York, Chicago and San Francisco, low- and moderate-income groups are reporting difficulty in finding space for affordable housing. In other cities like Charlotte that have an excess of downtown land, much of it devoted to parking lots, the issue is not space but cost. In these contexts, questions arise as to what resources should be devoted to high-rent downtown units.
Private Development Efforts
Promoting downtown housing has emerged as a central strategy of private downtown groups, mainly business improvement district (BIDs), working with municipal government, often city planning and/or economic development departments. In 59 percent of the sample, BIDS or other privately sponsored organizations have engaged in pro-housing campaigns. As membership organizations their internal needs drive the agenda, so the amount and nature of their efforts vary widely.
Contribution to Citywide Growth
Downtown growth has contributed to the numeric changes in citywide populations in many cities. While the percentage contribution to overall municipal growth is often quite small, in 53 percent of the sample cities the downtown numerical contribution is a significant portion of the total, and in another 22 percent of the sample cities the downtown portion has offset losses in other parts of the city. In other words, without the downtown population growth, 60 percent of the sample would be worse off. In Boston, for example, downtowners constituted 25 percent of the increased number of people living in the city, while in Pittsburgh the additional downtowners reduced the city’s population loss by only one percentage point.
Conclusions
Reviewing these seven findings reveals a few themes. Downtowns are ever-changing places. Their functions, their boundaries and their very characters have been evolving in the postwar period. They are like complicated jigsaw puzzles with players (urban leaders) fitting the pieces together slowly. Just as assemblers first frame a puzzle and then fill in the center, city leaders have provided infrastructure outlines—streets or street improvements, schools, redeveloped river edges, improved open space—and now are adding other parts. Downtown living is one of these. In many places it has fit very well, especially in the past ten years. In a few cases, new downtown residents contribute significantly to the numerical growth of their city’s population. Just as certainly, many downtowns have not really kept up with their MSAs, and a majority of cities have yet to recover their 1970 populations. Nonetheless, having formerly vacant and/or abandoned buildings occupied (and eventually paying taxes) and having more (and more diverse) people on the streets night and day, weekday and weekend, are positive factors for urban life.
Making sense of this housing phenomenon requires not only placing it in the context of contemporary metropolitan development but also making it part of an evaluation of past urban redevelopment programs. Downtown living is not a silver bullet for curing urban ills but one element of an ongoing planning and investment effort for a part of the city.
Public/private partnerships have been essential in achieving changes in downtown living. The existence of productive interplay between focused interest groups, especially the growing number of business improvement district leaders, and public planning and economic development units has resulted in bold, imaginative, creative and thoughtful approaches to creating housing opportunities.
The findings and themes in this research give rise to other questions related to individual downtowns. These include an evaluation of the costs and benefits of attracting different types of downtowners and an assessment of the reasons why some places have been more successful than others in gaining the populations. This information that would be useful, for example, for policy makers in cities having less developed downtowns who first must decide whether a downtown living approach is appropriate for their cities and, second, must determine whether supportive incentives or complementary activities are needed. Other questions revolve around how to spread downtown progress to nearby neighborhoods without provoking displacement or unwanted gentrification and how to resolve the inevitable political disputes that will arise with the newcomers.
All in all, the rise in downtown living is as complex and layered as any urban issue. While widely reported in the popular press, it deserves a balanced, scholarly appraisal. This study raises important planning and development issues that still need attention: for example, information on the critical mass of residents required to make a difference in downtown life, the relationship between downtown housing units and employment, and the number of households needed to support community-serving functions. All of these issues lead to questions of balancing appropriate density for new development and quantity for adaptive reuse with other downtown functions like office, parking, retail and entertainment. No one really knows the proper composition of a balanced downtown.
Eugenie Ladner Birch is professor and chair of the Department of City and Regional Planning at the University of Pennsylvania.
References
Birch, Eugenie Ladner. 2002. Having a Longer View on Downtown Living. Journal of the American Planning Association 68 (1):5-21.
Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy and Fannie Mae Foundation. 1998. A Rise in Downtown Living. Washington, DC.
Sohmer, R.R., and Lang, R.E. 2001. Downtown Rebound (FMF Census Note 03, May). Washington, DC: Fannie Mae Foundation and Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy.
Una versión más actualizada de este artículo está disponible como parte del capítulo 1 del libro Perspectivas urbanas: Temas críticos en políticas de suelo de América Latina.
Si bien se le conoce como una región de gran diversidad, América Latina también se caracteriza por una serie de herencias comunes que afectan la tierra de manera directa o indirecta. Entre dichas herencias figuran el proverbial patrimonialismo, basado en una estructura de propiedad del suelo que otorga inversiones y servicios públicos según las influencias políticas que haya detrás; asimismo, administraciones centrales fuertes con una débil responsabilidad fiscal en el ámbito local; y una tradición de códigos elitistas y reglamentos rígidos ¾incluso anacrónicos¾ referentes a los temas vinculados al uso del suelo. La planificación urbana, sesgada hacia el diseño físico, ha tendido a concentrarse en la ciudad “legal” al mismo tiempo que ha descuidado a la “real”. Las inversiones en el ambiente construido, en un proceso de rápida expansión, gozan de relativa autonomía del proceso de industrialización. En un ambiente caracterizado por mercados de capital débiles y por una alta (y a menudo crónica) inflación, la tierra frecuentemente asume el papel de un mecanismo de capitalización o de un sustituto de la falta de seguridad social.
Tendencias regionales
En América Latina, los mercados de suelos urbanos se destacan por la magnitud y persistencia de actividades ilegales, irregulares, informales o clandestinas relacionadas con el acceso y ocupación de la tierra, todas ellas derivadas principalmente de la escasez de tierras urbanizadas costeables. Esta escasez desempeña un papel importante en la cultura social latinoamericana, dado que el acceso al suelo es frecuentemente una condición tácita para obtener sentido de ciudadanía y movilidad social.
Quizás más importantes son una serie de tendencias multifacéticas que están diseminándose a paso firme por todo el continente y abriendo nuevas oportunidades a la política de tierras urbanas. Podemos comenzar citando la redemocratización de muchos países latinoamericanos tras largos períodos de regímenes autoritarios o militares, con numerosas implicaciones en la política del suelo. Hoy en día existe una intensificada conciencia general sobre la responsabilidad de los funcionarios por el manejo del suelo urbano u otros aspectos de la administración pública, así como también se observa el reconocimiento público de nuevos agentes sociales como lo son las organizaciones no gubernamentales (NGO). Nuevas formas de participación comunitaria y acción civil han surgido en respuesta a la necesidad de legitimar alternativas al acceso a la tierra para la población urbana de bajos recursos, alternativas que incluyen innovadores abordajes de propiedades en cooperativa, y atención a asuntos de género en la regularización de tierras de ocupación ilegal.
Una segunda y relacionada tendencia refleja la necesidad de poner en práctica reformas institucionales y constitucionales acompañadas de nuevas definiciones del papel del Estado. Este proceso ha tenido una gran variedad de manifestaciones, a saber:
La tercera tendencia importante de las décadas recientes ha sido una reestructuración macroeconómica que ha llevado a estabilizar los tradicionales ¾y frecuentemente crónicos¾ problemas de inflación y que ha influido en la evolución de los precios de la tierra. América Latina también ha experimentado tendencias más acentuadas hacia la globalización, la apertura de economías nacionales y los cambios tecnológicos. Entre otros efectos, estas tendencias han generado una mayor competencia entre las ciudades para atraer inversiones privadas, mediante mecanismos que van desde el uso de planificación estratégica como un dispositivo de mercadeo de la ciudad, hasta el ofrecimiento de incentivos locales a través de las denominadas “guerras fiscales”. Todo este movimiento ha afectado profundamente la base económica de las ciudades y la naturaleza y escala de la pobreza urbana. Igualmente afectados se encuentran los tipos de intervenciones urbanas (que abarcan desde proyectos de rehabilitación a gran escala de áreas abandonadas o en malas condiciones, hasta los nuevos proyectos inmobiliarios de uso mixto en las áreas de bordes urbanos) que están redefiniendo la forma urbana, la dinámica de las ciudades, y los patrones de segregación espacial y social.
Establecimiento de una presencia
Desde 1993, el Instituto Lincoln ha hecho un esfuerzo coordinado para participar activamente en el debate sobre las políticas del suelo y de tributación en América Latina. Adoptamos un abordaje multinacional para trabajar dondequiera que existan asuntos contemplados en las áreas de estudio de nuestros programas, buscar oportunidades para el fortalecimiento de recursos en el ámbito local, o desarrollar iniciativas con potencial de diseminación o replicación en otros países. Esta estrategia nos permite estar presentes en regiones donde se vislumbren cambios significativos en la política o donde se estén discutiendo asuntos importantes relacionados con el tema del suelo.
El Instituto Lincoln ha demostrado inequívocamente su capacidad para desempeñar tres funciones importantes conducentes a su mandato educativo: promover la fertilización cruzada de ideas; convocar y moderar debates entre diferentes grupos de interés; y ofrecer liderazgo intelectual. En todos nuestros programas enfatizamos la diseminación de informaciones valiosas basadas principalmente en estudios de caso que puedan utilizarse para nutrir intercambios intrarregionales y para resolver problemas. Este énfasis en la fertilización cruzada de ideas mediante un diálogo horizontal es particularmente importante dado el centralismo de la administración pública en América Latina y la predominancia de canales de comunicación verticales.
El reconocimiento y la credibilidad internacional que goza el Instituto Lincoln como una respetada institución no partidista que se dedica al estudio de la política del suelo y la tributación a la propiedad, nos coloca en una posición única para facilitar discusiones complejas y políticamente delicadas entre diversos grupos de interés, particularmente funcionarios de diferentes niveles administrativos y representantes del sector comercial, de organizaciones no gubernamentales y de la comunidad política en general.
Igualmente importante es el papel del Instituto en ofrecer un liderazgo intelectual para llenar el vacío existente entre los conocimientos teóricos más avanzados y las necesidades más prácticas e inmediatas de los funcionarios que tratan directamente con la puesta en práctica y la administración del uso de la tierra y de las políticas de tributación. A menudo, esta función involucra “traducir” ideas y argumentos académicos al lenguaje de los profesionales comunes, lo cual se hace mediante materiales impresos, cursos y seminarios. Al apoyar proyectos de desarrollo curricular y de investigación, también ponemos de manifiesto esas dimensiones críticas y a veces “invisibles” de asuntos complejos tales como los efectos económicos de la informalidad en el acceso a la tierra. Como proveedor de recursos a nuestros socios internacionales, ayudamos a localizar expertos y facilitar casos de estudios y otros materiales de diferentes países y contextos.
Redes y áreas temáticas
Desde 1995 el Programa Latinoamericano del Instituto ha ido desarrollando una red central de representantes de doce países con quienes se han realizado trabajos conjuntos en programas educativos y de desarrollo curricular. Nuestra estrategia ha evolucionado conforme hemos adquirido un entendimiento más profundo de los asuntos que atañen a los programas internacionales del Instituto. Actualmente trabajamos con varias redes de funcionarios, profesionales y expertos que están organizadas por áreas temáticas en vez de por regiones geográficas. Estas cinco redes transnacionales, cuyos temas de interés a menudo se traslapan y se refuerzan mutuamente, están vinculadas a las tres áreas programáticas principales del Instituto:
En el Programa de Tributación de Tierras y Edificios, la captura de plusvalías es el tema primario para el cual el Instituto tiene claras ventajas comparativas definidas en el continente latinoamericano. Nos hemos dedicado al estudio de las condiciones técnicas y de gestión para poner en práctica instrumentos que puedan promover la redistribución de los incrementos en el valor de la tierra, sea directa o indirectamente (a través de impuestos, tarifas, exacciones y otros instrumentos legislativos), a fin de impulsar el desarrollo urbano y beneficiar a la comunidad como un todo.
Además de utilizar los mecanismos de captura de plusvalías para controlar el crecimiento urbano y la expansión territorial, así como también para reducir los negativos efectos de la especulación de la tierra, nos interesa su aplicabilidad a circunstancias derivadas de la proverbial informalidad de los mercados de suelo en América Latina. Éstas incluyen situaciones caracterizadas por una relación confusa en la tenencia de la tierra, donde las ocupaciones de la tierra son mayoritariamente irregulares o ilegales, y donde los incrementos significativos en el valor de la tierra son generados por la comunidad, en vez de por acción estatal. Esta red explora si los incrementos en el valor del suelo (resultantes directa o indirectamente de intervenciones públicas) pueden promoverse para mitigar la pobreza urbana en general y mejorar el acceso al suelo urbanizado, particularmente para las familias de las bajos ingresos.
Nuestra segunda red estudia los temas de recaudación, tasación y tributación inmobiliaria. Mediante comparaciones internacionales se ha demostrado que la recaudación del impuesto a la propiedad en América Latina es generalmente inadecuada para satisfacer las necesidades de la urbanización acelerada. En muchas áreas, los sistemas de tributación inmobiliaria están plagados de problemas tales como fuertes inequidades verticales y horizontales, deficientes sistemas de recaudación y prácticas de tasación, fuertes influencias de valores históricos, y débiles marcos legales. No obstante, muchos programas nacionales, a veces apoyados por agencias multilaterales, están promoviendo reformas y mejoras en los sistemas de tributación inmobiliaria. Entre dichas mejoras se incluye el uso innovador de sistemas autodeclaratorios y complejos sistemas de información, giros creativos a los impuestos sobre el valor del suelo, y oportunidades para restablecer el impuesto inmobiliario en países donde actualmente no existe. Esta red contempla más iniciativas interconectadas de educación e investigación, que van desde el estudio de las ventajas y las desventajas de aplicar impuestos sobre el valor de la tierra, hasta el papel del impuesto predial para facilitar el acceso al suelo para los pobres urbanos, y el uso de nuevas herramientas operativas para promover las metas de tributación inmobiliaria en general.
La segregación social y espacial son inquietudes que compartimos con el Programa de Mercados de Suelo del Instituto. El paisaje de las ciudades latinoamericanas está frecuentemente marcado por la contradictoria coexistencia de áreas residenciales para la clase adinerada (que se asemejan a los sectores más elegantes de ciudades de cualquier país desarrollado), y aquellos asentamientos precarios o áreas marginales donde está confinada la mayor parte de la población urbana de bajos recursos. La formación de este divisivo patrón social del uso de la tierra puede atribuirse a factores variados, a saber: “expulsiones blancas” a través de mecanismos de mercado; políticas de exclusión más sutiles escondidas dentro de normativas legales y administrativas (p. ej., normas urbanísticas, reglamentos y requisitos de crédito); o los desalojos forzosos de los que han sido víctimas los pobres de prácticamente todas las ciudades latinoamericanas. Si bien mucho se ha escrito acerca de estos procesos, hasta ahora existen pocos estudios que documenten políticas que prevengan dichos problemas o que puedan revertir sus resultados. Esta red se plantea interrogantes tales como: ¿Cuáles son las políticas que se han usado o que pudieron haberse usado? ¿Qué tan eficaces son dichas políticas? ¿Qué deben saber los planificadores urbanos sobre el tema de segregación espacial? ¿por qué?
La cuarta red, también en el área de Mercados de Suelo, reconoce la necesidad de revisar los entornos normativos existentes en el programa de política del suelo latinoamericano, y de diseñar nuevas normas y reglamentos urbanísticos que puedan ser cumplidos de manera más realista y razonable por las familias de escasos recursos. Para ello se requiere conducir una evaluación adecuada de los efectos de reglamentos alternativos en el patrón de usos de la tierra, específicamente en el acceso a la tierra y a los servicios urbanos para el pobre urbano. En la mayoría de las grandes ciudades latinoamericanas se está observando una tendencia a construir nuevos proyectos inmobiliarios para la población adinerada en las tierras de la periferia, aquellas que tradicionalmente habían estado “reservadas para la clase baja”; esto ha provocado el encarecimiento del precio de dichas tierras, con la consecuente imposibilidad del pobre para pagarlas. Los administradores de las ciudades se enfrentan a la tarea de promover la densificación sostenible de barrios y la reutilización de áreas industriales abandonadas, al mismo tiempo que deben tratar de controlar la urbanización desenfrenada en las periferias urbanas.
Entre los puntos de estudio más importantes del Programa de Suelos como Propiedad Común, se encuentra el de seguridad de tenencia, regularización y mejoramiento urbano. Muchos países de todo el continente se están esforzando activamente por establecer programas de regularización legal y urbana; no obstante, la puesta en práctica de estas iniciativas se enfrenta frecuentemente con obstáculos políticos y prácticos. Las señales que dan estos programas esencialmente “curativos” ejercen influencias marcadas en las actividades ilegales, irregulares, informales o clandestinas de grupos que buscan el acceso y la ocupación de tierras urbanas. A menudo, la resolución de las disputas derivadas de los programas de regularización y del arbitraje de valores tasados adecuadamente para la adquisición pública de tierras para proyectos de interés social, se enfrenta con un mundo de obstáculos y cuellos de botella legales e institucionales en el ámbito nacional y local. Esta red se propone mejorar el entendimiento del impacto económico que tienen estos programas sobre los mercados de la tierra en general, en particular sobre los asentamientos beneficiados.
Diseminación de la información
Al mismo tiempo que continúa patrocinando programas de investigación y educativos en países latinoamericanos, el Instituto Lincoln está también trabajando para transmitir la información a una audiencia cada vez mayor. En el sitio Web del Instituto hay una sección dedicada a América Latina donde se publica la versión completa de muchos proyectos y artículos de investigación presentados en nuestros seminarios y conferencias, en su idioma original. En este sitio también están publicados una gran variedad de artículos del folleto Land Lines traducidos al español.
El Instituto está trabajando para sistematizar todos los materiales curriculares (artículos de investigación, presentaciones de seminarios, bibliografías, materiales audiovisuales de soporte y otros materiales educativos) y productos (libros, artículos, videos) para facilitar la organización e integración de nuestras actividades académicas presentes y futuras. Un buen número de publicaciones sobre América Latina están ahora disponibles o en etapa de planificación. Por ejemplo, recientemente se publicó una bibliografía sobre documentos que tratan sobre los mercados de suelos urbanos de México. Dicha bibliografía estará pronto disponible en nuestro sitio Web, y la misma debe servir como un modelo para otros miembros de nuestras redes latinoamericanas. Además, para fines de publicación, actualmente se está realizando la revisión de un grupo de artículos presentados como parte de programas educativos presentados en nuestra sede.
Esta edición de Land Lines contiene una lista de proyectos de investigación y desarrollo curricular y becas para la realización de tesis para el año académico actual, en donde se destacan proyectos afiliados con el Programa de Latinoamérica.
Martim Smolka es Senior Fellow y Director del Programa para América Latina y El Caribe del Instituto Lincoln. Laura Mullahy es Investigadora Asociada del Programa.
América Latina: Un territorio de gran diversidad
Un vistazo al continente latinoamericano revela una amplia variedad de situaciones referentes al estado de la tierra y de los mercados de suelo, tal como se indica debajo. El Instituto Lincoln ha trabajado con expertos y funcionarios públicos en cada uno de esos países para entender y discutir sus inquietudes relacionadas con la política del suelo.
La liberalización de los mercados de suelo y virtual eliminación de los bordes urbanos en Chile en 1979 (reintegrados sólo parcialmente en 1985) es un contraste marcado con los esfuerzos en Colombia para poner en práctica una fuerte herramienta de planificación de captura de plusvalías, conocida como “participación en plusvalías”. Esta legislación requiere a los gobiernos locales la designación de un 30 a 50 por ciento del incremento en el valor de la tierra resultante de cambios en la designación de la tierra de uso rural a urbano para dotar de infraestructura y viviendas sociales a las vecindades privadas de servicios públicos.
En los países latinoamericanos existen marcadas diferencias en el manejo de los asentamientos informales y las ocupaciones de tierras. En Argentina, por ejemplo, prácticamente no existen restricciones en el uso del suelo, y por tanto no hay un reconocimiento oficial de los asentamientos ilegales. Por su parte en Perú, desde 1961 los gobiernos de han reconocido las tierras ocupadas carentes de servicios situadas en la franja urbana (arenales), mientras que en Ecuador hay una ausencia total de normas y reglamentos para el manejo de las ocupaciones informales.
También son importantes las marcadas variaciones que hay en las políticas de suelo. Por ejemplo, es poco probable que el gobierno de Cuba renuncie al aproximadamente 70 por ciento de la tierra que está bajo su control, mientras que México aprobó en 1992 una ley nacional que permite la privatización de las tierras mantenidas bajo su sistema de ejido.
SHARE
Brasilia, the capital of Brazil, was inaugurated in the early 1960s as a “new city” that was to usher in a new era for Latin American metropolises, demonstrating how the government’s efficient use of land would allow for orderly urban growth. Two basic instruments were provided for this purpose: normative control of the use of land based on a master plan devised by Lucio Costa; and government ownership of land in the federal capital, which would permit the capital to be planned without the kinds of restrictions and conflicts that normally result from private land ownership. However, three and a half decades later, the problems associated with urban development in Brasilia do not differ substantially from those experienced by other large cities in Latin America.
Land Tenure Shortsightedness and Administrative Patronage
Brasilia presents a unique example of urban land management in Latin America because the administration of public land has always been the responsibility of the local government. Nevertheless, the city’s periphery has experienced an explosive rate of growth with its concomitant pattern of irregular land occupation, illegal subdivisions and lack of infrastructure. In Brasilia the possibility of steering the process of urban growth by means of an explicit policy of access to public land has been slowly and irreparably jeopardized by spontaneous (and illegal) land occupation. This shortsighted use of public land is generally dysfunctional for both urban density and public finance, thus hindering the local administration’s efforts to provide infrastructure to these irregular sites.
Furthermore, political influences on the development process have significantly compromised the chances of efficiently managing the supply of public land in Brasilia. In the early 1990s the government distributed about 65,000 lots in areas without any basic infrastructure. Besides reducing the stock of public land, this “land tenure patronage” created the need for new funding sources to finance new infrastructure. Since the main resource available to the Federal District’s Development Agency (Terracap) is the land itself, this patronage policy resulted in the sale of additional public lands to finance infrastructure in irregular settlements. This vicious cycle has caused serious distortions that the present local administration aims to solve by using public land as “capital” to create an effective policy to manage land tenure revenues and urban costs.
The Brasilia experience seems to confirm the arguments of Henry George and others that public land ownership does not per se lead to more balanced and socially egalitarian urban growth. The current local government strategy to define ways to manage revenue from public lands in order to manage the use of urban land indicates a new form of government interaction with the land market. In this sense, the government changes its role from being the principal landowner to becoming the administrator of land benefits.
Public Land as Land Tenure Capital
The core principle of Brasilia’s new strategy of administering land equity is the definition of public land as “land tenure capital.” The use of this land is submitted to a set of strategic actions that transform public land capital into a factor that induces the consolidation of the Federal District’s technological complex. This is the public counterpart in the process of reconverting land use in the city center into an instrument of social promotion in the land tenure regulation program: public lands are used as land assets through sales, leases and partnerships in urban projects.
The use of differentiated land tenure strategies lends more flexibility to the government in coordinating its actions. The search for a balance between initiatives of a social nature and others where the government seeks to maximize its income is now taking on the appearance of an actual policy of public land administration that breaks with former patronage practices.
In this context of exploring new approaches to the use of public land to control urban development in Brasilia, the Lincoln Institute, the Planning Institute of the Federal District and Terracap organized an International Seminar on Management of Land Tenure Revenue and Urban Costs in June 1998.
The program brought together international experts, government secretaries and local administrators with a view to evaluating international experiences in using public lands to finance urban growth in Europe, the United States and Latin America. Martim Smolka of the Lincoln Institute described the relationships between land market operations, land use regulations and the public capture of land value increments. Alfredo Garay, an architect and former planning director for the city of Buenos Aires, reported on experiences in the development of public land around the city’s harbor.
Bernard Frieden of Massachusetts Institute of Technology described how commercial activities on public trust lands in the western United States are used to raise funds for education and other local purposes. Henk Verbrugge, director of Rotterdam’s fiscal agency and The Netherlands’ representative to the International Association of Assessing Officers, described the country’s system of hereditary tenure, a legal regulation by which land can be used for full private use and benefit while remaining under municipal control and economic ownership.
The participants discussed how these experiences compared with the situation in Brasilia and concluded that the success of various strategies for the use of public land depends on the suitability of specific projects to the respective country’s business culture and the institutional practices in effect in the local administration.
Pedro Abramo is a professor at the Institute of Urban and Regional Research and Planning at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
SHARE
Una versión más actualizada de este artículo está disponible como parte del capítulo 2 del libro Perspectivas urbanas: Temas críticos en políticas de suelo de América Latina.
Al acentuarse las disparidades socioeconómicas y espaciales en las ciudades de América Latina ha resurgido el interés en políticas gubernamentales orientadas hacia la equidad que buscan reducir dichas disparidades. Sin embargo, las soluciones para los problemas urbanos más graves que aquejan a las ciudades actualmente deben cubrir más que la mera implementación de medidas incongruentes y de escasa definición. Las soluciones deben garantizar la equidad para todos los sectores de la sociedad. Son demasiados los casos en que vecindarios enteros se ven forzados a habitar en condiciones deplorables mientras las dependencias del gobierno buscan desalojar a los residentes en nombre de la protección del medio ambiente. Es evidente que la legislación urbana no puede seguir ignorando los derechos de las personas a tener un lugar donde vivir con seguridad y dignidad.
El impacto crítico de la desigualdad en la tenencia de la tierra en el entorno urbano exige que la población urbana pobre tenga acceso a la información técnica necesaria para negociar mejor sus inquietudes con los funcionarios públicos. En mi investigación exploro el papel de la educación ambiental en las comunidades de pocos ingresos de los países en desarrollo. Adoptando una perspectiva basada en la creación propia de capacidad, mi objetivo es desarrollar programas de capacitación para los dirigentes comunitarios en los niveles más básicos para manejar con más eficacia los conflictos locales sobre el uso del suelo y los riesgos ambientales.
Repercusiones del acceso desigual a la tierra
Al igual que muchas otras ciudades latinoamericanas, Río de Janeiro está seriamente afectada por la pobreza reinante y la degradación del medio ambiente. Intervienen factores complejos, tales como: Inestabilidad económica, tenencia desigual de la tierra, políticas de desarrollo deficientes y carencia de un sistema democrático que propicie los derechos humanos y las libertades. En mi opinión, los problemas que ha enfrentado Río de Janeiro durante las últimas décadas son el fruto de suposiciones existentes sobre la planificación urbana tipo “apartheid” y la falta de voluntad política para integrar a los sectores populares en el diseño de políticas para el uso del suelo.
En la región de Baixada de Jacarepaguá –en pleno corazón del área de expansión de Río de Janeiro– el extraordinario proceso de crecimiento urbano ocurrido desde 1970 ha provocado cambios drásticos en el paisaje, así como numerosos problemas ambientales. En medio de la espectacular belleza natural de los ecosistemas de lagunas, selvas de manglares y ciénagas, la región sigue albergando una enorme población de habitantes urbanos pobres que viven en favelas –comunidades de chabolas que son el resultado de un descontrolado proceso de urbanización del suelo público–.
Durante los años 1980 y a principios de la década de 1990, el desarrollo en la región tuvo un auge sin precedentes que ha dado pie a patrones insostenibles en el uso del suelo. La discriminación contra los habitantes pobres y las desigualdades en la tenencia de la tierra permitieron que los propietarios y especuladores se aprovecharan del auge mediante la obtención formal de títulos de propiedad y la subdivisión del suelo. Por otra parte, un grupo selecto de constructores privados se introdujo por sí solo en la escena local gracias a múltiples permisos judiciales para desarrollar en la región condominios residenciales para la clase alta, locales comerciales y empresas industriales.
El aumento de las presiones sobre el suelo se transformó rápidamente en una enorme variedad de protestas entre los sectores populares y los poderosos promotores inmobiliarios, lo que planteaba la amenaza de desalojo forzoso de los habitantes pobres. El descontento acumulado contra el gobierno por su incapacidad para controlar la especulación urbana y garantizar leyes de protección generó una situación sumamente peligrosa. La violencia y la persecución cobraron la vida de 30 dirigentes comunitarios, presidentes de asociaciones locales de vecinos, sus familiares cercanos y otros parientes. Los asesinatos fueron cometidos por escuadrones conocidos en la región como “grupos de exterminio” y no se ha llevado a cabo investigación criminal alguna.
El ciclo vicioso de la pobreza y la degradación ambiental
Dada la interdependencia que hay entre la pobreza y la degradación del medio ambiente, cabe pensar en los problemas ambientales en términos de la justicia social. Mi investigación gira en torno a la problemática de la desigualdad y los riesgos ambientales que enfrentan los residentes de Via Park, un asentamiento informal ubicado en la región de Baixada de Jacarepaguá. Una pregunta básica que surge de esta investigación es en qué medida la mejora del acceso equitativo al suelo contribuye verdaderamente para atenuar los factores que estimulan la degradación ambiental. Al relacionar los problemas del uso del suelo con el proceso de aprendizaje de la educación ambiental, la investigación demuestra que la degradación del medio ambiente es un fenómeno recurrente que se manifiesta en las maneras desiguales en que se ha usado y distribuido el suelo en la región.
El poblado de Via Park se ha visto atrapado en una lucha acérrima por el uso del suelo desde los años 1970, cuando el desarrollo urbano comenzó a afectar muchas comunidades pesqueras tradicionales en el área. Los constructores estaban deseosos de influir en el gobierno para quebrar el sistema de tenencia de la tierra de los pescadores, que estaba impuesto por la ley, para así entregar el suelo a las fuerzas del mercado. En la década de 1980, el área fue designada como patrimonio nacional para la conservación del medio ambiente, consagrada en el artículo 225 de la Constitución de Brasil (1988). Puesto que el poblado estaba ubicado en suelo protegido, las autoridades de la ciudad a cargo de la planificación arguyeron entonces que los residentes de Via Park no tenían derechos legítimos de propiedad.
En una atmósfera de temor y viéndose a merced de los promotores inmobiliarios y especuladores que seguían proliferando, los residentes de Via Park comenzaron a realizar subdivisiones ilegales y a vender pequeñas parcelas de tierra a los nuevos habitantes. El crecimiento de la población pobre y la concentración de la propiedad del suelo y la especulación contribuyeron a la expansión de los mercados inmobiliarios informales hacia comunidades cercanas de ingresos bajos.
Estas prácticas llevaban implícito un esquema complejo de transacciones comerciales y relaciones civiles que controlaban la invasión de terrenos baldíos, así como la división y venta de parcelas. En todo Río de Janeiro, el desarrollo urbano a través de canales informales es el “pacto territorial” predominante mediante el cual los grupos locales desfavorecidos han podido obtener acceso al suelo y la vivienda. Al mismo tiempo, los agentes del “mundo formal” han concretado acuerdos políticos para respaldar los mercados inmobiliarios informales y sacarles ventaja.
Fue en este contexto que se concibió un programa de mejoramiento ambiental a nivel comunitario, el cual vendría a implementarse en el poblado de Via Park. No obstante, debido a la larga historia de exclusión –que llegaba hasta las amenazas de desalojo forzoso– que habían sufrido, los residentes seguían mostrándose desconfiados. Se hizo claro que el éxito de la implementación del programa dependería de las estrategias de una gestión basada en una visión integrada del ambiente geográfico-ecológico y sociocultural.
Para que de verdad pueda resolverse el dilema de la pobreza y la degradación ambiental, la tarea de mejorar el medio ambiente debe ser compatible con la lucha por la equidad del suelo. Este novedoso enfoque de la educación ambiental se diferencia de la metodología tradicional, la cual suele centrarse más en la mera introducción de cambios físicos en el medio ambiente. La clave está en centrarse en las condiciones favorables para el desarrollo y el ejercicio de un sentido de “pertenencia a la comunidad” –una expresión tangible de sentimientos, valores e identidades en común en la que el suelo se percibe no sólo como fuente de riqueza, sino como un lugar de convivencia compartida con significados simbólicos–.
Lecciones aportadas por el poblado de Via Park
Si bien no existe una solución única para la vulnerabilidad social y ambiental de la población urbana pobre que reside en Via Park, su experiencia sí ofrece cierta perspicacia. Una alternativa propone crear “reservas naturales urbanas” incorporadas en la comunidad donde aquellos amenazados con el desalojo forzoso reciben estímulo para mantener su estilo de vida tradicional. A cambio, todas las instancias de autoridad gubernamental asumirían la obligación de promover la equidad del suelo, garantizando la tenencia y la protección de aquellos que forzados por las circunstancias viven en asentamientos informales.
Los aspectos del programa de educación ambiental iniciado en el poblado de Via Park son aplicables a otras ciudades de América Latina. El principio fundamental se basa en asegurar el respeto por la identidad propia de la comunidad. La experiencia de los residentes de Via Park demuestra que la actuación local puede contribuir con la consolidación de una lucha sociopolítica por la equidad del suelo en conjunción con la protección del ambiente. Esto está en sintonía con la corriente de pensamiento actual acerca del uso del suelo y la gestión ambiental, la cual sugiere un enfoque integrado que reconoce la función de liderazgo de los residentes locales.
El caso de Via Park revela que una excusa usada con frecuencia para justificar los desalojos es la “protección del ambiente”. En otras palabras, los habitantes urbanos pobres a menudo acusados de ser los principales protagonistas de la degradación del medio ambiente son en realidad las mayores víctimas. Para los 450 residentes del poblado de Via Park, el trauma de ser desalojados por la fuerza de sus hogares nunca será superado. Cinco personas, entre ellas dos niños y una mujer, perdieron la vida en la confrontación. La aldea de Via Park, que fuera destruida por excavadoras, sigue siendo un recordatorio de que la esperanza por la equidad del suelo radica en la solidaridad comunitaria, la administración pública eficaz y la democracia.
Sonia Pereira es docente invitada del Lincoln Institute. También está preparando su tesis doctoral del Instituto de Ciencias de la Tierra de la Universidad Federal de Río de Janeiro, con el apoyo de una beca Fulbright. Como abogada ambientalista, bióloga, psicóloga social y activista por los derechos humanos, ha recibido amplio reconocimiento por su labor en el campo de la protección ambiental para comunidades de escasos recursos en Brasil. Ha sido galardonada con el premio “Citizen of the World” (otorgado por Universidad para la Paz Mundial, 1992) y el premio “Global 500” (otorgado por el Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Medio Ambiente-PNUMA, 1996).
SHARE
My father John C. Lincoln (1866-1959) had a strong code of ethics that played a prominent role in both his practice of business and his ideas about land. In 1895 he founded the Lincoln Electric Company of Cleveland, Ohio, which became the world’s leading manufacturer of arc welding equipment. He drew his ideas about land from the 1879 book Progress and Poverty, by the American political economist and social philosopher Henry George.
My father’s core ethical principle was to treat people as you would like to be treated. This implied the following precepts:
1) Treat people with absolute fairness. This means all people. In business it includes all the constituents of a company—employees, customers, owners, and the community. In society it means government must treat individuals fairly, and vice versa.
2) Whoever creates something should be entitled to keep it. Receiving the fruits of someone else’s labor—a windfall—often occurs. But for each windfall there is a wipeout—someone doesn’t get all he or she produced. Both the windfall and the wipeout are unethical.
3) People are important. They should be treated with respect and dignity, not as machines or cogs in a wheel.
Ethics in Business
Largely as a result of following these principles, the Lincoln Electric Company has demonstrated superior performance for its entire 100-year history. Many things have to happen to run a business ethically. One of them is making an adequate profit, which benefits the shareholders. But in my opinion, any company and all its constituents are better served if the customer comes first.
At Lincoln Electric, most employees are on piece work. If they produce more, they get more. The company has an annual bonus program, and the kitty for this bonus is composed of the extra profit beyond the returns required to run the business. Running the business includes providing a fair but not excessive dividend to shareholders and investing in new products and production methods. Beyond these costs, employees at Lincoln Electric get to keep any extra profit they produce. Recently bonuses have been about 50 to 60 percent of annual salaries. There are no windfalls, and no wipeouts.
Nowadays, manufacturing is no longer as much the “thing” as it once was. Making Lincoln Electric a successful global company requires more emphasis on company-wide teams. Individual pay is more dependent upon cooperation across departmental lines. This can work just as well as more individual programs of the past, but it is more difficult to manage. Incentives must be tailored to each location where we operate.
Ethics in Land
The heritage of the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy stems from my father’s interest in the ideas of Henry George, especially the land value tax. The ethics of this tax concept are parallel to those used at Lincoln Electric.
Someone who works the land should be entitled to keep the fruits of his labor. If he produces more because of increased skill or effort, he should reap a higher reward. However, Henry George said that land is a natural monopoly. Its value is largely created by things unrelated to the actions of the land’s owner, such as population pressure or mineral deposits. The landowner or user has nothing to do with these factors, yet if they cause the land value to increase, the owner gets a windfall.
This ethical dilemma disturbed my father, as it disturbs me. He subscribed to the remedy proposed by Henry George, which is to take as a tax each year the full rental value of land produced by natural or social factors. This would eliminate the windfall. It would still leave for landowners and users the value created by their own investments and labor.
A hundred years ago land was considered one of the three factors of production, along with labor and capital. Land was essential as both a place to work and a source of raw materials. Things are more complex today. A great deal of the economy has to do with telecommunications and computer software, which allow businesses to locate anywhere and use few or inexpensive natural resources. These changes may not negate the basic economic theories of Henry George’s time, but they do make it a bit more difficult to analyze the role of land in the economy.
There are many positive illustrations that ethical business practices lead to economic success. Unfortunately, there are not clearcut illustrations showing that land value taxation produces broad economic benefits. Nevertheless, economic research suggests that land value taxation could encourage the productive and careful use of land. Individuals who used the land in ways that increased its production would be able to keep the full value they had created, and society would keep the value it created.
I believe ethical practices will benefit all sides in any transaction. Ethical land taxation should lead to an improved economy, just as ethical business practices lead to more successful companies. One should get to keep the fruits of one’s labor, but the fruits of speculation or monopolies should accrue to the community as a whole, not to individuals as windfalls. Both the private sector and the public sector would benefit. Good ethics is good business. Good ethics is good for society as well as the economy.
___________________
David C. Lincoln, president of the Lincoln Foundation and former chairman of the Lincoln Institute, presented the annual Founder’s Day lecture on August 1 at Lincoln House. He had served as chairman for the Institute’s first 22 years before stepping down in May 1996. His talk, excerpted here in part, commemorated the 130th anniversary of the birth of his father, John Cromwell Lincoln, the Cleveland, Ohio, industrialist who founded the Lincoln Foundation in 1947.
SHARE
Lavea Brachman is a lawyer and a city planner who has worked and taught in the area of community involvement in brownfields redevelopment projects for the last decade. She is currently director of the Ohio office and associate director of the Chicago-based nonprofit, the Delta Institute, which engages in the policy and practice of improving environmental quality and promoting community and economic development in the Great Lakes region. She is also an adjunct professor at The Ohio State University in the City and Regional Planning Department. Last year, pursuant to passage of legislation and approval of a statewide bond bill, Ohio Governor Bob Taft appointed Brachman to serve on the Clean Ohio Council, which is charged by the legislature with selecting and disbursing $200 million for brownfield projects throughout the state.
Brachman developed and taught a new course at the Lincoln Institute last spring, called “Reusing Brownfields and Other Underutilized Land: A Seminar for Senior Staff of Community-Based and Non-profit Development Agencies,” and she will teach a similar course in 2003. She also wrote an article on “Key Success Factors in Brownfield Property Redevelopment” for a forthcoming Lincoln publication on redevelopment of vacant land.
Land Lines: How did you become involved in and concerned about brownfield redevelopment?
Lavea Brachman: Brownfield redevelopment was just emerging as a special focus of urban planning in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when I was working on my master’s degree in city planning at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). As a student, I joined a student-professor team on an early brownfields project for the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) to determine what it could do with some previously utilized property it owned in Quincy, Massachusetts, just south of Boston. We assessed three primary aspects (social, legal and physical) to determine the site’s redevelopment potential.
That experience and the challenge of dealing with multiple parties and multiple issues that brownfield redevelopment entails peaked my interest intellectually, and I recognized that changing land uses could have profound and positive implications for social change. Previously, as an attorney with a Washington, DC, law firm, I had practiced in the environmental and land use areas, so the interdisciplinary nature of brownfields redevelopment seemed to bring together my legal and planning training with my professional skills and areas of knowledge and expertise.
LL: What are the primary obstacles to brownfield redevelopment and how have these changed over time?
LB: Contrary to general public misperceptions, the primary obstacle to brownfield redevelopment today is not environmental contamination per se, even though the prior use and associated environmental conditions of these properties distinguish them from other underutilized properties. The primary obstacle to redevelopment remains the threat of liability that by statute arises from acts that cause or contribute to contamination and/or to those with an ownership interest in the property. A second major obstacle is financing, since brownfields are many times more expensive to redevelop than regular real estate projects. The liability threat also has dampened interest from investors or banks that might be perceived as being in the chain of title.
A third obstacle can be lack of local support. The need for public involvement in brownfield redevelopment, from financing, to regulatory oversight, to local zoning and planning, means that community support is instrumental to making brownfield redevelopment work. The potential fear and lack of understanding about the impact of contamination on a community can also interfere with local support. A fourth obstacle is obtaining site control or clear title to the property. Many brownfield properties are tax delinquent or burdened with liens, and the title may remain in the name of a defunct company. Of all the obstacles, the solutions to title problems vary most widely from state to state.
A final obstacle is location, because many of these properties are found in areas that are littered with multiple vacant properties or they are not readily accessible to all-important interstate highways or rail networks. Sometimes brownfield sites with a long history of use were at one time accessible to key transportation lines, but those roads or rails have been superseded by new highways located several miles or more away, leaving the abandoned sites isolated from current development activity.
LL: How has the brownfield redevelopment practice evolved over the last decade?
LB: A decade ago, brownfields were not identified or defined as such. They were the legacy of a manufacturing and industrial economy that left behind vacant properties and blighted urban areas and the remnants of laws that, through the nature of the liability schemes, provided disincentives for cleanup. The federal government had not formally recognized the value of redeveloping these properties, and those of us who were involved in the field early on worked with regulators to convince them to pay more attention. Also, the fear of another Love Canal (that is, illness among residents arising from property contamination) was still fresh, so there was little flexibility in cleanup standards. Brownfields were redeveloped, if at all, outside the regular, legal constructs or under special agreements between owner and regulator, or by using special contracts such as prospective purchaser agreements, which prevented a future buyer from being held liable for previous contamination.
Now brownfield redevelopment has been increasingly streamlined, approached by developers as a real estate deal with a twist—the environmental cleanup. Many of the primary obstacles mentioned above remain, although they have been somewhat diminished over time, as new state and federal policies, laws and regulations have been passed and implemented to address the specific issues with brownfields liability, provide new funding sources, alter title processes for expunging tax delinquent and other liens, and even require community involvement. Last December, for example, Congress passed the “Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act of 2001,” which provides for additional grants and loans for certain activities as well as clarifications on liability.
Brownfields offer an interesting case study of how informal processes that originally emerged out of necessity outside the legal, policy and financing mainstream have been increasingly institutionalized. For instance, where once a property would remain unremediated and fenced off because the cleanup was too burdensome and expensive, or the cleanup would be the subject of years of litigation, now a property that is marketable can act as an incentive for all parties to proceed rapidly.
In the strong market of the 1990s, the real estate pressures allowed even some hard-to-develop properties, like long-abandoned brownfields, to be redeveloped, although it was primarily the “low hanging fruit” or the brownfields that were already either well-located, had minimal contamination, or were not complicated by multiple parties contributing to past contamination. The liability on these properties could be capped and financial institutions thus could reduce their risk. Also the regulatory climate has become less aggressive with the passage of “voluntary cleanup statutes,” which allow cleanups to be accomplished without regulatory oversight in many states. The ultimate carrot is a government agreement not to hold future owners liable (that is, a covenant not to sue) if they meet certain standards. To date, fewer cleanups that predicted have actually been accomplished under these new state laws, but they create a climate ultimately more conducive to redevelopment. Nevertheless, in the weaker economic market of 2002, with greater risk, more uncertainty and less development generally, there will be less brownfield redevelopment, particularly of those sites that do not have the easily marketable attributes.
LL: Who are some of the key players involved in successful brownfield redevelopment projects?
LB: Like most real estate deals, brownfield redevelopment inherently involves multiple parties. Public-private partnerships are particularly crucial to the success of brownfield redevelopment projects, because of the quasi-regulated nature of the cleanup and the complicated financing arrangements. The list of potential key players is a long one. It includes state and or federal regulators, elected community officials and other community leaders, private developers (both for-profit and not-for-profit), past and future property owners, private financial institutions or investors and public funding sources. Often those essential parties are traditional adversaries. For instance, designating the future use of a brownfield property must involve a state (and sometimes federal) regulatory agency, which can approve the cleanup standard for the particular use (normally higher for residential and lower for industrial) and plan to remove the contamination, as well as previous and/or future owners who under previous legal standards would have been held liable by the regulatory agency.
Funding for the cleanup and redevelopment inevitably comes from a variety of sources. Notably, up to 70 to 80 percent of funding for brownfield projects can be from public funding sources, but usually those public monies are predicated on private (often local) institutional financing as well, making the public-private nexus very important.
LL: What is the role of community-based organizations in brownfield redevelopment and to what extent is this type of redevelopment an extension of broader community planning efforts facing many urban neighborhoods?
LB: Community support and leadership from the local government are essential to the successful redevelopment of a brownfield property. For instance, localities often must be the applicant for the essential public (state or federal) funds needed to accomplish the project. If zoning or subdivision changes must be made through local boards, local support and leadership is crucial. Community-based organizations such as community development corporations should play an active role in brownfield redevelopment as well, particularly in areas that are not as naturally attractive to private market actors, either due to location and limited access of the properties or to general neighborhood blight and lack of economic activity. In these areas, broader community planning efforts undertaken by community groups, such as community-wide master plans, are often productive starting points if multiple brownfield and other underutilized properties need to be addressed. Master plans encompassing these properties should take into account neighborhood and community needs, such as local stores, recreational areas, and other facilities. The biggest barrier to brownfield redevelopment in these areas is the market and the physical and economic condition of the surrounding area.
Nevertheless, to many community groups these sites remain intimidating for several reasons: the technical aspects of the contamination; the stigma attached to the properties by their condition; their negative impacts on surrounding properties; and, as mentioned, their location in generally blighted and hard-to-market areas. Furthermore, brownfield sites present more upfront barriers not present in the kinds of housing development projects traditionally undertaken by community-based organizations, such as site remediation, title issues, the assembly of multiple parcels, and the complex financing that is necessary from multiple sources. Getting community organizations past these threshold issues through capacity building and training in technical skills will position them to address more strategic brownfield redevelopment challenges.
Given recent state and federal statutory changes and multiple sources of public funding, the redevelopment of single brownfield properties in stable or improving markets now involves fewer legal and financial barriers. It also requires a very different strategy from developing properties in declining markets where there are other non-brownfield barriers to be overcome. The challenge for addressing brownfield properties in these latter areas remains to be solved, but community involvement is certainly a key aspect to its resolution.
SHARE
In June 2003 the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and the Sonoran Institute established a Joint Venture project to assist diverse audiences in improving state trust land administration in the American West. The goal of this partnership project is to ensure that conservation, collaborative land use planning, and efficient and effective asset management on behalf of state trust land beneficiaries are integral elements of how these lands are managed. The two institutes seek to utilize their core competencies to broaden the range of information and policy options available to improve state trust land management. This article introduces the Joint Venture and describes some of the work now under way in Arizona and Montana.
State trust lands are a phenomenon that dates back to the Northwest Ordinance of 1785. With this ordinance, the U.S. Congress established a policy of granting land to states when they entered the Union as an asset to generate funding to support the public education system, a fundamental state responsibility. Starting with Ohio in 1785 and ending with Arizona and New Mexico in 1910, each new state received a set of federal lands that, under federal enabling legislation and the corresponding state constitution, were to be held in trust for the benefit of the public schools. The trust mandates established by the U.S. Congress and the states are clear: to generate revenue to support the public schools and other institutions. In some cases there are other minor institutional beneficiaries as well, but the public schools (K–12) are by far the largest beneficiary throughout the state trust land system. That singularity of purpose continues today and distinguishes state trust lands and the state programs that administer them from other types of public lands.
While Congress intended state trust lands to be perpetual, the lawmakers expected that over time some lands would be sold to produce revenue. Initially Congress provided little guidance to states on how they should manage their state trust lands. Many states that entered the Union soon after 1785 quickly sold all or most of those lands for profit, and today little remains of that heritage. Because of these actions, Congress placed increasingly stringent requirements on new states in order to limit the use of state trust lands. Since most western states entered the Union in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, they retain most of the original state trust lands designated at the time of statehood.
Today these lands continue to be managed to generate income for the authorized beneficiaries. This revenue is either made available in the year in which it was generated (typically from leasing activities) or, in the case of outright sale of land or nonrenewable resources, deposited into a permanent fund that generates annual income for the beneficiaries. In Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and Wyoming these permanent funds or endowments are in excess of one billion dollars each.
What Is a Trust?
A trust is a legal relationship in which one party holds property for the benefit of another.
There are three participants in this relationship: a grantor or “settlor,” who establishes the trust and provides the property to be held in trust; a trustee, who is charged by the settlor with the responsibility of managing the trust in keeping with the settlor’s instructions; and a beneficiary, who receives the benefits of the trust.
The trustee has a fiduciary responsibility to manage the property held in trust (the trust corpus) in keeping with the instructions of the settlor and for the benefit of the beneficiary. This fiduciary responsibility can be enforced by the beneficiary if the trustee fails to meet the obligations outlined in the trust documents.
Fifteen western states continue to own and manage appreciable amounts of state trust land (see Table 1). The nine states with the largest and most significant holdings are the initial focus of the Lincoln Institute and Sonoran Institute Joint Venture: Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming (see Figure 1). Collectively these states manage more than 40 million acres of state trust lands. The landholdings are as diverse as the states that manage them and include coastal forests in Washington, mountaintops in Montana and low deserts in Arizona.
Traditionally these lands have been managed almost exclusively for natural resource production, with the leasing and sale of natural products being the principal sources of revenue. The reliance of state trust land management on natural resource extraction is understandable in the context of the natural resource–based economies of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. But today, as the West continues to urbanize and the region’s economies shift to the information age, trust land managers are recognizing a need to broaden the land use activities of their trust land portfolios. Invariably that means rearranging the portfolio from one that is overly reliant on natural resource extraction to one that recognizes the real estate value associated with commercial, industrial and residential development, as well as recreation and conservation.
Like many land use decisions, particularly in areas experiencing explosive growth, state trust land administration is increasingly controversial. As on federal public lands, traditional uses (i.e., cropland, grazing and timber production, and oil, gas, coal and mineral extraction) are at odds with public interests in recreation and natural open space. Efforts to sell and lease lands for commercial and residential development can create tensions between a state agency acting as a trustee and a local community vested with managing growth. Balancing the protection of the public values inherent in many of these lands with traditional and new uses, all within the context of the state trust’s fiduciary responsibilities, is a challenge for trust land managers.
At the same time, population pressures in the West have increased demands on public education funding. State trust lands are one obvious source of revenue to meet these funding demands, which in turn may generate even more pressure on trust land managers who as trustees of a permanent trust need to achieve both short- and long-term financial returns from the trust’s assets. An additional complexity is that the application of trust principles varies among the states, based in part on differing state trust land enabling legislation created in each state at the time of statehood.
Recognizing the value of bringing diverse interests together and providing solid information to stakeholders and key decision makers in land use planning and development environments, the Lincoln Institute and Sonoran Institute Joint Venture project seeks to
Trust Land Reform in Arizona
Arizona is in the midst of a three-year discussion among diverse stakeholders to reform its laws governing state trust lands. Arizona is noteworthy because the burgeoning growth of Phoenix and Tucson is reaching significant tracts of state trust lands. These lands are some of the most valuable real estate holdings in the Intermountain West and comprise 12 percent of the land in the state. Unlike many other western states, Arizona has long recognized the real estate value of its holdings and has an active real estate disposition program that has sold thousands of acres into the urban marketplace. The revenue from these sales has been deposited into the permanent fund of the state trust entity, and the income from the fund is directed to the trust’s beneficiaries. The permanent fund is now valued at more than one billion dollars and is predicted to double in value over the next 10 years.
In the mid-1990s state trust land sales in metropolitan Phoenix came to a screeching halt when the development interests of the Arizona State Land Department encountered conflict with the goals of local communities interested in preserving some of this land as natural open space. Attempts to accommodate local concerns through state legislation have met with mixed results due to the strictures of the Arizona enabling act and state constitution. Several key court decisions interpreting these laws have constrained the Arizona State Land Department from conserving open space or enabling the department to achieve the highest and best use on these lands when sold or leased for residential and commercial purposes. An attempt in 2000 to secure voter approval to revise aspects of Arizona’s constititution and modernize state trust land management failed at the ballot box in the face of unanimous opposition from the conservation community.
This situation has set the stage for a diverse group of interests to convene in the hopes of developing a comprehensive reform proposal that the Arizona legislature and governor’s office will consider. Even with their support, the final package will need voter approval to amend the state constitution, followed by changes in the federal enabling act that will require the approval of the U.S. Congress.
The Joint Venture directed its initial efforts toward working with the conservation organizations participating in the stakeholder group. We provided analyses of the current laws and proposed changes, with assistance from the law firm of Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, to help the conservation community promote a constructive agenda that has been incorporated into the package. In addition, our information related to land use planning was useful to other stakeholders in developing elements of the package that will ensure more collaborative planning between the Arizona State Land Department and local governments charged with land planning responsibility, while also increasing the range of tools available to local communities to protect natural open space on state trust lands.
We are also working with officials from the City of Tucson (the second largest city in Arizona) and the Arizona State Land Department to assist their efforts to develop 10,000 acres in the city’s growth corridor. This Houghton Area Master Plan includes more than 7,500 acres of state trust lands. Our work is directed toward the planning effort by providing examples of smart growth development at the urban edge. A key element is to document evidence that greenfield projects are not necessarily synonymous with sprawl and that a number of examples of recent master-planned communities at the urban edge are incorporating smart growth elements, such as interconnected open space for active and passive recreational use, pedestrian orientation, mixed-use development accessible to public transit, and a diverse mix of housing types, sizes and prices. As important, these progressive master-planned communities are achieving success in the marketplace, which is a preeminent concern of the Arizona State Land Department.
While the City of Tucson, in partnership with the Sonoran Institute, is working to promote infill and brownfield development, even under the most optimistic of scenarios more than 50 percent of the city’s explosive growth will be greenfield development. If successful, this master-planning effort will guide development on 50 square miles of state trust lands within the city and can serve as a local land use planning model for other state trust lands.
Trust Lands in Montana
The Joint Venture has also initiated an assessment of policy issues affecting state trust lands in Montana. Working with a local advisory group chartered by the Department of Natural Resources (the manager of Montana’s state trust lands), we have provided information that will help guide land use planning on 12,000 acres of state trust lands in Flathead County at the gateway to Glacier National Park. This effort will serve as a template for future department plans for land uses other than grazing and forest management. For example, the department has shown an interest in generating revenue from leasing land for conservation, recreational, residential, commercial and industrial uses. Increasing interest in these “special uses” is creating a paradigm shift in how the Department of Natural Resources interacts with local governments and how local governments interact with state trust lands.
As growth expands throughout much of western and central Montana, the department seeks to capture additional revenue opportunities through the development of special uses. While local communities are recognizing that state trust lands can be a source of economic growth and can contribute positively to meeting growth demands, they are also requiring those land uses to be responsive to local community values and concerns. Sound, objective land planning and valuation information are essential to the development of policies that will guide Montana state trust land management in the future.
Final Comments
In the brief time since the Joint Venture was established there has been no shortage of issues that could benefit from better information and collaboration among diverse parties. This fall the Lincoln Institute and the Sonoran Institute will convene a small group of experts from academia and the public and private sectors to identify the issues of greatest concern that will guide further research efforts. Our work in Arizona and Montana will continue as we seek to develop a broad-based approach to increasing awareness about state trust lands. The successful resolution of the issues affecting state trust land management will benefit not only local school children, but also many conservationists, developers, ranchers and businesses throughout the West.
Reference
Souder, Jon, and Sally K. Fairfax. 1996. State trust lands: History, management and sustainable use. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
Andy Laurenzi is the program director for state trust lands at the Sonoran Institute, a nonprofit organization established in 1990 to bring diverse people together to accomplish shared conservation goals. The Sonoran Institute is based in Tucson, Arizona, with offices in Phoenix and Bozeman, Montana (www.sonoran.org).
SHARE
The Mississippi River watershed has, since the administration of Thomas Jefferson, played a central role in American life. This centrality has been both literal, in a geographic sense, and figurative, in the sense that the mighty river runs through America’s agricultural and cultural heartland.
One of the nation’s greatest conservationists, Aldo Leopold, grew up along the banks of the Mississippi, in Burlington, Iowa. After gaining a forestry degree at Yale University and serving in the U.S. Forest Service in the desert Southwest, Leopold returned to the upper Midwest to teach and write his most enduring prose at the University of Wisconsin in Madison. Leopold and his family also devoted themselves to the restoration of a farm and forest landscape that included a ramshackle home, affectionately known as “the Shack,” on the sandy soils adjacent to the Wisconsin River, a tributary of the Mississippi.
In his work at both the university and the Shack, Leopold gained a first-hand view of the enormous challenges Americans face in attempting to conserve the nation’s soil, water, wildlife, and landscape. As the instigator of the first “wilderness” designation of a federally owned landscape in the Gila National Forest in Arizona, and as a founder of the Wilderness Society, Leopold was a prominent proponent of conservation on public lands. Still, he understood that unless private lands were also conserved for the long term, the conservation community would not be able to effectively protect America’s natural heritage. He wrote presciently for The Journal of Forestry in 1934:
Let me be clear that I do not challenge the purchase of public lands for conservation. For the first time in history we are buying on a scale commensurate with the size of the problem. I do challenge the assumption that bigger buying is a substitute for private conservation practice … . Bigger buying, I fear, is serving as an escape-mechanism—it masks our failure to solve the harder problem. The geographic cards are stacked against its ultimate success. In the long run, it is exactly as effective as buying half an umbrella … . The thing to be prevented is destructive private land use of any and all kinds. The thing to be encouraged is the use of private land in such a way as to combine the public and private interest to the greatest degree possible … . This paper forecasts that conservation will ultimately boil down to rewarding the private landowner who conserves the public interest. It asserts the new premise that if he fails to do so, his neighbors must ultimately pay the bill. It pleads that our jurists and economists anticipate the need for workable vehicles to carry that reward. (Leopold 1991)
More than seven decades after Leopold penned those words, American jurists, economists, policy makers, public natural resource agency administrators, nonprofit conservation leaders, and concerned citizens are still working on his challenge. In October 2005 the Lincoln Institute convened more than 30 conservation leaders to consider the most effective ways to design and use such “workable vehicles.” The Johnson Foundation cohosted the conference at its Frank Lloyd Wright–designed Wingspread Conference Center in Racine, Wisconsin.
From that base the participants visited several sites in the Upper Mississippi watershed in south-central Wisconsin that showcase impressive public-private conservation efforts. Brent Haglund and Alex Echols of the Sand County Foundation led the group to an expansive site on the Portage River managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, where participants learned how cooperative public-private land management practices effectively enhanced wildlife habitat and helped restore native ecosystem functions. At the nearby Baraboo River we saw a public-private effort that had restored the river to health through the removal of several aged dams.
For historical perspective, the group visited the site of Leopold’s Shack, where we read from his posthumously published volume, A Sand County Almanac. Leopold (1949) lyrically describes the critical role of private stewardship in maintaining the long-term value of the region’s ecosystems. The participants also visited the campus of the International Crane Foundation (ICF), where we stood face-to-face with several of the world’s rarest birds and learned of cofounder George Archibald’s nonprofit efforts to restore their populations.
Over the next two days at Wingspread, the group discussed ways to enhance a broad array of conservation incentives in an economically efficient, measurably effective, and reasonably equitable manner. The participants focused on three types of incentive programs of interest to the conservation community in the early twenty-first century: tax incentives, market-based incentives, and fiscal (or budgetary) incentives.
Tax Incentives
Jean Hocker, president emeritus of the Land Trust Alliance (LTA), explained how the federal tax incentives associated with the donation of conservation easements, codified in the 1970s and 1980s, have become a key driver of growth in the U.S. land trust movement. Jeff Pidot, chief of the Natural Resources section of the Maine Attorney General’s office, and a 2004–2005 visiting fellow at the Lincoln Institute, followed Hocker with a critique of easement policy and practice, explaining how the use of conservation easements has resulted in a variety of unintended consequences. He argued that reform of easement law and regulation at the state and national levels would both reduce misuse of the tool and improve its effectiveness in achieving conservation purposes (Pidot 2005).
Responding to Pidot’s critique, the participants, led by Mark Ackelson of the Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation, considered a number of potential reforms, paying special attention to opportunities for strong voluntary standards, improved training and accreditation programs, stronger enforcement of existing regulations, and revision of appraisal standards. Several of these reforms have since been implemented, including LTA’s establishment of a voluntary accreditation program.
In response to persistent advocacy by the conservation community, the U.S. Congress in August 2006 approved an expansion of conservation easement tax benefits. In the opinion of James Connaughton, chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, the new provisions provide “substantial new incentives to landowners who want to commit their land to open space while keeping our nation’s working farms and ranches working” (The Chattanoogan 2006).
Market-based Incentives
Adam Davis, a California-based expert on ecosystem services, explained how private interests, in the context of public cap-and-trade regulatory structures, were becoming increasingly active in providing public and private goods, by employing new ecosystem service trading mechanisms for land and biodiversity conservation (Davis 2005). He noted that U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regulations for the mitigation of adverse impacts to wetlands were evolving to require all mitigators to meet measurable, relatively efficient performance standards. Such developments, he reported, would allow commercial wetlands banking firms to compete effectively and efficiently, improving the per-unit cost and quality of mitigation banking initiatives over time.
Davis’s remarks were expanded upon by several speakers, including Fred Danforth, who offered a case study of his own entrepreneurial experience in ecosystem service provision on a ranch in Montana’s Blackfoot River valley; George Kelly of Environmental Bank & Exchange (EBX) and Wiley Barbour of Environmental Resources Trust, who offered insights on the importance of clear norms and standards in ecosystem service markets; and Leonard Shabman, resident scholar at Resources for the Future and a widely respected economist, who has published several papers on the future of mitigation banking.
Recent events offer considerable hope that some of the legal and regulatory reforms discussed at the session will be implemented in the near future. Specifically, in the spring of 2006 the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers published new draft regulations that appear to address many of the concerns raised about wetlands mitigation. As reported by Ecosystem Marketplace (2006), “central to the proposed new regulations is the requirement that all forms of mitigation meet the same environmental standards already required of mitigation banks … . The proposed regulations will raise accountability levels for projects funded by in-lieu fee payments and will implement a more timely approval process for mitigation banks.”
Fiscal Incentives
The third type of incentive is generally funded through governmental budgets. Ralph Grossi of the American Farmland Trust; Craig Cox of the Soil and Water Conservation Society; Roger Claassen of the U.S. Department of Agriculture; and Jeff Zinn of the Congressional Research Service offered a variety of perspectives on the complex negotiations associated with reauthorization of the Farm Bill, which offers opportunities to expand and change federal farm programs in 2007.
Whether or not the next Farm Bill provides for growth or shifts in incentive programs, achieving measurable impacts will depend on skillful program implementation. Jeff Vonk, director of Iowa’s Department of Natural Resources, offered detailed insight into the challenges of using a conservation budget to address agricultural water quality problems. He argued persuasively that even if conservation budgets increase over time, they will not achieve their intended effect without careful resource allocation analysis and follow-through.
Howard Learner, director of the Chicago-based Environmental Law and Policy Center, offered a detailed case of how a federally funded agricultural renewable energy program benefited from focused legislative design and follow-through on implementation. Andrew Bowman of the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation added the idea that, if implemented in a well-coordinated fashion, the State Wildlife Action Plans submitted to the federal government by the 50 states offered another important opportunity to make progress in wildlife and habitat conservation.
Help for the Mississippi River Watershed
Recent progress in strengthening U.S. tax and market-based incentives for land and biodiversity conservation, combined with potentially significant fiscal incentives, could provide an historic opportunity to realize ambitious conservation objectives in the next decade. There are many thorny conservation challenges that might be addressed with such incentives.
One of most urgent is associated with the Mississippi River watershed where Aldo Leopold spent much of his life. Stretching from Montana to Pennsylvania to Louisiana, the watershed picks up an enormous load of phosphorus and nitrogen from farms, parking lots, and lawns. These chemicals and other pollutants are carried by the great river into the Gulf of Mexico, where they are instrumental in creating hypoxia—an ecological condition characterized by a shortage of available oxygen. It can be caused by surplus amounts of phosphorus and nitrogen that feed huge, oxygen-consuming algal blooms on the ocean’s surface. As the blooms grow rapidly, deeper ocean waters may become relatively depleted of oxygen, sometimes resulting in the death of massive numbers of fish.
A combination of innovative tax, market-based, and fiscal incentives could make a significant impact in improving the ecological character of the watershed and reducing hypoxia in the Gulf. For example, incentives targeted to encourage stream bank restoration, the establishment and stewardship of buffer strips, the implementation of crop rotation schemes that reduce fertilizer runoff, and the reduction of impervious surfaces near watercourses could, after sufficient trial and error, prove to be efficient, measurably effective, and reasonably equitable across geographic and socioeconomic lines. If implemented across the Mississippi watershed, such tools would benefit marine and bird populations, as well as the Gulf fishing industry and local economies. Aldo Leopold would likely applaud news of such an effort’s success, seeing private landowners rewarded to conserve the public interest.
James N. Levitt is director of the Program on Conservation Innovation at the Harvard Forest, and a research fellow at the Ash Institute for Democratic Governance and Innovation at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government.
References
The Chattanoogan. 2006. Conservation incentives pass Senate: Waiting on President’s signature, August 7. http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_90539.asp.
Davis, Adam. 2005. Mainstreaming environmental markets. In From Walden to Wall Street: Frontiers of conservation finance, James N. Levitt, ed., 155–171. Washington, DC: Island Press in association with the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Ecosystem Marketplace. 2006. Ecosystem Marketplace Commentary: Draft mitigation regulations signal growing private sector role in conservation, Press Release, March 27. http://www.ewire.com/display.cfm/Wire_ID/3033.
Leopold, Aldo. 1949. A Sand County almanac. New York: Oxford University Press.
———. 1991. Conservation economics. In The river of the Mother of God and other essays by Aldo Leopold, Susan Flader and J. Baird Caldecott, eds., 193–202. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Pidot, Jeff. 2005. Reinventing conservation easements: A critical examination and ideas for reform. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
The rapid and intense urbanization in Latin America over the last 50 years is often contrasted in the literature with an inadequate urban planning system as a way to explain many resulting social problems: high land prices and property speculation, rampant informality, extreme sociospatial segregation, inadequate urban infrastructure and services, environmental degradation, and the like. The literature is largely silent, however, on the role played by national legal systems, which have both contributed to this situation and reacted against it. The pivotal role of the legal order cannot be underestimated.
SHARE
Conservation Leadership Dialogue
On March 1, 2011, the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy hosted its tenth annual Conservation Leadership Dialogue with a focus on The Future of Large Landscape Conservation in America. The session was organized by James N. Levitt, a fellow at the Lincoln Institute, with support from Armando Carbonell, senior fellow and chair of the Department of Planning and Urban Form. Held in the Members of Congress Room of the Library of Congress, across the street from the U.S. Capitol in Washington, DC, the meeting took place on the 100th anniversary, to the day, of President William Howard Taft’s signing of the landmark legislation that allowed for creation of national forests in the eastern part of the country. The Weeks Act of 1911, named for Congressman (later Senator) John Wingate Weeks of Massachusetts, changed the nature of cooperative conservation involving citizens active in the public, private, nonprofit, academic, and research sectors in the United States.
In the tradition of previous conservation dialogues, a cross-sectoral, geographically diverse group of conservationists convened to seek a path forward—in concert with the Obama administration’s recently released report on America’s Great Outdoors (Council on Environmental Quality 2011), as well as myriad initiatives at the state and local level. Their goals were to advance collaboration on a large landscape scale among landowners, land managers, and citizens from the public, private, nonprofit, and academic sectors. They also sought to understand and expand on the example set by large landscape initiatives that are achieving measurable, durable conservation outcomes that will provide benefits for generations to come.
Just as we can now appreciate the revival of the White Mountains of New Hampshire from their barren, moonscape-like conditions around 1900 to their majestic, verdant stature today, twenty-second century Americans ought to be able to appreciate how our foresight in working across property, jurisdictional, and even national boundaries has become a key element in the nation’s multigenerational effort to preserve essential sources of clean water, sustainably produced forest products, and expansive recreational opportunities.
Speakers’ Comments
The conference speakers emphasized the importance of sustained cooperation across many organizations and sectors to achieve lasting results. Proudly recounting how some two million acres of Maine forestland has been conserved over the past dozen years, Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, reported that “we have done this by building a partnership among government at all levels, the forest products industry, environmental, forestry and recreation groups, and landowners. Through this partnership, we have been able to maintain or increase productivity for wood and harvest levels, supporting a diverse and robust forest products industry that employs tens of thousands of workers who produce paper, other wood products, and renewable energy. At the same time, we have been able to protect biodiversity, old growth and late succession forest, and public access to recreation, and also increase opportunities for tourism” (Levitt and Chester 2011, 72).
Representatives Peter Welch, Democrat of Vermont, and Rush Holt, Democrat of New Jersey, each stressed the importance of perseverance in such efforts. Welch remarked on the value of sustaining land conservation budgets during the current round of budget negotiations. He reminded the audience that in 1864 President Abraham Lincoln took his attention off a monumental crisis—the Civil War—in order to sign a bill deeding the area of Yosemite to the state of California for public use and recreation. If Lincoln could create Yosemite in the midst of the Civil War, Welch asserted, we can do our part in a time of tight budgets and economic volatility.
Holt focused his remarks on achieving a longstanding promise to fully fund the federal and stateside portions of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), as well as a number of other legislative initiatives such as the Wildlife Corridors Conservation Act. Holt was emphatic in urging the conservation community to respond to the need for urgent action for our own sake, and for the sake of future generations. He reminded the audience of the admonition of President Lyndon Johnson, signer of the original LWCF legislation and the Wilderness Act in 1964: “If future generations are to remember us more with gratitude than sorrow,” said Johnson, “we must achieve more than just the miracles of technology. We must also leave them a glimpse of the world as it was created, not just as it looked when we got through with it” (Henry and Armstrong 2004, 123).
It was evident from the discussions that leaders from every sector stand ready to help implement the cooperative conservation aspirations of Collins, Welch, and Holt. Bob Bendick, director of U.S. government relations at The Nature Conservancy, stated that “the overall objective of AGO [America’s Great Outdoors] should be to create and sustain a national network of large areas of restored and conserved land, water, and coastlines around which Americans can build productive and healthy lives” (Levitt and Chester 2011, 74). Accordingly, Bendick shared with the assembled group his personal dream that someday his young granddaughters might, as adults, look out from the arch at the gateway to Yellowstone National Park and note that “all across America, 400 million people have been able to arrange themselves and their activities across this remarkable country in a way that reconciles their lives with the power, grace, beauty and productivity of the land and water that ultimately sustain us all” (Levitt and Chester 2011, 75).
Will Shafroth, acting assistant secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks of the U.S. Department of Interior, and Harris Sherman, undersecretary for Natural Resources and Environment at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, shared their frank assessments of the current situation. Shafroth described the hard work and extensive comments that helped shape the America’s Great Outdoors report. While this work serves as a good foundation for the effort ahead, Shafroth noted that it takes considerable creativity and proactive thinking to sustain conservation momentum in these times of sharp budgetary constraints.
Sherman added that the whole idea of landscape-scale conservation implies that we need to move from performing random acts of conservation to more comprehensive and collaborative large-scale initiatives that engage many agencies and ownership types. Of particular importance, he noted, will be the outcome of the debate on the 2012 Farm Bill, because its conservation provisions will be critically important to the success of large-scale conservation efforts.
The enthusiasm for large landscape conservation on the part of speakers from large public and nonprofit organizations was strongly reinforced by Jim Stone, a private landowner and ranch operator in Montana’s Blackfoot Valley. Stone helped to start the Blackfoot Challenge, a grassroots organization that has yielded impressive, measurable results over the last three decades using a landscape-scale approach.
Stone’s colleague Jamie Williams of The Nature Conservancy explained that the Blackfoot Challenge has achieved remarkable success over the years because it has taken the time to engage so many landowners and partners in consensus-based approaches to conservation. Initial small successes were critical to building the foundation of trust that led to larger successes later (Williams 2011). In the area of stream restoration alone, the Blackfoot Challenge has helped to engage more than 200 landowners in some 680 projects involving 42 streams and 600 stream-miles that have contributed directly to an 800 percent increase in fish populations in the 1.5 million acre valley. Stone is emphatic in saying that, with the right people in the right places, what has been done in the Blackfoot region could be done across the nation.
Complementing the program was a panel of researchers and academic officials representing universities, colleges, and research institutions that are helping to catalyze large landscape initiatives. Matthew McKinney of the University of Montana moderated a dialogue with David Foster of Harvard Forest and Harvard University, Perry Brown of the University of Montana, and Karl Flessa of the University of Arizona. They explored how institutions, within their own walls and beyond, can use their analytic and convening capacities to advance initiatives with extensive impacts.
Perry Brown pointed out that those universities that will play a role in real-world conservation initiatives will not be insular, but rather will cherish their relationships with nonacademic partners such as Indian tribes, state and federal government agencies, and large national and small local nonprofits. David Foster reinforced that idea by describing the Harvard Forest’s outreach efforts to develop and disseminate its recent report on Wildlands and Woodlands New England (Foster et al. 2009).
Large Landscape Cases
There are many exemplary cases of on-the-ground progress in large landscape conservation across the country from Maine to Montana and from Southern Arizona to Northern Florida. One of the longest operating and most important cases is in the ACE Basin in South Carolina’s celebrated Lowcountry. The ACE Basin, comprised of some 350,000 acres that drain into the Ashepoo, Combahee, and South Edisto Rivers between Charleston and Beaufort, is one of the largest undeveloped estuaries along the U.S. Atlantic seaboard (figure 1).
In the late 1980s, a group of public, private, and nonprofit organizations banded together to form a partnership that would protect the remarkable scenic, wildlife, and water resources in the region. Among members of the ACE Basin Partnership are federal agencies such as the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; state agencies including the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources; national nonprofits including The Nature Conservancy and Ducks Unlimited; local nonprofits including the Coastal Conservation League and the Lowcountry Open Land Trust; philanthropic organizations and individuals including the Gaylord and Dorothy Donnelley Foundation; and private interests such as MeadWestvaco Corporation.
Partnership members have conserved more than 134,000 acres, covering a contiguous core in the heart of the ACE Basin that stitches together easements on private land, a National Wildlife Refuge, South Carolina Wildlife Management Areas, and a Charleston County natural and historical interpretive center, among other properties.
As a large landscape initiative, the ACE Basin truly stands out from other efforts. Mark Robertson, the executive director of The Nature Conservancy in South Carolina, has noted that the effort “set a standard of how to get conservation done on a large scale using collaboration between private landowners, conservation groups and government agencies.” Asked about the significance of the progress in the ACE Basin to date, Dana Beach, director of the Coastal Conservation League, is emphatic: “It’s real importance is that it has given many people for the first time hope that a place of great importance is not inevitably going to be developed” (Holleman 2008).
Next Steps
The leadership dialogue concluded with general agreement that there is a great deal of work to be done, as well as an historic opportunity to expand on initial progress in the field of large landscape conservation. The discussion of next steps was organized to focus on four types of initiatives.
Policy Dialogues
There is a need for ongoing policy dialogue, both among conservationists in the public, private, nonprofit and academic sectors and between the conservation community and local, state and federal decision makers, regarding the very timely opportunities to realize landscape-scale conservation initiatives across the nation. The dialogue should celebrate existing success stories about both cultural and nature-oriented properties (both being highly valued by the public), consider ongoing regional conservation efforts, and envision new ones.
In the political sphere, these dialogues should connect with conservation caucuses at multiple layers of government (local, county, state, federal, and international). In nonprofit and academic contexts, the dialogue should reach across disciplines and institutional boundaries. Such intersectoral, interdisciplinary discussions are most likely to come up with creative solutions and novel ideas. While the dialogues may be able to take advantage of the socially neutral nature of universities as conveners, they nevertheless need to be responsive to the practical, on-the-ground issues of vital concern to field practitioners and landowners.
Research
Another immediate need is to build on existing maps and inventories (e.g., the Regional Plan Association’s Northeast Landscape Partnership database) to offer a more comprehensive picture of existing public, private, and nonprofit initiatives. A more comprehensive overview of nationwide efforts should be of particular use to groups and networks working to advance the practice of large landscape conservation, including the Large Landscape Practitioners Network, a program of the Lincoln Institute, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs).
Such research efforts should be more regionally relevant and cost-effective if they involve cooperation among a wide assemblage of public and private organizations. They might also serve to augment environmental education initiatives that already are spread thin.
Additional research is also needed to measure the impacts, performance over time, and conservation outcomes of landscape-scale initiatives, and to identify the key factors of success for initiatives that are able to show significant measureable results. Of particular importance is research that is able to identify where, when, and how certain efforts are able to yield measurably improved ecosystem services, such as improved water quality, increased wildlife populations, and enhanced sustainable production of forest products.
Networking
A number of large landscape networks have been created recently or are now emerging, including the Large Landscape Practitioners Network and the LCCs mentioned above. As they evolve, the networks are likely to nest within one another at larger and larger geographic scales, but they will also need to focus on sharing knowledge and building capacity at the local level to yield lasting results. Notwithstanding the need to be grounded in local realities, the networks have an opportunity to reach out to international partners with lessons to share. Within their own territories, large landscape conservation networks need to be linked to diverse constituencies, including philanthropists interested in landscape-scale conservation, university faculty and students, a range of public agencies, and, most importantly, property owners and land managers.
Demonstration and Implementation
Given what are expected to be very tight constraints on new conservation programs at the federal, state, and local levels over the next few years, participants focused much of their attention on the creative use of existing budgets for landscape-scale conservation purposes. One noted the significant role that is already being played by the Department of Defense to conserve (and limit development on) lands adjacent to active military reservations. Such programs are now being used effectively to protect habitats and working lands from development and to limit landscape fragmentation. They also may be used in the future to address water supply protection issues. Another participant noted the potential significance of state and federal transportation budgets that could be used to mitigate the disruptive impact of new roads and highways.
Particularly enthusiastic support came from several participants for public-private-nonprofit partnerships that have a proven track record for protecting and enhancing locally valued natural and cultural resources to form the backbone for a regional green infrastructure. Examples include Santa Fe, New Mexico; the Chattahoochee/Apalachicola basin in Georgia, Mississippi, and Florida; the Crown of the Continent in Montana, Alberta, and British Columbia; and the New Jersey Highlands.
Additional opportunities for funding large landscape conservation initiatives include state incentives for private land protection that can be used to match selected federal programs (e.g., the matching monies required by funds provided by the North American Wetlands Conservation Act); community forest programs that are now gaining momentum around the nation; selected opportunities for foundation Program-Related Investments (PRIs); and emerging ecosystem service markets assisted by federal policy and public-private partnerships, including mitigation banking and statewide markets for carbon credits, such as those in California.
Conclusion
Notwithstanding evident federal budget constraints, myriad opportunities are available to pursue conservation projects that are expansive in scale, extensive in scope, able to achieve measureable conservation outcomes, and enduring. The conference participants themselves offered clear evidence that the concept of large landscape conservation has spread to initiatives across the continent. These individuals and their colleagues at home and abroad are now and will continue to be at the forefront of initiatives that protect nature in the context of human values at a scale commensurate with the conservation challenges they face.
About the Author
James N. Levitt is a fellow in the Department of Planning and Urban Form at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and director of the Program on Conservation Innovation at the Harvard Forest, Harvard University.
References:
Council on Environmental Quality. 2011. America’s great outdoors: A promise to future generations. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. http://americasgreatoutdoors.gov/report
Foster, D., D. Kittredge, B. Donahue, K. Fallon Lambert, M. Hunter, L. Irland, B. Hall, D. Orwig, A. Ellison, E. Colburn, A. D’Amato, and C. Cogbill. 2009. Wildlands and woodlands: A vision for New England. Harvard Forest Paper 32. Petersham, MA: Harvard Forest.
Henry, Mark, and Leslie Armstrong. 2004. Mapping the future of America’s national parks: Stewardship through geographic information systems. Redlands, CA: ESRI.
Holleman, Joey. 2008. Ace Basin: Protected forever. The State, Local/Metro Section, November 10. http://www.thestate.com/2008/11/10/584599/ace-basin-protected-forever.html#ixzz1W3yQd7KP
Levitt, James N., and Charles N. Chester. 2011. The future of large landscape conservation in America. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. http://www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/1916_The-Future-of-Large-Landscape-Conservation-in-America
Williams, Jamie. 2011. Scaling up conservation for large landscapes. Land Lines 23(3): 8–13. https://www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/dl/1923_1246_LLA_071103.pdf.
Related Resources
Levitt, James N., ed. 2005. From Walden to Wall Street:Frontiers of conservation finance. Washington, DC: Island Press and the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
———. 2010. Conservation Capital in the Americas: Exemplary Conservation Finance Initiatives. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, in collaboration with Island Press, the Ash Institute for Democratic Governance and Innovation at the Harvard Kennedy School, and the David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies at Harvard University.
McKinney Matthew J., and Shawn Johnson. 2009. Working across boundaries: People, nature, and regions. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
McKinney, Matthew J., Lynn Scarlett, and Daniel Kemmis. 2010. Large landscape conservation: A strategic framework for policy and action. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
