Among its many consequences, the pandemic ushered in a period of experimental, rapid-fire adjustments to public space. Cities were suddenly tweaking zoning rules to allow more outdoor dining, blocking off streets to give pedestrians and bicyclists more space, and figuring out how to respond to dramatic upticks in food and retail pickup and delivery. It has been a pivotal stretch, in short, for managing the curb. 

Even before the lockdowns began, the increasing popularity of transportation network companies—from ridesharing services like Uber and Lyft to scooter firms like Bird and Lime—had made curb management a rising priority for many cities. “In today’s urban fabric, few spaces are more contested than the curb,” the American Planning Association declared back in the before-times of 2019. 

But the welter of recent experiments, some involving deployment of new technologies, seems even more significant. Consider the case of Aspen, Colorado. Aspen is an unusual municipality, with a downtown business district that is geographically modest, at just 16 square blocks. Nevertheless, it’s extremely busy: the retail and restaurant businesses there rack up a collective $1 billion a year. The inevitable upshot is that demand for curb space—for parking, for deliveries—can outpace supply. And that makes Aspen a useful curb-management lab. 

In February 2020, Aspen joined a group of municipalities exploring pilot programs with a start-up called Coord, one of a number of “smart city” tech companies with a curb-management bent. “I’m a data freak,” explains Mitch Osur, Aspen’s director of parking and downtown services. He figured that at the very least, Coord’s platform—which integrates “smart zones” with a payment app used by delivery drivers (and a separate app for enforcement officers)—could give him fresh insight into how the downtown streets are really being used. 

The city identified what it believed were its busiest loading zones. Starting in November 2020, using these zones required booking space through Coord’s app, at a cost of $2 an hour. While regular street parking in downtown Aspen can cost $6 an hour, the city (like many others) had never previously charged for loading, but figured it was necessary to get delivery fleets’ attention. In the end there wasn’t much pushback; most drivers appreciated being able to capture a time slot. When one shipping fleet manager questioned the scheme, Osur explained that the shipper could use other loading zones, but the data Aspen was collecting would affect policy decisions about curbs across the downtown area. “If you’re not part of the program, your data won’t count,” he added. Moreover, he was sharing data with participants and soliciting their input. The shipper signed on. 

Because the Coord platform tracks actual usage of the smart loading zones, Osur did indeed get plenty of fresh data. Some was expected, some surprising. He figured average “dwell times” were about 30 minutes, and found they were averaging 39 minutes and 13 seconds. The dwell times were longer in the morning and shrank to about 15 minutes after 2 p.m. He was surprised to learn that the busiest days weren’t Monday and Friday, as expected, but Tuesday and Thursday; Wednesday’s loading zone use was half that of peak days. Based on these insights, Aspen is planning to change the rules for some zones, converting them to regular parking at 11 a.m. on some days rather than 6 p.m. (Osur has seen other changes as a result of adopting Coord; drivers have stopped snagging space early and eating lunch in loading zones, a previously routine practice.) 

Coord has run similar pilots in Omaha, Nashville, and other cities. But it is just one entity involved in curb-management experiments. Cox Communications, through its Cox2M “internet of things” division, is testing curbside kiosks that can essentially monitor dwell times in loading zones and present a countdown clock warning drivers not to overstay their time on the curb; the technology can alert city enforcement when drivers linger. Las Vegas is running a pilot program with the technology, which can also be used to manage commercial deliveries, a Cox official told Government Technology. Columbus, Ohio, and Washington, DC, have run pilots with another app, curbFlow, designed to coordinate deliveries from multiple services along particularly busy curb stretches. 

Technology such as video kiosks and app-based location trackers adds both new options and new complexity to the business of managing curbs. Traditionally, defining curb use has involved signage and paint, which are hard to tweak quickly, notes Anne Goodchild, professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of Washington, whose Urban Freight Lab has focused on public-private efforts to address evolving delivery logistics and planning. 

Perhaps because of the pandemic, cities have been more willing to try new options. Before the pandemic, a curb change would have entailed lengthy public processes. The crisis showed that a more nimble alternative was possible. “We did some things differently,” Goodchild says. “For example, we changed curb allocations literally overnight.” 

The pandemic pushed a fast-forward button on both new patterns of street usage and policy responses to those patterns, says Heather Hannon, associate director of planning practice and scenario planning at the Lincoln Institute. During the pandemic, the organization’s Big City Planning Directors Institute shifted from a twice-yearly gathering to a monthly one (held virtually, of course). The pandemic, she points out, “was a reason to try new things.” 

Hannon has observed a spike in interest in scenario planning for potential futures among U.S. communities since the pandemic began. She also points out that curb management isn’t merely an issue for downtowns or commercial districts, noting that it tilts into residential neighborhoods as well. The demand for home delivery has soared: food-delivery apps doubled their revenues in a six-month period during 2020 compared to the same period in 2019, and e-commerce in the United States grew 44 percent in 2020 compared to the previous year. These trends will only be complicated by the experiments with robots and drones that policy makers increasingly have to accommodate. 

Aspen, meanwhile, has expanded its pilot program, adding new loading zones to the experiment as the number of participating drivers keeps growing. While it is just one experiment in a small city, it overlaps with a singular moment in the way citizens and businesses use technology to interact with planned spaces, opening a window onto how planners and policy makers might think about the future of the curb. “This is totally scalable,” Osur says, referring not to any specific app or technology but to the general idea of cities using new tools to more actively manage the curb. “This is the future.” 

Rob Walker is a journalist covering design, technology, and other subjects. He is the author of The Art of Noticing. His newsletter is at robwalker.substack.com. 

Image: Curb management has become a rising priority in cities including Las Vegas, where Cox Communications is piloting curbside kiosks that monitor dwell times in loading zones. Credit: Courtesy of Cox Communications.

This content was developed through a partnership between the Lincoln Institute and the American Planning Association as part of the APA Foresight practice. It was originally published in APA’s Planning magazine. 

“The world turns and we get dizzy.” That’s how Bono would put it.

He’s right: the world’s accelerations, constant technological disruptions, social inequalities, and changing climate are only a few of the dizzying, mind-boggling challenges today’s planners face. Many of them have been with us for a while. But then came COVID-19, which has catalyzed technological disruptions, amplified our awareness of the effects and pervasiveness of social injustice, and sparked countless other challenges.

Some of these trends have such big implications, are so urgent, or are just moving so fast that planners and the profession have no choice but to stay on top of them. That’s where APA Foresight comes in. In partnership with the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, APA’s research team has been looking into existing and emerging trends in the profession so that we can understand the drivers of change, learn how we can prepare for them, and identify when it is time for planners to act. For this article, we explore what you need to know about seven of the most pressing trends for the profession today.

1. Transit ridership has dropped low. Planners will need to aim high. During the COVID-19 pandemic, transit ridership tanked. New York City saw a 60 percent decrease in subway riders, while San Francisco reported a 90 percent loss of passengers using Bay Area Rapid Transit. The national number of vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) has returned to pre-pandemic levels, but transit ridership is only slowly recovering (and in some places, barely so). There are other modes, like active transportation and shared micromobility options—plus potential newcomers in the next five to 10 years like autonomous vehicles and urban air mobility—that may seem like competitors to transit instead of promising partners.

A pandemic made it even more obvious that, in most cities, people who can afford to live close to transit are not always those who rely on it for mobility. Essential workers without the option to work remotely have faced service disruptions—and there were already access and quality issues before. On top of that, most cities’ transit systems were designed to serve downtown commuters working nine-to-five jobs, which captures a fraction of the transit need, and is even more clear as city centers continue to be underused.

As in-person activities resume, transit agencies and planners will need to rebuild confidence in local transit systems. Ridership patterns before the pandemic—and what became standard during the pandemic—should not be the baseline for transportation planning going forward. 

Agile transit solutions are needed to allow for more flexible options outside a nine-to-five work schedule and to accommodate changing mobility needs and behaviors. Equitable transit is imperative to serve those who need it. Partnerships and collaboration with emerging transportation systems will enable transit agencies to be nimble and ensure fair access for all. Meanwhile, transit systems need to expand their capabilities by making immediate improvements in service and reliability, as well as committing to long-term investments. 

2. Technology is transforming communities. Planners will need to adapt to capture the benefits. In the last two decades, we have moved from an information age to a digital era. Today, advances in digital technology affect almost every aspect in life: how people live, work, play, and move around town; how businesses communicate with their customers; and even how people make decisions on what jobs to apply for, who to befriend, or who to go on a date with. Though this digital era started only two decades ago, it has been accelerating at an unprecedented pace.

The concept of “smart cities” is a logical consequence and a development of this era, prompting the digital transformation of entire cities and communities. It includes not just the operation of a city and related processes, systems, and communication streams, but also the processes planners use to make plans for a community, collect and use data, and implement their plans.

In this digital era, it is vital that planners learn about smart city concepts and how they can use smart tech to achieve community goals so their communities can benefit from them instead of being harmed by them. Adjusting planning processes to this digital environment and adding new tools, relevant skills, and knowledge to the planner’s repertoire will be crucial for planners to be able to continue creating great communities for all. (A forthcoming PAS Report on smart cities will help fill the knowledge gap, defining smart cities as those that equitably integrate community, nature, and technology and that foster innovation, participation, and co-creation. The report, due later this year, also will explain the role of the planner and identify necessary skills, methods, and approaches. Stay tuned!)

3. Artificial intelligence is on the rise, but the human factor in planning is still crucial. Artificial intelligence has been in development since the 1950s. However, because of the availability of big data and increased computing power, the AI market has grown substantially over the last decade and is expected to grow 20 percent annually over the next few years. While the data-based automated decision-making capabilities of AI will create myriad opportunities to improve current planning processes, data gaps and algorithmic bias pose the risk of exacerbating existing inequalities—and even creating new ones.

Planners and allied professionals should have a strong understanding of the potential impacts and benefits posed by AI on the profession and their communities. AI is already reshaping the local landscape, and it is important to understand how planners can use AI equitably and sustainably. Some important issues to consider are privacy concerns, data quality, and the potential bias of AI.

Additionally, it will be important to emphasize the human factor of planning. While AI will enable us to automate repetitive and tedious tasks such as traffic counts, checking boxes on a list, or certain permitting processes, it won’t be able to replace the human being behind the planner, the change agent who can connect with the individual community members, and the facilitator who can listen to people’s needs and concerns.

4. High and varied demand on public space will require a balancing act. More and more activities are vying for a limited amount of public space. Sidewalks aren’t just pedestrian paths to a destination anymore (but were they ever?). They are also hubs for outdoor dining and farmers markets. When streets are too dangerous and bike lanes are nowhere to be found, sidewalks accommodate scooter riders and bicyclists. Soon, they might even become a path for little robots making autonomous deliveries. Meanwhile, plazas and parks are sites for public gatherings—from protests to picnics to concerts. Roads might handle automobile traffic on weekdays, but during weekends or evenings, they could seamlessly reconfigure into “no car zones.” And curbs are especially in high demand, whether they are for parking cars and micromobility vehicles, dropping off transit or rideshare passengers, or serving as zones for traditional or last-mile autonomous delivery.

People are always going to find a way to creatively shape the public realm. Planners need to foster spaces that are adaptable and responsive to the different types of people who use them. The key focus for planners will be to ensure accessibility and minimize exclusion when balancing these activities. Every community wants bustling public spaces, but planners understand that this should not come at the expense of people’s well-being.

With multiple players, functions, and purposes, planners need to redefine what “shared streets” can mean. They especially need to advocate for the most vulnerable (and traditionally, least protected) people who need and deserve access to public space, such as people with disabilities and those experiencing homelessness.

5. Climate action will take center stage—and have greater urgency. The first 100 days of the Biden administration established a promising policy environment for climate change action at all levels. Now, it’s up to planning practitioners to advance (or initiate) climate-related projects and plans.

Local and state officials have undoubtedly been leading the push for climate action in recent years. With renewed commitment at the national level, they can breathe a little easier. But the situation still requires urgent action. As hundreds of scientists recently announced, this is not a climate crisis anymore; it’s a climate emergency.

Planners can take advantage of federal and state funding, tools, and incentives to implement climate change mitigation and adaptation activities. This might include reducing carbon emissions by investing in renewable energy or supporting the green economy.

State and local governments can also expect more opportunities to engage with federal policy makers and to represent their unique perspective on climate action. And even though COVID-19 recovery might be a top priority in the short-term, climate action is compatible with these activities and can’t be pushed off any longer.

6. Communities are more diverse than ever. So are their needs and experiences. The increase in population diversity requires new planning approaches that can reflect the realities of people across various identities, such as race, age, gender, ability, or religion. This demands that planners view people as more than neat and tidy population groups, but rather as fully realized individuals with unique experiences and needs.

Most practitioners already recognize that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to planning. But the profession also needs to start reconsidering the idea that planning is neutral.

Integrating the context and situation of a community when choosing effective practices and solutions can lead to more conscious, intentional planning. In other words, planning needs to be more dynamic—not neutral—in order to be ready for diversity in the communities that planners serve.

Practitioners should be able to quickly tailor planning solutions to the needs of the least supported, most vulnerable individuals in a community. By pursuing planning exercises that consider life at the individual level, the profession can be more mindful of those who exist at the intersection of multiple identities and how planning solutions might impact them. This can humanize the individuals within a community instead of assuming the experiences of population groups are homogenous, resulting in more dynamic planning with more equitable results.

7. The future of work and workplaces will impact how we use urban space. During the COVID-19 lockdown in the spring of 2020, more than 60 percent of the U.S. workforce was working from home, and many continue to do so. The pandemic has accelerated the digitalization of work. Meanwhile, companies are rethinking their office space needs and considering work-from-anywhere policies or hybrids that allow for smaller to no office space, which comes with significant cost savings. The shift from central business districts to a decentralized, work-from-anywhere approach could bring myriad opportunities to change how we use urban space for the better, if planners are ready.

Previously residential-only neighborhoods will have to accommodate their remotely working residents, adding retail, restaurants and coffee shops, parks, and other amenities typically adjacent to offices. For workers who don’t have the space for an office at home or simply don’t want to stay home all day, neighborhood coworking spaces will be needed. Homogenous places will shift to mixed-use, walkable neighborhoods that allow the community to socialize and connect with one another.

Vacant office and retail spaces can be repurposed to affordable housing or coliving and coworking spaces. Obsolete parking spaces can be converted into neighborhood parks. Creative thinking can lead to solutions to the housing crisis, as well as the mental health crisis that stems from extended isolation and other traumas experienced during COVID-19.

Ultimately, if jobs are not a reason to move to a city anymore, improved quality of life will become the main attraction. So planners may need to redefine what gets prioritized in their communities accordingly.

The world keeps turning and change stops for no one. That’s why APA Foresight is here. APA researchers, in partnership with the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, are already preparing for our next cycle of trend research to help the profession learn with and prepare for an uncertain future. 

City planners are emerging from behind the scenes to help address some of society’s most complex challenges, including building equity and fighting racism. This summer a coalition of planners came together to acknowledge past discrimination in urban development policies and commit to becoming “change agents” to help create more racially equitable communities.

The new approach starts with a better community engagement process, says Eleanor Sharpe, executive director at the Philadelphia City Planning Commission and a coauthor of the newly released Commitment to Change. Sharpe is one of 20 urban planners across the United States who have signed the statement; the group is inviting other planning directors, in cities and towns of all sizes, to sign on.

Sharpe joined Andrea Durbin, director of planning and sustainability for the city of Portland, Oregon, and a fellow signatory, on Land Matters, the podcast of the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Sharpe and her colleagues have embraced the idea of “moving at the speed of trust,” she says, describing the process as “very slow, very intentional, very careful listening, hearing, learning. . . . We want to amplify the lived experience of the people, and that this is not just solely professional planners who are making determinations.”

The planners’ initiative is part of a reckoning about structural racism in American society—economic forces, institutions, and interactions that have discrimination baked in. That includes buying a home, for example, because of racial covenants and the practice of redlining, which saw federal lending guidelines deny loans to those in neighborhoods with people of color or immigrants. Such policies denied the wealth that comes with homeownership—an impact felt over generations.

Governments implemented other harmful policies: the bulldozing of Black neighborhoods during the time of urban renewal; plowing freeways through those same neighborhoods, casting shadows and blighting everything nearby; setting zoning to favor the white and wealthy in single-family homes; and designing poor-quality public housing in isolated locations.

The harsh treatment of these communities “wasn’t an afterthought,” said Sharpe. “It was deliberate.”

Although city planners were not directly or solely responsible for each of those decisions, the planning profession has been in some ways complicit in setting the stage for racial segregation, according to the planners’ statement.
 
“We’ve seen the impacts of past policies across our nation,” says Durbin. “The planning directors that we’re working with are coming together and saying . . . that we need to recognize that, we need to own that, acknowledge it, and make changes.”

Joining several other cities, Portland recently banned zoning that allows only single-family houses, opening the way for more affordable multi-family housing in prime neighborhoods. “Our first zoning code was adopted in 1924, and back then, single-family zoning was applied to the 15 highest quality neighborhoods . . . embedding exclusionary practices into our zoning policies from the very beginning,” Durbin says. “These are areas that are near transit and other key amenities, good schools. We needed to provide more [housing] choices for our residents.”

This kind of work can be fraught. Cities that change zoning to encourage more housing development, or take advantage of federal funding to dismantle urban freeways, face the specter of fueling gentrification.

“This is the ultimate conundrum, especially in cities that have challenging areas of poverty and disenfranchisement—the fear [that] any improvement will result in a completely new population moving in, displacing the existing population, some of whom have lived in these areas through all its challenges,” Sharpe says.

The planners acknowledge they are stepping out with more prominence than has generally been the case for the profession, but they say the moment calls for a new approach.

“We just need to flip the script,” says Durbin. “The question is, how do we use our tools, land use planning, zoning tools to advance racial equity, build community wealth, increase economic opportunities for Black, Indigenous, and communities of color? We need to be intentional about who benefits, who’s burdened, and ensure that community benefits and public good are centered in our planning processes, and that we’re planning for those who’ve been most underserved.” 

The new initiative emerged from a network of planners from major U.S. cities, who convene each year to exchange ideas, with facilitation by the Lincoln Institute, the American Planning Association, and the Harvard University Graduate School of Design. In this 75th anniversary year—the Lincoln Institute started as the Lincoln Foundation in 1946—the Lincoln Institute is exploring how this program and others have evolved over the years, and how they are being applied now to some of the world’s most pressing challenges.

You can listen to the show and subscribe to Land Matters on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

Anthony Flint is a senior fellow at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, host of the Land Matters podcast, and a contributing editor of Land Lines.

Lead Photograph: Eleanor Sharpe, executive director at the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. Credit: Altamira Film Co.

Related Content

Philadelphia 2035

Reimagine Philadelphia Steering Committee Begins Work

Philadelphia Department of Planning and Development Cultural Resources Survey Request For Qualifications

Portland 2035 Comprehensive Plan

Portland’s Residential Infill Project

Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability Anti-Displacement Action Plan Foundation Report released

History of Racist Planning in Portland

American Planning Association, Equity Diversity Inclusion

Land Lines: Think Land Policy Is Unrelated to Racial Injustice? Think Again.

Land Lines: Race and Rezoning: Louisville Designs a More Equitable Future by Confronting the Past

CityLab: What It Looks Like to Reconnect Black Communities Torn Apart by Highways

Cleveland native Frank G. Jackson, the city’s longest-serving mayor, has been an advocate for building equity and opportunity in this postindustrial city since taking office in 2006. Mayor Jackson is a lifelong resident of the Central neighborhood, where he began his career in elected office as a City Council member. He later served as City Council president.

A graduate of Cleveland Public Schools, Cuyahoga Community College, and Cleveland State University—from which he earned bachelor’s, master’s, and law degrees—Jackson began his public service career as an assistant city prosecutor in the Cleveland Municipal Court Clerk’s Office.

During his tenure as mayor, Jackson has focused on helping residents and businesses benefit from investments occurring in the city and advancing the Downtown Lakefront Development Plan. He also spearheaded Sustainable Cleveland 2019, a 10-year initiative designed to build a more sustainable regional economy, encourage sustainable business practices, and improve air and water quality in this former manufacturing hub.

Mayor Jackson recently spoke with Senior Fellow Anthony Flint as part of a series of conversations with mayors of cities that are especially significant to the history of the Lincoln Institute. The series is part of the organization’s 75th anniversary celebration. An edited transcript follows; the full interview, along with others in the series, is available as a Land Matters podcast.

Anthony Flint: When our founder, inventor and entrepreneur John C. Lincoln, got his start in the late 1800s, Cleveland was a booming place, arguably right up there with New York and Chicago, an incredible mix of innovation and jobs and homes and neighborhoods. Could you reflect on how that legacy has been on your mind as you’ve governed Cleveland over the last 15 years?

Frank Jackson: Well, it’s always good to know history, so you can put yourself in the right frame of mind and have perspective. Cleveland was a booming place, with the Rockefellers and the [economic successes] of the Industrial Revolution . . . we were ideally located in terms of our ability to be a hub and for the distribution of goods and materials throughout the Midwest. So we reflect back on those heydays, fully recognizing that what brought us to that moment is no longer here . . . and that there needs to be a relooking at where Cleveland is now and what could position Cleveland to be in a similar situation as a hub for economic opportunity and prosperity and quality of life.

AF: At the statue in Public Square, former Mayor Tom Johnson is shown seated with his hand on a copy of Progress and Poverty by Henry George. Cleveland is where John Lincoln first heard George speak. Why do you think Cleveland was so receptive to the ideas of George, who believed the value of land should belong to everyone?

FJ: I couldn’t tell you for sure, but as you know, the body takes its direction from its head . . . and I think Tom L. Johnson was a mayor with progressive thoughts and with the fortitude to execute and implement [ideas]. So he wasn’t just a conversationalist, he actually did things.

This transition that Cleveland was in then—fast-forward, and we’re in the same transitional kind of period. The Industrial Revolution produced a certain level of prosperity and wealth, but also produced a certain social condition . . . that I believe that progressive era was attempting to change to create more equitable outcomes.

I admit, I didn’t really study Mr. George’s philosophy. But what I do understand is this progressive notion of land use, and how land should not be controlled by a few entities that determine what happens. There should be broader input into what happens on that land.

AF: As the city has steadily emerged from a period of decline and population loss during the second half of the 20th century, what have been the critical elements of its regeneration? What catalysts are you most hopeful about?

FJ: Well, it’s how you position yourself, how does Cleveland position itself for the future . . . . I look at it as, how do we have a sustainable economy? How do we deliver goods and services and how do we get into sustainable industries [like electric vehicles] . . . all of this includes technology, all of it includes education, all of it includes research and development. All these things are inclusive of each other. So there’s not just one thing we can pick and say we’re going to do.

I think we need to go back to what Mr. George was talking about, and what Tom L. Johnson was trying to do, which is to say that [progress] is only sustainable if we have equity, and if we eliminate the disparities and inequities in the way our social, political, and economic systems function. And as you know, particularly around the social unrest these days, if we fail to address issues of classism and racism, then all our efforts will be doomed.

AF: Race and economic development are very much on every mayor’s mind these days, especially now that the pandemic has revealed so much entrenched inequity. What are some of the most effective ways Cleveland has addressed historic segregation and racial disparities?

FJ: Before I answer that, let me just say that whatever we have done is not sufficient, because all of these things are institutionalized . . . . We’ve gone to the point of declaring violence and poverty as a public health issue. We’ve gone to the point of establishing a new division in the Department of Health around social justice. We’re trying to institutionalize some things.

We have also attempted to work with our private sector partners to address inequities, disparity, and racism within their organizations, helping to have a better outcome in terms of contracting for goods and services with lending institutions—even though redlining is illegal, the actual practice of how investments are made and moneys are lent and developments occur is basically redlining. So we try to work with them to help them . . . be able to take a risk where they normally would not take a risk. That can only happen if you allow for wealth to occur among those who have traditionally been denied wealth. If you have leadership and career opportunities for those who had traditionally been denied those opportunities. So those are the kinds of things that we work on.

The real thing is what is the culture of Cleveland. How does Cleveland function, and what is its attitude toward these things. And that’s a behavioral thing that bureaucracy cannot really regulate.

AF: Can you tell us about recent zoning reform measures aimed at reducing barriers to housing production and other local economic activity? How important are these rules and regulations to regeneration, and how has Cleveland made innovative use of vacant and abandoned land?

FJ: As you know, land use is key . . . . We’re moving toward having zoning more aligned with people and multiple mobility, the kind of approaches where there’s bikes, cars, scooters, walking, jogging. In that context, trying to create that type of city, it’s very important to have zoning that will accommodate that and will accommodate it in a way that [minimizes conflict].

When I first came into government, there was no new housing development in Cleveland . . . . As a result of the negative impacts of federal and state policy around redlining and urban renewal and then the social impact of riots, [we had] acres and acres of vacant land in the central city, predominantly in African-American communities . . . . Mayor [Michael White, who led the city from 1990–2001] was really a genius in this regard. He worked with the financial institutions and developers to create a network of neighborhood nonprofits whose primary purpose was to redevelop land for housing and to redevelop land at all price ranges, that would make it affordable. I’m familiar with it because I was councilman of Central, where I still live, which probably had the most negative impacts.

We continue this effort today with Recovery Act money; we’re getting $511 million and we’re working with the private sector to develop tools. We’re not talking about a project or initiative, we’re developing tools. What we’re working on now to really connect all these dots . . . a lot of that has to do with land and with the availability of land, whether it’s lakefront land or empty office space downtown or warehouses, old industrial sites that need environmental cleanup. It’s not just housing, but also, how do we create entrepreneurship, commercial strips, retail strips that still have the bones—how do we bring them back and have ownership of goods and services being provided to the community by the people in that community or someone who looks like the people of that community?

AF: Well, if there’s one thing that Cleveland has, it’s good bones, right?

FJ: That’s exactly right. One of the things that culturally came out of that period that you talked about, the heyday of Cleveland, was Severance Hall [home of the Cleveland Orchestra], the museums, the whole University Circle area . . . . Now we’re trying to use old industrial sites and lakefront or riverfront property in a new way since it’s no longer used for commerce . . . [but] a freeway, railroad tracks, those kinds of things [are] almost impossible to remove, but they’re barriers. So how do you overcome those barriers? One of the things we’re looking at is a land bridge that would allow for green space and access to the riverfront, the lakefront, and with that to always have public access and not have private ownership of the waterfront.

AF: Sounds like there’s a lot of reimagining going on.

FJ: That’s the advantage to where Cleveland is now. To have a blank canvas, so to speak, gives us that opportunity. Now the question is whether or not we mess it up . . . . I’ve maintained that whatever we do, it will never be sustainable if we don’t address the underlying issues that are really the issues of America: institutionalized inequity, disparities, racism, and classism, which has a lot to do with land.

This interview is also available as an episode of the Land Matters podcast.

Anthony Flint is a senior fellow at the Lincoln Institute and a contributing editor to Land Lines. 

Photograph: Once an industrial powerhouse, Cleveland has had to reinvent itself after experiencing decades of economic decline during the 20th century. Credit: benkrut via iStock/Getty Images Plus.

Home prices in Idaho are surging. Over the past year, median home values in large cities like Boise and Nampa have increased by as much as 38 percent. Those higher prices, combined with the end of a property tax break granted during the pandemic, mean that many Idahoans are now seeing dramatically higher property tax bills. In response, the state legislature passed a controversial bill aimed at tax relief this spring.

The new law is unusual compared with typical approaches to property tax relief, and some local leaders are warning that its revenue limitations could ultimately force them to raise taxes or fees elsewhere, or cut essential services. As cities and counties assess how the law will affect their budgets, one city has even put a temporary halt on development.

Among other things, HB 389 places caps on local revenue growth. Idaho already had a 3 percent cap on local property tax revenue growth, but the cap didn’t apply to new development. That’s no longer the case—now, allowable property tax revenue growth from new construction will be calculated on only 90 percent of its assessed value. In addition, existing properties returning to the tax rolls under programs to encourage new economic development will contribute only 80 percent of their assessed value to the taxing district’s allowable revenue base. The law also imposes an 8-percent cap on localities’ total annual revenue growth, regardless of the amount of new development.

The bill’s author, House Majority Leader Rep. Mike Moyle, has said the new changes would stop the rapid development growth in Idaho from driving up existing homeowners’ tax bills. Even with the old revenue cap in place, homeowners saw their bills rise faster because home values are rising rapidly while the value of nonresidential property is not. “Right now in Idaho, when somebody builds a new house next to you, your taxes go up,” he told a local news station in May.

Although Moyle argued the bill “fixes that problem,” that’s not the result homeowners are likely to see. Properties are reassessed every year in Idaho, and an existing homeowner’s bill based on that value is more affected by the overall market rather than whether a new house is built nearby. Areas with a lot of growth might experience faster appreciation in home values, and thus faster growth in property tax bills, but restricting taxation of new property will not provide a direct benefit to existing homeowners.

What’s more, the cap on taxes collected from new development actually burdens existing homeowners more by artificially deflating the tax bills for new homes while taxing existing homes at full value.

Officials in fast-growing places are especially worried. Cities must provide newly developed areas with services such as water and sewer, public safety, and street maintenance. Up until this year, revenue collected from those new properties helped pay for that, but now cities are limited in their ability to pay for growth.

The restriction on tax revenue from new development is an unusual approach, said Lincoln Institute Senior Fellow Joan Youngman. While many states limit the total tax revenue a city or town may collect each year, Youngman says that increases are often permitted to reflect the addition of new construction to the tax base.

“Allowing a city’s total tax revenue to keep pace with new development enables the jurisdiction to raise funds to meet the service needs of a larger population without increasing taxes on the existing residents whom the limits are designed to protect,” Youngman said.

Responses to the Bill

Local leaders in Idaho were caught off guard by the bill, which was introduced during the last week of the legislative session in May. The bill faced bipartisan opposition but ultimately passed by a ratio of two to one. Legislators who voted against it said they were concerned it would erode local governments’ ability to provide services, particularly in rapidly growing communities.

That issue is perhaps most pressing in Treasure Valley, the most populous region of Idaho, which encompasses the fast-growing Boise metro area. The city of Nampa has grown by 36 percent over the last decade. That influx of new residents, combined with historically low interest rates, has fueled a home building boom. Under normal circumstances, when such growth occurs, tax rolls increase accordingly. But capping revenue from new construction now means that localities will have to look elsewhere for the funds needed to cover costs related to growth—or they’ll have to cut public safety and other critical services.

Cities and counties across the state are still evaluating how the new caps will impact their revenues. Nampa Finance Director Douglas Racine estimates that HB 389 will reduce revenues from new construction by $1 million. So far, city leaders have responded by increasing impact fees, which are tied to new construction, and are considering other ways to balance the budget without raising costs for existing homeowners.

Northwest of Nampa, the city of Caldwell (pop. 59,000) has enacted the most aggressive response to the legislation so far with a 120-day moratorium on annexations and new development approvals. Supporters said the pause would help give the city, which grew 26 percent between 2010 and 2019, time to come up with a new plan for how to handle growth in the face of the “imminent peril” posed by the state legislation. The move was opposed by builders who warned that pausing development could cause home prices to soar even higher.

Relief by Any Other Name

The new state law also includes two changes aimed at property tax relief. It increases the current cap on the homeowner’s exemption, the portion of a home’s value that is spared from taxation, from $100,000 to as much as $125,000 (depending on the assessed value). And it increases the maximum benefit provided by the circuit breaker program, which offers tax relief to seniors and homeowners whose property tax bills exceed a certain share of their income.

However, starting in 2022, anyone whose home is valued at more than 125 percent of the area median will not be eligible for the circuit breaker program. Opponents warned that adding the home value provision would unfairly deprive people from tax relief if they have fixed incomes but happen to live in hot housing markets. Further, restricting cities’ ability to generate revenue from new construction will erode the tax base over time.

“In the final analysis, the financial benefit to taxpayers will be difficult to quantify and will very likely be negligible,” Nampa’s Racine wrote in a June budget report.

Mayor Debbie Kling of Nampa hopes to rally other Treasure Valley leaders to support property tax relief next year to address the issue from another angle: changing the way homes are assessed. Currently, Idaho law requires that homes be assessed at market value. Kling supports an amendment to the state constitution that would limit how much a home’s assessed value can increase each year. She lobbied for the change this year but hopes next year it will have more support.

“It’s frustrating,” said Kling. “We have the ability to do something that provides actual tax relief to our citizens. Unfortunately, this year, a few in the legislature just wanted to point their fingers at the cities and say our budgets were too high.”

However, unlike revenue limits, which affect only the amount of tax collected, assessment limits can distort the taxes due on similar properties. For example, in California, properties are generally only reassessed at market value upon sale, which means that longtime property owners pay artificially low rates compared to newer purchasers. The 50-State Property Tax Comparison Study by the Lincoln Institute and the Minnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence examines 29 large cities in which state-imposed assessment limits favor longtime owners by limiting the growth in the assessed value of individual properties.

Youngman points out that when housing values rise precipitously it is important to adjust tax rates to moderate the effect on tax bills. In Massachusetts, Proposition 2½ imposes both a revenue limit and a rate limit but maintains fair market value as the basis for assessments. This system has remained stable for over three decades. “This shows that limitations can be based on accurate assessments,” Youngman said.

Liz Farmer is a fiscal policy expert and journalist whose areas of expertise include budgets, fiscal distress, and tax policy. She is currently a research fellow at the Rockefeller Institute’s Future of Labor Research Center.

Photograph: Municipal leaders in Idaho say new legislation intended to provide property tax relief will force them to cut essential services or raise taxes and fees elsewhere. Credit: picmax via iStock/Getty Images Plus.