It is an honor to follow Gregory K. Ingram as the fifth president of the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy (see page 28), and to join you for my inaugural issue of Land Lines. It will be a challenge to live up to Greg’s accomplished leadership and remarkably productive years at the helm of the Institute since 2005. I hope that I can combine my skills and experience with Lincoln’s formidable tools and talented staff to continue its singular mission: connecting scholars, public officials, and business leaders to blend theory and practice in land policy in order to address a broad range of social, economic, and environmental challenges.

Tectonic forces—natural, man-made, or both—are reshaping our planet. As we contend with climate change, accelerating urbanization in Asia and Africa, the aging of populations in Europe and North America, the suburbanization of poverty in the United States, and the financial insolvency of American cities, the land use decisions we make today will dictate the quality of life for hundreds of millions of people for the next century. Comprehensive plans and policies that equitably govern land use, political and social systems that ensure sustainability, and sound economic analyses to address these challenges are in critical demand and will remain so for decades to come.

Lincoln Institute affiliates explore these matters in this issue of Land Lines. The 2013 Lincoln/Loeb Fellow Lynn Richards, incoming president of the Congress for the New Urbanism, lays out 10 nifty steps U.S. communities have taken to make their suburbs more pedestrian-friendly, with affordable housing to offset the suburbanization of poverty and with denser mixed-use development and public transit to reduce automobile use and help to slow climate change. Architect and 2014 Lincoln/Loeb Fellow Helen Lochhead discusses the winners of Rebuild by Design, the international competition that fostered design innovations that will integrate resilience, sustainability, and livability in the re-gions affected by Superstorm Sandy. Public Affairs Director Anthony Flint reports on Lincoln’s seventh annual Journalists Forum on Land and the Built Environment, which explored prospects for making smarter, more equitable infrastructure investments in 21st-century cities. Finally, in the Faculty Profile, Lincoln’s senior research analyst Adam Langley discusses the Institute’s Fiscally Standardized Cities (FiSCs) database—a newly developed tool that will provide the foundation for important new analyses that will guide local responses to fiscal challenges in the United States.

And just a little about me. Over the last 14 years, I worked at the Ford Foundation, where I occupied a unique perch within global philanthropy that allowed me to support, demonstrate, and test new approaches to solve vexing social problems. Some of my proudest accomplishments include founding the National Vacant and Abandoned Properties Campaign and helping to build and grow the nation’s field of shared-equity housing through collaborations with the National Community Land Trust Network and other partner organizations. I helped to design and then took leadership of Metropolitan Opportunity, the Foundation’s next generation of community and economic development programming, which seeks to reduce the spatial isolation of disadvantaged populations in metropolitan regions by integrating land use planning, affordable housing development, and infrastructure investment to better serve all residents.

I came to Ford with a research background in housing, economics, and public policy analysis. I enjoyed the opportunity to work with scholars across the globe on issues as diverse as the birth of the environmental movement in Russia, the role of trade imbalances and debt in driving macroeconomic cycles, and the impact of homeownership on the lives of low-income families. I played the role of teacher and mentor to thousands of students and have tracked their successes with great pride. I presented research, advocated for policy change, and enjoyed successful collaborations with researchers, advocates, and public officials on four continents. And now I am delighted and honored to join you in this venture with the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

The case of Mexicali, the capital city of the border state of Baja California, Mexico, stands out as a good example of successful property tax reform in the 1990s. In only a few years the local government was able to raise revenues associated with the property tax, as well as strengthen its municipal finances and modernize its cadastral and collection systems. Furthermore, Mexicali carried out this reform by adopting a land value taxation system, the first of its kind in Mexico, and gained the public’s acceptance for these changes. Without ignoring its problems and flaws, this case provides interesting lessons on future property tax reform endeavors in Mexico and other countries.

Economic, Political and Technical Considerations

Accomplishing property tax reform did not always seem to be an easy task in Mexicali or anywhere in Mexico. Since 1983, the local level of government has been responsible for setting up and collecting property taxes, although state authorities kept certain responsibilities. Throughout the 1980s, property tax revenues, and local revenues in general, experienced a severe drop caused by a combination of high inflation rates, economic recession, lack of political interest, and reduced administrative competence of local governments, which preferred to rely on revenue-sharing sources.

In the early 1990s, a clear improvement in the nation’s macro-economic performance made conditions more favorable for change, although political and technical factors reduced the incentives for many state and local governments to embark on fiscal reform. Nevertheless, the federal administration of Carlos Salinas de Gortari (1989-1994) launched an initiative to improve local finances through a cadastre modernization program lead by BANOBRAS (Banco Nacional de Obras y Servicios), a public development bank.

Even before this program and other national policies began to exert an influence on local and state administrations, Mexicali took the lead in property tax reform. Starting in 1989, the newly elected mayor, Milton Castellanos Gout, saw the importance of having strong local finances and wanted to raise revenues at the beginning of his term. He hired a private consulting firm to update cadastral values. The main consultant, Sergio Flores Peña, a graduate in city and regional planning from the University of California at Berkeley, convinced the mayor to change from a mixed-value tax base on land and buildings to a land value system, and to design a mathematical model to calculate land values.

Rather than being attracted by theoretical or ideological beliefs about the advantages of a land value tax, Castellanos was convinced that it would be the easiest and fastest way to raise revenues. He took the political risk of proposing a Municipal Cadastral Committee, including real estate owners’ organizations, professional organizations and citizen representatives.

The results were spectacular in two ways: first, the new tax raised revenues quickly (see Table 1); and second, there was not a single legal or political objection from taxpayers. The increase in revenues from real estate property taxes and property sales, by far the most important source of local revenues, allowed the mayor to launch an important public works program. In the next fiscal year, however, he wanted to loosen his fiscal grip, so he did not pursue land valuation updates and abandoned the mathematical model that was originally created for that purpose.

Opposition to updating land values came from both the Municipal Cadastral Committee and the government officials in charge of the cadastre and valuation office who lacked the technical capability to manipulate the model and feared that their power and control might be weakened by the participation of the private consulting firm. As a result, the mathematical model was abandoned and land values where subsequently defined by a process of negotiation and bargaining between local authorities, elected representatives and the committee. However, the land value taxation system remained as the base to establish land values.

At the same time, the Castellanos administration embarked on a cadastre modernization program with financial resources from the federal government. However, since the mayor saw that his main objective of raising revenues had been achieved, the efforts to modernize the cadastral system became a secondary priority that was not as successful.

In subsequent administrations, the policy towards tax revenues and cadastre modernization varied. The next mayor, Francisco Pérez Tejeda (1992-1995), was a member of the same political party (Partido Revolucionario Institucional, PRI). He experienced a drop in property tax revenue during his first year in office, and taxes only increased at the end of his administration. He abandoned the cadastre modernization program, but maintained the land value taxation system.

The next administration was led by Eugenio Elourdy (1995-1998), a member of the Partido de Acción Nacional (PAN). He was the first opposition party leader in Mexicali, although a member of PAN had governed at the state level from 1989 to 1994. During Elourdy’s term, land values were updated, property tax revenues grew steadily and cadastre modernization was vigorously resumed. The current administration led by Victor Hermosillo (1999-2001) is continuing with cadastre reform.

Assessing the Mexicali Experience

There is no question that the process of fiscal reform has stimulated property tax revenues as the fastest and most important financial source for the city government. Currently, property tax revenues account for more than 50 percent of local municipal revenues. Mexicali is well above the state and national averages for the relative share of property tax revenues to total revenues (15.3 percent in 1995, compared to 8.4 percent at the state level and 10.3 percent at the national level). Local government officials in charge of the cadastre and valuation systems are well prepared with technical expertise and an awareness of the need to conduct permanent reform within the system. Mexicali’s example has already been replicated in the rest of the state of Baja California and in the neighboring state of Baja California Sur.

The Mexicali case offers some important lessons. First, the property tax plays a central role in strengthening local governments, not only for raising sufficient revenues for urban development but also for providing government officials with the skills to organize the tax system in a way that can be sound, legitimate and transparent.

Second, property tax reform requires vision, leadership and, most of all, political will and commitment from the executive. However, successful reform to raise taxes also depends on a sound technical base and acceptance by the general public.

Third, the land value tax proved to be extremely helpful in achieving successful reform at an early stage. It is clear that the rationale for adopting land value taxation had more to do with a pragmatic approach than with theoretical positions or debates over different schools of thought. However, this should not prevent government officials, consultants, scholars and the general public from thoroughly analyzing the diverse consequences of this approach in terms of economic efficiency, equity and administrative management.

Although a land value tax has proven to be successful in the case of Mexicali, it should not be viewed as a panacea for all situations. It is important to recognize that the tax can be of little help without other measures that have to be considered as part of property tax reform, such as cadastre modernization, clear policies on tax rates and public participation.

Finally, cases of property tax reform around the world cannot be viewed as black-and-white, success-or-failure experiences, but rather, like Mexicali, as stories that combine success, flaws and steps backward. Far from being a perfect example of property tax reform, Mexicali is a good learning experience. It shows that changes can take place in a field where very often one thinks that little can be accomplished.

Manuel Perlo Cohen is a researcher at the Instituto de Investigaciones Sociales, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. He received support for this case study from the Lincoln Institute and he has participated in numerous Institute-sponsored courses and seminars throughout Latin America.

Colombia’s cadastral administration is a meeting point for authorities from the various levels of the country’s political-administrative system. At the national level, cadastral activities are determined by the technical norms established by Law 14 of 1983 and modeled on guidelines of the International Federation of Surveyors (FIG). The national government agency Agustin Codazzi Geographic Institute (IGAC) is responsible for all cadastral administration and oversight of more than 7 million parcels. In addition, there are municipal-level cadastres in the cities of Cali and Medellín, a department-level system in the Department of Antioquia, and a district-level cadastre for Bogotá’s Capital District.

Each of these entities represents the cadastral authority in its assigned territory. As such, each is in charge of the processes of establishing protocols and updating and maintaining the cadastres, which record the proper physical, legal, fiscal and economic identification of all real estate properties. These authorities update the cadastres every five years in order to check their physical and legal elements and to eliminate eventual disparities in cadastral valuation due to physical mutations, use or productivity changes, public works or local real estate market conditions. The authorities also reset the cadastral valuations every year, which enables them to determine the base payment level of the property tax.

Bogotá’s Administrative Department for the District Cadastre (DACD) was established in 1981 but was not fully operational until 1991. The process for updating the cadastre database was provided in Article 5 of Law 14 of 1983, but was started in 1997. The Bogotá cadastre relied on the national cadastre program guidelines before formulating a program that reflected local interests and concerns. Mayor Antanas Mockus set a goal for his administration in 2000–2003 to undertake a complete updating of Bogotá’s real properties. In spite of the unpopularity of this task, the mayor’s political will, his commitment of the necessary budget and resources, and the persistence of the District Cadastre’s staff ensured that the goal was met.

This endeavor updated 1,734,622 properties, 102,531 of which belong to the incorporated-as-new category. At the same time, the cadastral base value was increased from $66.61 billion to $88.25 billion Colombian pesos, thus increasing $21.64 billion pesos (approximately US$8 million; US$1=2,700 Colombian pesos). A quick calculation of the revenue impact suggested the District would receive an additional income of $65 billion pesos (US$24 million) in property taxes per year. The city spent only about $11 billion pesos (US$4 million) on the updating process, so it obtained a very positive cost-benefit result, especially because this investment is done only once and the resulting additional resources are permanent.

Having an updated cadastre is important not only from a public finance perspective but also for other benefits, such as addressing taxation inequity, purging cadastral archives, improving the urban nomenclature and incorporating cartography. All of these effects may be used as valuable tools for administrating the city’s future development. Thus, keeping the cadastre updated becomes imperative to preserve the District’s solid fiscal status, ensure the just distribution of the tax burden among the different social groups, and provide financial resources for planning and development processes.

The positive outcome of this experience led DACD to examine other countries’ experiences with cadastres, in search of new strategies and ideas that could help improve future performance. This led to the First Cadastral Updating Methodologies Forum, which took place in November 2003 with experts from Spain, France and the U.S. sharing information on different issues. Spain’s cadastre most resembles Colombia’s and offered valuable information on the legitimacy and simplification of the process. The National Geographic Institute of France shared experiences in linking registered cadastre data and technological developments in updating graphic databases. The Lincoln Institute, which has long worked in Bogotá on various aspects of land management and taxation, contributed information regarding mass valuation processes. Finally, the IGAC manifested its desire to integrate its cadastre data with the international cadastre through an agreement with similar systems worldwide.

Liliana Bustamante is adviser to the director of the cadastre and Nestor Gaviria is project manager for updating the cadastre in the Administrative Department for the District Cadastre in Bogotá, Colombia.

The property tax has been subject to much popular criticism and political pressure in recent decades. Several states have implemented, or are considering, a variety of caps and limits on property assessments, property tax rates, or total revenue raised from the property tax. Perhaps the best-known example is California’s Proposition 13, which ties property assessments to the purchase price of a dwelling (rather than its current market value) and limits the tax rate that can be levied on homes. It is worth taking another look at the property tax and considering its strengths and weaknesses as a source of funding for local government services.

La recuperación de la plusvalía del suelo es ahora un tema popular entre los profesionales de finanzas públicas a nivel local, en parte debido a que la disminución en los ingresos de los gobiernos locales causada por la recesión ha despertado el interés en nuevas fuentes de ingresos, y en parte debido a la necesidad de encontrar nuevas maneras de financiar la infraestructura local, que se ha deteriorado a causa de la falta de inversión. La sexta Conferencia Anual sobre Políticas de Suelos del Instituto Lincoln, celebrada en mayo de 2011, analizó varios aspectos de la recuperación de plusvalías, utilizando experiencias a nivel nacional e internacional.

Principios básicos de la recuperación de plusvalías

Los cambios en el valor del suelo se deben con frecuencia a factores que no están relacionados con el esfuerzo del propietario: acciones tomadas por la comunidad relativas a las inversiones en infraestructura; crecimiento cercano de actividades industriales, comerciales, residenciales o recreativas; normas de edificación que permiten al dueño desarrollar el suelo; o el crecimiento gradual de la comunidad. La recuperación de plusvalías consiste en aplicar un impuesto o arancel diseñado para devolver a la comunidad algo o todo el valor agregado al suelo por las acciones de la comunidad. Su aplicación es particularmente atractiva cuando las inversiones públicas —en caminos, suministro de agua, saneamiento o servicios locales, como el alumbrado público— aumentan los valores de la propiedad.

Experiencia internacional

Arriendo de suelos. Quizás la aplicación más amplia y comprensiva del principio de recuperación de plusvalías tiene lugar en China, donde las municipalidades compran suelos agrícolas a los granjeros a precios de uso agrícola, les agregan servicios públicos de infraestructura, y se los venden a los emprendedores como suelos urbanos, con permisos para realizar emprendimientos urbanos. La municipalidad se queda con la diferencia de precio entre el valor urbano y agrícola del suelo, generando una proporción importante de sus ingresos locales con los cuales paga, entre otras cosas, la instalación de la infraestructura.

Co-desarrollo. Las compañías de transporte público de Hong Kong y Tokio han usado los ingresos de co-desarrollo de comunidades residenciales y áreas comerciales cercanas a las nuevas estaciones de transporte público para ayudar a financiar sus costosos proyectos. En Tokio, los ingresos de las líneas de transporte que no se deben a la venta de pasajes suman del 30 al 50 por ciento del total. En ambas ciudades, los ingresos operativos por la gestión de propiedades están cobrando más importancia que las ganancias obtenidas de los emprendimientos en sí, y proporcionan una fuente de ingresos sustentable.

Tributación del desarrollo inmobiliario. Los intentos de tributar la valorización de las propiedades en el Reino Unido comenzaron en 1909, pero su implementación se vio obstruida por problemas de valuación y otros desafíos. Las contribuciones directas de valorización fueron reemplazadas por contratos con las autoridades locales, donde los emprendedores contribuyen al suministro de infraestructura y servicios, viviendas de interés social y otras obligaciones de planeamiento. Estos contratos se están convirtiendo poco a poco en contribuciones de infraestructura comunitaria, que es una contribución de valorización obtenida por otros medios. Siguiendo una trayectoria histórica distinta, Francia también ha establecido un impuesto de infraestructura local a los nuevos emprendimientos.

Consorcios de suelos. India ha experimentado con los consorcios de suelos para implementar sus nuevos planes de urbanización que reemplazan a los viejos planes de ordenamiento territorial. Esta práctica alienta a los dueños de suelos sin desarrollar, o desarrollados en forma precaria, a que agrupen sus predios y luego reciban una parcela con servicios de infraestructura o un espacio construido cuando el emprendimiento se haya completado. La estrategia adoptada en Ahmedabad usa el 15 por ciento de los suelos para caminos, el 10 por ciento para parques, el 15 por ciento para subastar a terceras partes y el 60 por ciento para los miembros del consorcio.

La experiencia de los Estados Unidos

Algunas de las políticas específicas de recuperación de plusvalías en los Estados Unidos incluyen áreas de tributación especial con cargos por valorización. Por ejemplo, los Distritos de Establecimientos Comunitarios (Community Facilities Districts, o distritos Mello-Roos) destinan aranceles pagados por los residentes al pago de bonos vendidos para financiar el desarrollo de infraestructura. Los Distritos de Mejoras Comerciales (Business Improvement Districts) y el Financiamiento por Incremento de Impuestos (Tax Increment Finance) usan ingresos tributarios o arancelarios separados para financiar mejoras urbanas en áreas designadas al efecto. Los Acuerdos de Beneficios Comunitarios (Community Benefit Agreements), que se negocian en forma privada, obligan a los emprendedores a proporcionar instalaciones comunitarias o beneficios económicos a los residentes locales. Los aranceles municipales de desarrollo e impacto inmobiliario, que se utilizan para financiar obras de infraestructura y otras inversiones relacionadas con los emprendimientos, se basan en general en los costos de dichas inversiones, pero sólo generan ingresos cuando la plusvalía excede el costo.

Lo más notable de la experiencia norteamericana es que los términos en sí —contribuciones de valorización o recuperación de plusvalías— raramente se mencionan, si bien los principios se aplican con regularidad. Sin embargo, este país puede aprender lecciones de las nuevas estrategias de recuperación de plusvalías adoptadas internacionalmente.

Las actas de la conferencia, con artículos y comentarios de más de 25 contribuyentes, serán publicadas en mayo de 2012.

Many countries in Latin America have passed legislation that supports value capture policies as a way to recoup some or all the unearned increase in private land values resulting from public regulations or investments. Thus far, however, only a few jurisdictions in certain countries have applied this potentially powerful financing tool systematically and successfully.

In 2011 and 2012 the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy surveyed public officials and academics in the region to discover why value capture has not been used more often. The 2012 questionnaire was designed to elicit respondents’ views about the prospects for designing, institutionalizing, and implementing two emblematic value capture instruments–betterment contributions and the sale of building rights.

Betterment contributions (known as special assessments in the United States) are charges imposed on owners of selected properties to defray the cost of a public improvement or service from which they specifically benefit (Borrero 2011; Borrero et al. 2011). Under the sale of building rights, in contrast, the government charges for special rights that it grants, such as allowing a higher floor-to-area ratio (FAR), a zoning change (e.g., from residential to commercial), or conversion of land from rural to urban use (Sandroni 2011).

The results of both surveys challenge much of the conventional wisdom about the use of value capture policies in Latin America. In particular, respondents with actual experience in using these tools consider legal and technical difficulties less of an obstacle to implementation than the lack of understanding among key government executives about their potential payback. Moreover, value capture is still viewed primarily as a tool to promote equity in cities rather than as a way to improve municipal fiscal autonomy.

Survey Distribution

Launched in the spring of 2011, the first survey was distributed to 436 public officials and academics who had participated in one or more of the Lincoln Institute’s previously offered courses and workshops on value capture issues. A second questionnaire with a different set of questions was sent by email in February 2012 to 14,355 people affiliated with the Institute’s Program on Latin America and the Caribbean. Respondents (134 and 1,066 respectively) included officials at all levels of government, city planners, academics, independent scholars and consultants, and members of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs).

When classified by country, responses to individual choices for many questions numbered fewer than ten. For this reason and to simplify the presentation, the analysis combines the responses from countries with similar sociopolitical characteristics in terms of value capture into three groups.

1. Bolivia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Uruguay, and Venezuela. All five countries have some national legislation on value capture and are currently run by governments sympathetic to value capture policies. Uruguay in 2008 (Law No. 18.308 of 18.VI.2008) and Ecuador in 2010 (with its new national code, COOTAD ) approved national legislation enhancing the scope of government prerogatives with regard to land value increments.

2. Argentina, Chile, Mexico, and Peru. These fast-growing, mature countries are still struggling to introduce more explicit national legislation on value capture, in addition to imposing betterment levies.

3. Central America and the Dominican Republic. Countries in this region comprise a single group because they are relatively small and have liberal urban development regimes.

Brazil and Colombia are presented separately because they make up a significant share of survey respondents, and they have the most experience with value capture tools. The number of respondents generally follows the size of the population of the country group, except for Brazil and Colombia, which account for disproportionately large numbers of respondents (table 1).

The Pragmatic Character of Value Capture

Even though only a few countries explicitly prescribe value capture in their legislation, the smaller 2011 survey revealed detailed information about jurisdictions that had recovered some land value increment resulting from changes in land use. Of 13 countries covered in that survey, respondents cited 22 cases of value capture in 30 jurisdictions in 8 countries. In general, these cases involved some kind of benefit exactions for the community achieved through direct negotiation between developers and public authorities.

On average, though, the value extracted was less than one-third of the estimated land value increment. The likelihood of the contribution exceeding one-third of the total value was higher when the contribution was made in cash rather than in kind. These cases occurred in countries without explicit legislation on the sale of building rights, such as Bolivia, Costa Rica, and Peru, illustrating the pragmatic approach to value capture on the part of officials in charge of urban land management.

Overall, survey respondents consider themselves familiar with the topic, and the findings of the 2012 survey reinforce the point that awareness of value capture instruments is not limited to countries that have institutionalized the practice. Relatively few respondents claimed to be unfamiliar with value capture instruments, although the real number of officials may be larger, given the self-selection bias of the survey respondents (table 2). The share of respondents unfamiliar with value capture instruments in Brazil and Colombia is about half the share of respondents from other countries.

The Implementation Challenge

One of the common arguments raised about the chances of applying value capture policies in Latin America relates to the technical difficulty of implementation–specifically, assessing the land value increment resulting from public interventions. To probe the importance of this issue, the 2012 survey asked whether respondents consider a 30-percent margin of error in valuation acceptable enough to justify application of value capture. The overwhelming majority of respondents (89 percent) stated that, regardless of the margin of error, value capture policies should be applied. Only 11 percent argued to the contrary.

The main reason cited for supporting value capture is again a pragmatic one. Similar margins of error occur in other contexts, such as valuation for property taxation purposes (36.9 percent). A close second is the “need to establish the principle” (31.8 percent). The fact that value capture instruments are contemplated in the legislation places third (21.4 percent). As expected, respondents from Brazil and Colombia rank the legal reason for applying value capture as more important (27 percent and 31.6 percent, respectively) than respondents in other countries (15.2 percent on average).

It is notable that 41.8 percent of respondents in Argentina, Chile, Mexico, and Peru—countries still striving to pass national legislation on value capture—ranked “need to establish the principle” higher than other respondents. In contrast, Colombian respondents ranked this reason third. Reasons given by respondents from the other country groups are not significantly different from the sample average (31.8 percent). Among the 11 percent of respondents opposed to value capture policies, legal and legitimacy arguments prevail over pragmatic ones (illegitimacy of policy or administrative and judicial costs).

The Known versus the Unknown

Laws throughout Latin America support betterment contributions, and local governments frequently count on revenues from that source in their budgets. However, these revenues are generally modest and rarely account for more than 1 percent of local own-revenues in most places except in Colombia and to a lesser degree in certain cities with experience using this instrument, such as Cuenca, Ecuador, and San Pedro Sula, Honduras, and in a few Brazilian jurisdictions in the State of Paraná. The sale of building rights, in contrast, is still being established as a value capture tool and is legislated in only a few countries.

Survey respondents were also asked about their preference between betterment contributions (the familiar value capture tool that performs poorly) and the sale of building rights (the newer instrument with stronger revenue-generating potential). Across all countries the results show greater support for betterment contributions: 59 percent versus 41 percent.

Even among respondents from Brazil, the only country where preference for the sale of building rights was significantly above average (48.9 percent), betterment contributions still rank as the preferred value capture instrument (51.1 percent). This is remarkable in light of São Paulo’s success in generating considerable revenue from selling building rights. For example, the April 2012 auction of Certificates of Additional Construction Potential (CEPACs) in São Paulo added US$420 million to public coffers, on top of about US$2.5 billion from previous auctions (São Paulo Stock Exchange 2012).

The survey evidence suggests that most respondents are not fully aware of the difference in the revenue potential of these two value capture tools. In fact, only 10 percent of respondents cite revenue potential as the main reason to prefer one over the other. Proponents of value capture give top priority to promoting equity rather than to generating revenue–another surprising finding given the potential of value capture to strengthen municipal autonomy.

When asked how they would characterize the arguments for value capture, respondents in the 2011 survey could choose from 50 terms related to land policy attributes. The eight terms that received the most responses (49.7 percent of the total) were associated with equity issues such as charges and benefits, redistribution, social function of property, anti-speculation, equity, and social justice. The one exception was a financial term, which ranked fourth.

In contrast, terms such as fiscal autonomy, fiscal harmony, decentralization, tax, self-sufficiency, financing, and additional resources received only 18.7 percent of the votes, while terms related to the functioning of urban markets, such as efficiency and market discipline, received just 11 percent. Arguments against value capture were associated with such terms as tax, fiscal burden, acquired rights, and double taxation, as well as abuse, violation of rights, and illegitimacy.

Respondents to both the 2011 and 2012 surveys cited ethical and sociopolitical legitimacy as the primary reason for preferring one value capture tool over the other. Indeed, the 59 percent of respondents favoring betterment contributions over the sale of building rights mention ethical and sociopolitical legitimacy as the most important reason for their choice. The 41 percent of respondents favoring sales of building rights gave the same reasons for their preference. At the same time, 24.4 percent of respondents favoring the sale of building rights consider the capacity to generate revenues the second most important reason for choosing that instrument, but only 17.6 percent of respondents favoring betterment contributions share the same opinion.

All in all, this suggests that officials in Latin America often tolerate a wide gap between the equity-legitimacy principle and revenue generation, based on a perception of greater technical ease in charging betterment contributions. From another perspective, it appears that they favor the quicker path to the moral high ground rather than one leading to higher local revenues.

Experience Matters

After ethical and sociopolitical legitimacy, the next most important reason for preferring a particular value capture instrument varies according to the respondent’s level of experience. Strong confirmation of the importance of implementation experience comes from the two countries that have applied the tools: Colombians favor betterment contributions, and Brazilians prefer the sale of building rights.

Colombia has long experience with betterment contributions, which may explain why 16 percent of respondents from that country cite technical ease of implementation as the reason to choose that approach. By comparison, only 7.9 percent of respondents in other countries mention that reason. Meanwhile, 12.6 percent of respondents in Brazil favor the sale of building rights due to ease of implementation, compared with just 5 percent of respondents from other countries. These results underscore how much experience shapes opinions about the technical constraints involved in applying value capture tools.

Obstacles to Implementation

Respondents to the 2012 survey attribute the reluctance of public officials to apply value capture policies primarily to lack of information (23.2 percent) and political risk (22.5 percent). Other explanations include complicity with landowners’ interests (18.4 percent) and technical difficulties in implementation (15.4 percent). Few consider lack of legislation as an important reason for not using value capture instruments (1.5 percent), with ideological motives (3.2 percent) and administrative costs (3.8 percent) ranking somewhat higher.

Pragmatic reasons are important only among respondents from countries lacking significant experience with such tools. While 13 percent of respondents from Brazil and Colombia mention technical implementation difficulties as the primary obstacle, 31 percent of respondents from other countries cite that reason on average. This reinforces the finding that experience with value capture tools counts. Brazilians explain why value capture instruments are not used in terms of land interests and political risk, which together account for 59 percent of responses. Among Colombians, 26 percent see no reason not to use value capture instruments. This is a much higher share than among respondents from other countries (7.2 percent on average), indicating a perception in Colombia that the tools are getting the attention they deserve.

Targeting Key Stakeholders

The 2012 survey asked respondents to select which stakeholders involved in the debate should be the primary targets of capacity building in order to overcome resistance to value capture policy. High on the list are heads of the executive branches of government, such as mayors and directors, followed by members of the legislature, including members of congress and city councilors (table 3). Planners–who are frequently on the front line of policy operations–rank third.

Surprisingly, only 6.2 percent of respondents cite members of the judiciary (judges, lawyers, and public attorneys), even though the courts often block value capture initiatives. Brazilian respondents are the only ones to assign a higher importance to members of the judiciary. Consistent with the institutional advances their countries have made in value capture, respondents from both Brazil and Colombia give lower priority to legislators (20.7 percent) than respondents from other countries (32.3 percent on average).

Respondents from all occupation groups rank academics and journalists last. As a result, the strategy of training the trainers would seem counterproductive as long as academics are not considered critical stakeholders in reducing resistance to value capture policies. This result supports the Lincoln Institute’s program focus on building capacity of public officials directly involved in the policy debate or tool implementation, rather than on building capacity in graduate schools. The low priority given to journalists as a target for capacity building is puzzling, but may reflect the fact that the value capture discussion is still largely confined to public agencies and academia. Nevertheless, greater involvement of the media could have a positive influence in broadening the debate.

One other interesting result of the survey is that responses across various groups are relatively consistent. Occupation, institutional affiliation, place of employment, level of education, and even size of the respondent’s city make little difference. Indeed, only the distinction between respondents from countries with and without significant experience with value capture seems to stand out as important.

Conclusions

The survey results point to a relatively consistent understanding about the state of the debate and implementation of value capture across Latin America. The prospects for successfully implementing value capture policies in the region, however, are less clear. The social justice rhetoric still seems to prevail even among “informed” supporters. In addition, decision makers in critical executive positions are seen as ill-informed or lacking in political will. Moreover, as the experiences of Brazil and Colombia attest, institutionalizing value capture policies is a process of painstaking trial and error that takes time to succeed.

Three lessons follow from the work done by the Lincoln Institute on value capture in Latin America. First, land value increments are captured more successfully from specific actors who receive greater benefits from a public sector intervention than from the general community (the win-win condition). Second, value capture tools are more likely to succeed when conceived to address a locally recognized problem than to emulate alleged best practices.

Third, strengthening the legitimacy of value capture policies is essential. This can be achieved by publicizing successful projects, especially in countries where value capture initiatives are still isolated and sporadic. It is important to shift the debate on value capture from ideological, wishful-thinking rhetoric to a more technical and practical context grounded in evidence that it can be done and, most importantly, that it has been implemented effectively in many cases.

About the Author

Martim O. Smolka is senior fellow and director of the of the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy’s Program on Latin America and the Caribbean. He has been researching policies and experiences with value capture for many years.

References

Borrero Ochoa, Oscar. 2011. Betterment levy in Colombia: Relevance, procedures, and social acceptability. Land Lines 23(2): 14-19.

Borrero Ochoa, Oscar, Esperanza Durán, Jorge Hernández, and Magda Montaña. 2011. Evaluating the practice of betterment levies in Colombia: The experience of Bogotá and Manizales. Working Paper. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Sandroni, Paulo Henrique. 2011. Recent experience with land value capture in São Paulo, Brazil. Land Lines 23(3): 14-19.

São Paulo Stock Exchange. 2012. http://www.bmfbovespa.com.br/pt-br/mercados/download/Agua-Suplemento-27012012.pdf

Adam H. Langley es analista senior de investigación en el Departamento de Valuación e Impuestos del Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Previamente, Langley trabajó para la Asamblea del Estado de Nueva York. Obtuvo su licenciatura en Estudios políticos en el Bard College y una maestría en Economía en Boston University.

Las investigaciones de Langley han cubierto una serie de temas relacionados con las finanzas públicas estatales y locales, centrándose específicamente en el impuesto sobre la propiedad. Ha sido coautor de tres informes sobre enfoque en políticas de suelo del Instituto Lincoln: Property Tax Circuit Breakers: Fair and Cost-Effective Relief for Taxpayers (Fusibles para el impuesto sobre la propiedad: Alivio equitativo y económicamente efectivo para los contribuyentes) (2009), Payments in Lieu of Taxes: Balancing Municipal and Nonprofit Interests (Pagos en lugar de impuestos: Equilibrando los intereses de las municipalidades y organizaciones sin fines de lucro) (2010), y Rethinking Property Tax Incentives for Business (Repensando los incentivos del impuesto sobre la propiedad para las empresas) (2012). También ha liderado varios proyectos para proporcionar datos en el sitio web del Instituto Lincoln, como la creación de la base de datos de Ciudades Fiscalmente Estandarizadas (Fiscally Standardized Cities o FiSCs) y un juego de datos con amplia información sobre organizaciones sin fines de lucro que efectúan pagos en lugar de impuestos, y las localidades que los reciben.

Sus artículos han aparecido en publicaciones como Regional Science and Urban Economics, Public Finance and Management, y Publius: The Journal of Federalism. Su investigación también ha sido cubierta por más de cien medios periodísticos, incluyendo The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Economist, Governing, y The Boston Globe.

Land Lines: ¿En qué proyectos ha estado trabajando recientemente como analista de investigación senior del Instituto Lincoln?

Adam Langley: He estado trabajando en varios proyectos relacionados con las finanzas de los gobiernos locales. Un proyecto importante ha sido la creación de la base de datos de “Ciudades fiscalmente estandarizadas” (Fiscally Standardized Cities o FiSCs). Este subcentro del sitio web del Instituto Lincoln permite a los usuarios realizar comparaciones significativas de las finanzas de los gobiernos locales a nivel ciudad para 112 de las ciudades más grandes de los EE.UU. en los últimos 35 años. Utilicé estos datos en un artículo reciente sobre las finanzas municipales durante la Gran Recesión, que presenté en la 9.a Conferencia Anual sobre Política de Suelo el 2 de junio de 2014. También estoy creando una tabla resumida para describir los programas estatales de exención y créditos al impuesto sobre la propiedad, con información del subcentro “Características significativas del impuesto sobre la propiedad” del Instituto Lincoln. Pienso usar dicha tabla para estimar los gastos tributarios para estos programas en cada uno de los 50 estados.

Land Lines: Usted trabajó en varios proyectos para proporcionar datos en el sitio web del Instituto Lincoln. ¿Qué lo motiva a enfocarse en los datos?

Adam Langley: Estos proyectos de datos forman parte central de la misión del Instituto Lincoln de facilitar la toma de decisiones informadas sobre temas relacionados con el uso, la regulación y la tributación del suelo. Las bases de datos del Instituto han sido utilizadas por gestores de políticas, para ayudarles a guiar sus decisiones; por periodistas, para ampliar el contexto de sus notas; y por investigadores, para sus propios proyectos. El aprovisionamiento de datos accesibles sin cargo y fáciles de usar aumenta enormemente el alcance potencial del trabajo del Instituto en temas de políticas de suelo, porque permite a otros analistas realizar nuevas investigaciones sobre el tema.

También es esencial para el prestigio del Instituto Lincoln que nuestras recomendaciones de políticas se cimienten en un análisis de alta calidad y datos fidedignos. Para poder influir en las decisiones políticas, es fundamental que nuestras investigaciones sean ampliamente consideradas como objetivas, no partidistas y basadas en evidencias.

Land Lines: Usted dijo que la base de datos de “Ciudades fiscalmente estandarizadas” permite realizar comparaciones significativas de las finanzas de los gobiernos locales a nivel ciudad. ¿Qué tiene de malo la simple comparación de gobiernos municipales?

Adam Langley: Las responsabilidades de servicio de los gobiernos municipales varían mucho a lo largo del país. Mientras que algunas municipalidades brindan una oferta completa de servicios públicos a sus residentes, otras comparten estas responsabilidades con una serie de gobiernos independientes superpuestos. Debido a estas diferencias en la estructura de los gobiernos locales, la comparación simple de gobiernos municipales puede ser engañosa.

Por ejemplo, consideremos una comparación entre Baltimore y Tampa. El gobierno municipal de Baltimore gasta tres veces más per cápita que el gobierno municipal de Tampa (US$5.594 vs. US$1.829 en 2011). No obstante, la diferencia se debe casi por completo al hecho de que la ciudad de Tampa comparte el aprovisionamiento de servicios locales con un distrito escolar independiente y con el condado de Hillsborough al que pertenece, mientras que Baltimore no cuenta con ningún condado superpuesto, y las escuelas forman parte del gobierno municipal propiamente dicho. Cuando se tienen en cuenta todos los gobiernos superpuestos en la base de datos de FiSC, los gastos per cápita para los residentes de las dos ciudades son casi idénticos: US$6.083 en Baltimore vs. US$6.067 en Tampa.

Land Lines: ¿Puede explicar la metodología utilizada para crear las “Ciudades fiscalmente estandarizadas”?

Adam Langley: Las FiSC se construyen sumando los ingresos de cada gobierno municipal con la proporción pertinente de los condados superpuestos, distritos escolares independientes y distritos especiales. Los ingresos del condado se asignan a la base de datos FiSC según la proporción de la población del condado que vive en dicha ciudad; los ingresos escolares se asignan en base al porcentaje de estudiantes del distrito que vive en la ciudad central, y los ingresos de los distritos especiales se asignan en base a la proporción de los residentes del área de servicio del distrito que vive en la ciudad. Por lo tanto, la base de datos FiSC proporciona una representación plena de los ingresos recaudados de los residentes y comercios de la ciudad, ya sea por el gobierno municipal o por un gobierno separado superpuesto. Estas asignaciones se hacen para más de 120 categorías de ingresos, gastos, deudas y activos. La metodología de la base de datos FiSC fue desarrollada junto con Andrew Reschovsky, fellow del Instituto Lincoln, y Howard Chernick, profesor de Hunter College de la Universidad de la Ciudad de Nueva York. Calculamos las estimaciones usando datos fiscales de cada gobierno individual proporcionados por la Oficina del Censo de los EE.UU. y actualizamos la base de datos de FiSC con los datos de años posteriores, en la medida que se encuentren disponibles.

Land Lines: ¿Por qué es importante comparar las finanzas de los gobiernos locales a nivel de ciudad?

Adam Langley: Mucha gente quiere saber cómo se compara su ciudad con otras ciudades, pero al hacer estas comparaciones es fundamental contabilizar las diferencias en las estructuras de los gobiernos locales. La base de datos FiSC precisamente hace eso. Por lo tanto, se puede usar para comparar los ingresos del impuesto sobre la propiedad en dos ciudades, clasificar a todas las ciudades por su nivel de gasto escolar, investigar cambios en los salarios del sector público a lo largo del tiempo, o ver qué ciudades dependen más de la ayuda estatal para financiar sus presupuestos.

En otro proyecto, junto con Andrew Reschovsky y Richard Dye, estamos usando la metodología de FiSC para estimar los costos de las pensiones y otras obligaciones de los gobiernos locales de cada ciudad. La cobertura en los medios de comunicación a veces da la impresión de que todos los planes públicos de pensiones tienen dificultades, pero en realidad hay mucha variación en el país. Para poder investigar estas diferencias, es fundamental contar con datos comparables de costos de pensiones de todos los gobiernos locales de cada ciudad. Por ejemplo, las estimaciones iniciales muestran que en promedio la contribución requerida anual (annual required contribution o ARC) de los planes de pensiones locales en 2010 ascendía al 4,9 por ciento de los ingresos generales en las 112 FiSC de la base de datos. No obstante, la ARC era más del 10 por ciento de los ingresos tanto en Chicago (11,7 por ciento) como en Portland, Oregón (10,9 por ciento).

Land Lines: ¿La disminución de los ingresos durante la Gran Recesión varió mucho en las distintas ciudades?

Adam Langley: Sí, la disminución de ingresos varió significativamente en las 112 FiSC durante y después de la recesión. Cuando se tiene en cuenta la inflación y el crecimiento de la población, sólo los ingresos de ocho FiSC evitaron una disminución neta a finales de 2011. Calculé los cambios en los ingresos reales per cápita con respecto al máximo de cada FiSC hasta finales de 2011. Alrededor de un tercio de ellas tuvo una disminución del 5 por ciento o menos (41 FiSC), otro tercio sufrió disminuciones de entre el 5 y 10 por ciento (34 FiSC), y alrededor de un cuarto sufrió disminuciones superiores al10 por ciento (29 FiSC). Las FiSC con las mayores disminuciones de ingresos fueron Las Vegas (20,2 por ciento), Riverside (18,0 por ciento) y Sacramento (18,0 por ciento).

Land Lines: ¿Se han recuperado mucho los ingresos de los gobiernos locales desde el fin de la recesión?

Adam Langley: Todavía no, porque los cambios en el nivel de ingresos se retrasaron varios años con respecto a los cambios en la economía durante y después de la recesión. Los ingresos gubernamentales reales per cápita fueron estables a lo largo de 2009, disminuyeron un poco en 2010, y cayeron de forma importante en 2011. El último año con datos completos es 2011, así que combiné distintas fuentes de datos para estimar los ingresos a lo largo de 2013. Estos datos sugieren que los ingresos tocaron fondo en 2012, cuando fueron entre un 5 y 6 por ciento inferiores a los de 2007. Esto quiere decir que los ingresos no llegaron a su valor mínimo hasta tres años después de que la recesión terminó oficialmente. Los ingresos comenzaron a recuperarse en 2013, pero siguieron siendo más del 4 por ciento inferiores a los niveles previos a la recesión.

Este retraso se debe a cambios en la ayuda intergubernamental y los impuestos sobre la propiedad, que en su conjunto financian casi dos tercios del presupuesto de los gobiernos locales. La Ley de Recuperación y Reinversión Americana proporcionó a los estados alrededor de 150.000 millones de dólares en estímulos federales entre 2009 y 2011, con fondos de estímulo adicionales proporcionados directamente a los gobiernos locales. Sin embargo, la mayoría de los fondos de estímulo desaparecieron el año 2012, lo cual condujo a los mayores recortes de gasto estatales de los últimos 25 años. Más aún, los cambios en los impuestos sobre la propiedad normalmente se retrasan con respecto a los cambios en los precios de las viviendas entre dos y tres años, debido a que el monto se basa en la tasación de años anteriores, hay retrasos en la actualización de dichas tasaciones y otros factores. Este retraso hizo que los impuestos sobre la propiedad crecieran a lo largo de 2009, no disminuyeran hasta 2011, y cayeran a su punto mínimo en 2012.

Land Lines: ¿Puede darnos más detalles sobre su trabajo acerca de la exención de impuestos sobre la propiedad y los programas de crédito?

Adam Langley: Ya casi he terminado con la primera etapa de este proyecto, que consiste en crear una tabla con el resumen de los programas de exención y créditos estatales. La tabla contiene datos de 167 programas, con 18 variables que describen las características principales de cada programa. Hay información sobre el valor de las exenciones expresadas en términos de valor de mercado; criterios relacionados con la edad, discapacidad, nivel de ingresos y si el beneficiario es un veterano de guerra; el tipo de impuesto afectado; si la pérdida de ingresos tributarios la sufre el estado o el gobierno local; opciones locales; etc. Una vez que haya completado la tabla, escribiré un resumen de política para describir las características principales de estos programas. Toda esta información se deriva de la tabla “Programas de alivio tributario para propiedades residenciales” del subcentro “Características significativas del impuesto sobre la propiedad” del sitio web del Instituto. La tabla original de “Alivio residencial” brinda descripciones detalladas de cada programa, mientras que la tabla resumida será más útil para aquellos usuarios que quieran hacer una comparación rápida entre estados, o para investigadores que quieran realizar análisis cuantitativos.

En la segunda etapa de este proyecto, calcularé los gastos tributarios de mantener estos programas de alivio tributario del impuesto sobre la propiedad. A pesar de la preponderancia de estos programas y su a menudo considerable impacto en la carga tributaria sobre la propiedad, no existen estimaciones completas sobre su costo. Usando datos de la tabla resumida y microdatos de la Encuesta de Comunidades Americanas, calcularé para cada estado el porcentaje de residentes que pueden beneficiarse de los programas de alivio tributario sobre la propiedad, el costo total de dichos programas, el beneficio promedio para los beneficiarios y el porcentaje de residentes elegibles y el beneficio promedio por quin-til de ingresos. Estos cálculos proporcionarán nueva y valiosa información sobre el impacto de los programas de alivio del impuesto sobre la propiedad en los Estados Unidos.

Una versión más actualizada de este artículo está disponible como parte del capítulo 3 del libro Perspectivas urbanas: Temas críticos en políticas de suelo de América Latina.

La demanda por servicios urbanos sobrepasa la capacidad financiera de la mayoría de las ciudades del mundo. Para hacerle frente a este problema, muchos gobiernos municipales utilizan exitosamente el impuesto a la propiedad junto con otros instrumentos administrativos a fin de recaudar esos fondos tan necesarios. Actualmente El Salvador es el único país centroamericano que no impone una tributación sobre suelo y propiedad. Sin embargo, funcionarios públicos, expertos académicos y líderes empresariales del país han comenzado a discutir sobre la necesidad de establecer un sistema fiscal sobre la propiedad inmobiliaria, y las estrategias para su ejecución.

El sistema de tributación de El Salvador está caracterizado por la falta de equidad y una cantidad mínima de impuestos recaudados, lo cual afecta el nivel de inversiones públicas. Décadas de guerra civil y caos económico han dejado al país sin una tradición establecida de administración ni control fiscal. Los primeros cambios al sistema de tributación comenzaron a ponerse en práctica en 1993, cuando tanto el antiguo impuesto patrimonial sobre la propiedad personal y de la empresa (incluso sobre bienes inmuebles), como el impuesto sobre las ventas del 5 % fueron abolidos y sustituidos por un impuesto sobre las ventas del 13 por ciento. La recaudación de estos impuestos y de un impuesto sobre la renta corre a cargo del gobierno central.

El único impuesto municipal que existe es un tributo arcaico y complejo basado en actividades comerciales, industriales, financieras y de servicios. Debido a su limitada capacidad para aumentar sus ingresos, los municipios no tienen muchas oportunidades de obtener préstamos de bancos nacionales, y ninguna posibilidad de conseguirlos de instituciones financieras internacionales. Entre otros factores que contribuyen a debilitar la base financiera de los gobiernos municipales se cuentan las deficiencias administrativas, los problemas catastrales y las limitaciones del marco legal. Dado que la zona metropolitana de San Salvador abarca una gran área de este pequeño país, la tributación municipal y otros programas de planificación fiscal puestos en práctica allí tienen repercusiones significativas en todo el país.

En 1998, el Consejo Municipal de San Salvador propuso aumentar los impuestos a la actividad comercial, lo cual provocó protestas inmediatas por parte de representantes empresariales y funcionarios municipales. Los líderes de negocios denunciaron al programa tributario propuesto como un generador de costos adicionales que los forzaría a subir los precios de artículos de consumo y servicios, y posiblemente llevaría a un crecimiento de la inflación; como alternativa, demandaron incentivos para nuevos proyectos de desarrollo a cambio de modificaciones del sistema tributario. El Consejo Municipal defendió su propuesta, precisando que la estructura tributaria actual se caracterizaba por una seria falta de equidad porque castigaba a los negocios pequeños al mismo tiempo que ofrecía ventajas a los grandes.

El Consejo Municipal de San Salvador y la Cámara de Comercio e Industria de El Salvador formaron una comisión mixta para que investigara los complejos asuntos involucrados en la reforma fiscal propuesta y las precondiciones que la misma precisaría, tales como actualizaciones catastrales, marco legal y capacitación técnica. Si bien la discusión no estuvo centrada en los mecanismos concretos para llevar a cabo una tributación de suelo y propiedad, fue muy significativo que estos importantes grupos de interés coincidieran sobre la necesidad de imponer un tributo inmobiliario en el futuro.

Beneficios de una perspectiva internacional

En enero de 1999 se realizó una reunión extraordinaria de funcionarios públicos y grupos de interés privado, en la que el Instituto Lincoln y la Oficina de Planificación del Área Metropolitana de San Salvador (OPAMSS) estudiaron muchos de los asuntos pertinentes al desarrollo y ejecución de un sistema de tributación inmobiliaria. Éste fue el tercero de una serie de programas auspiciados por el Instituto diseñados con el objetivo de compartir la experiencia internacional y ayudar a desarrollar un nuevo marco de trabajo en pro de un sistema tributario con más equidad en El Salvador.

Particularmente en un país pequeño como El Salvador, la implementación de un sistema adecuado de impuestos a la propiedad puede tener efectos positivos y estratégicos no sólo sobre las finanzas municipales, sino también sobre las políticas macroeconómicas y la revaluación del sector financiero. Alven Lam, investigador del Instituto Lincoln, explicó que la reestructuración del marco tributario ha sido el factor fundamental que ha permitido a algunos países asiáticos como Japón, Tailandia e Indonesia, recuperarse de sus crisis económicas. Los recientes problemas fiscales de Brasil y el continuo debate sobre el funcionamiento del sector financiero de El Salvador agregaron un sentido de apremio a la discusión sobre el amplio contexto económico de un impuesto a la propiedad municipal.

En el seminario también se discutió la importancia de integrar una tributación mixta de suelo y propiedad como herramienta fundamental para promover un manejo eficaz de la tierra urbana. Vincent Renard, del Laboratorio Econométrico de la Escuela Politécnica de París, elogió la iniciativa del Consejo Municipal de San Salvador y de otros gobiernos municipales para modificar sus estructuras tributarias, haciendo énfasis en la importancia de no aislar dichas políticas de los mercados de bienes raíces. Asimismo, Renard criticó ciertas estrategias de planificación urbana, tales como la tendencia actual que hay en El Salvador de regularizar en exceso el uso de la tierra mediante medidas legales que están totalmente desvinculadas de la tributación de la tierra y de incentivos fiscales.

Una tercera área de preocupación durante el debate consistió en las implicaciones políticas y económicas de la tributación a la propiedad. Entre otras cosas, es crítico que los funcionarios involucrados en establecer un sistema de tributación sobre la propiedad consideren la cultura política de la sociedad, la consolidación de autonomía municipal, la transparencia de los mercados de bienes raíces, y el uso del impuesto a la propiedad como una herramienta para el desarrollo económico y social. Julio Piza, de la Universidad Externado de Bogotá, describió diferentes aplicaciones del impuesto a la propiedad en Colombia, realzando la existencia de un problema común: la dificultad de medir la base impositiva de la tierra y los bienes debido en gran parte a los obsoletos sistemas catastrales y a la falta de otros sistemas de información.

Aunque la discusión sobre la reforma fiscal en El Salvador ha sido eclipsada por las recientes elecciones nacionales, el nuevo presidente ha expresado interés en una política de tierra y tributo. Al seminario asistieron dirigentes municipales y nacionales de los sectores políticos y comerciales, quienes expresaron un interés profundo en modernizar sus programas de manejo fiscal y tributación municipal. El solo hecho de haberse reunido para discutir abiertamente estos complejos asuntos es una señal esperanzadora. Para que haya progreso, es necesario contar con la voluntad política, la participación continua de la comunidad comercial y el reconocimiento de que el impuesto constituye tanto un instrumento financiero práctico para satisfacer necesidades inmediatas como también una herramienta importante para lograr crecimiento económico y desarrollo urbano.

Al igual que otros países en estado de transición social y económica, El Salvador se enfrenta ahora al desafío de establecer estipulaciones eficaces y justas para llevar a cabo las valuaciones catastrales y la recaudación de impuestos. El proceso puede facilitarse si se comienza con una estructura de tasas simple y se van introduciendo gradualmente instrumentos más sofisticados. Otros factores tales como métodos innovadores de manejo de la tierra y la posibilidad de capturar los aumentos en el valor de la tierra son críticos para el futuro crecimiento fiscal de El Salvador.

Ingresos municipales Área Metropolitana de San Salvador, 1993

Fuentes de ingresos:

• Impuestos municipales
• Aranceles y tarifas de usuario
• Transferencias del gobierno federal
• Otros ingresos municipales
• Préstamos
• Otras fuentes

Patricia Fuentes es Subdirectora de Control de Desarrollo Urbano y Mario Lungo es el Director Ejecutivo de la Oficina de Planificación del Área Metropolitana de San Salvador (OPAMSS).

Supporters of land taxation view it as an efficient and effective means of financing government, and the concept has wide appeal among public finance scholars. Many economists, including several Nobel Prize winners, actively endorse this method of taxation, which taxes land value separately and instead of buildings and improvements. At least from an academic perspective, then, the case for the efficiency and fairness of a land-based tax system seems irrefutable.

Despite that support, the concept of land taxation has not been widely embraced in the United States. Property tax bases are set by state constitutional or statutory law, so local governments cannot implement a land tax, or its split-rate variant, without authorization from their respective state legislatures. Other than a handful of Pennsylvania cities that have adopted split-rate or two-rate tax systems, no American jurisdictions currently place higher tax burdens on land than on buildings and other improvements. Virginia recently responded to interest in two-rate taxation with legislation allowing two local governments to adopt graded tax programs, but they have not yet done so. While split-rate taxation is discussed periodically as a reform measure, there are no current proposals for its adoption awaiting action before a state legislature (Brunori and Carr 2002).

Statutory or constitutional enactment of a land tax would entail revising property tax laws that have been substantially unchanged for more than a century. In general, state legislators are cautious about implementing dramatic reforms in any public policy area, and comprehensive tax reform has been a particularly elusive goal. Adoption of split-rate or land taxation would be a dramatic change, requiring significant awareness, advocacy and support in the ranks of the legislature and at the local level.

There are few areas of government finance in which scholarly opinion and actual public policy diverge so dramatically. This situation prompted me to undertake two nationwide research surveys. The first survey sought to ascertain the level of knowledge of land taxation on the part of the nation’s state legislators. Without an understanding of the issues presented by the taxation of land, legislators are unlikely to champion, advocate or even vote for such measures. I also surveyed local elected officials, because state legislators will not advocate any reforms without constituent support. Moreover, since the reforms at issue will affect primarily local government finances, any legislative body seeking to reform a tax system will solicit the views and advice of local officials.

The Survey Questions

To gauge general awareness of the concept of land value taxation, the survey began with a broad question, describing it as “taxing the full value of land but exempting buildings, structures and other improvements from tax.” The next question narrowed the scope to determine familiarity with split-rate taxation, the version of land taxation practiced in Pennsylvania and authorized in two Virginia municipalities. Because it entails less dramatic reforms, split-rate taxation is the version of land taxation most likely to be adopted in the U.S. This concept was described as “taxing land at a higher rate than buildings, structures and other improvements.”

Legislative research has long found that state lawmakers are likely to support policies that they believe will foster economic development and oppose policies perceived to deter development (Beamer 1999). Taxing land at a higher rate than improvements has historically been thought to encourage building and investment by eliminating or reducing the tax burdens of improving the land. Thus, the third question asked for the respondents’ opinion on the effect that taxing improvements at a lower rate than land would have on economic development, defined as capital investment and job creation.

The proliferation of suburban sprawl is a growing concern among legislators and local officials across the country. The vast academic literature suggests that policy makers view sprawl unfavorably and that most officials think that policies that promote sprawl are unsound. Some public finance scholars believe that adopting split-rate tax policies will limit the negative effects of sprawl (Brueckner 2001). If this belief is true, split-rate taxation could play an important role in the continuing debate over policies intended to deter suburban sprawl. Question four asked what effect taxing improvements at a lower rate than land would have on sprawl. Sprawl was not defined in the question because the term can refer to a number of developments affecting density, suburban growth, loss of open space and decrease in population. Indeed, scholars have lamented the lack of a single operational definition of sprawl. Still, the perception of sprawl as an undesirable land use pattern and policy outcome warranted inclusion of the question in the survey.

Finally, state and local legislators are influenced by the desires and concerns of their constituents. The more important a particular issue is to constituents, the better informed a legislator will become about that issue. Thus, survey participants were asked if during the past year any citizens or organizations had contacted their offices with respect to the issue of split-rate taxation, and if so, whether the constituent supported or opposed the idea.

State and Local Respondents

The first survey focused on state legislators who served on committees with primary responsibility for tax policy and local government finance during the period January–June 2003. There were 106 such committees in the 50 state legislatures, but I excluded those in Pennsylvania and Virginia. Since those states have either adopted or authorized graded tax systems, I assumed that their legislators would be more familiar with the concept and could bias the results.

For the second survey I chose city and county officials from 15 randomly selected local jurisdictions within the 25 largest metropolitan areas in the U.S. To insure a national perspective, I also included city council members from the largest city in each state. Again I focused on officials with primary responsibility for implementing and administering public finance policy and excluded all jurisdictions in Pennsylvania and Virginia.

The survey questions were sent to 1,284 legislators, of whom 780 responded (see Brunori 2003 for more information on methodology). An identical survey was sent to 3,298 city and county officials, of whom 430 responded. The response rate for the state legislators was far above national standards, and the response rate for the local officials was considerably below national standards, but both were statistically significant.

Before revealing the results of the survey research, I must confess that I entered this project with a bias. Having worked in the state and local tax field my entire professional life, as a lawyer, teacher and journalist, I think about tax policy more than any sane person should and have come to know many state legislators and local public officials. In my experience, these government officials are quite capable of finding revenues to pay the bills, but they generally have little in-depth knowledge of the more philosophical and theoretical underpinnings of tax policy. So I assumed that few of them would understand what I was talking about when I began asking questions about land taxation. After all, I did not think most politicians were using their spare time to read Henry George’s classic book, Progress and Poverty. I was quite surprised at the responses.

The Results

In a country where there are virtually no land tax policies in place, the survey results show that a vast majority of elected political leaders do know about land and split-rate taxation (see Table 1). More surprising, to me at least, most political leaders are aware of the benefits of adopting land tax policies. More than 70 percent of the state legislators and 65 percent of the local government officials responded that they were either very or somewhat familiar with the concept of land value taxation, and 67 percent of state legislators and 65 percent of local officials were very or somewhat familiar with split-rate taxation.

The single most important policy goal (after public safety) that concerns American politicians is economic development. When asked about the relationship between the economy and land taxation, more than 62 percent of state legislators and 76 percent of local government officials replied that adopting a split-rate tax system would promote economic development. About one-quarter of both state and local officials thought that taxing improvements at a lower rate than land would have no effect on economic development. These results are arguably consistent with the conventional view that land taxation would have a benign effect on economic decision making. Only 5 percent of the state legislators and no local officials believed that taxing land at a higher rate would deter economic development.

One of the common misperceptions about land taxation is that it will lead to more sprawl, and many, but not a majority, of the respondents shared that misperception. Forty-one percent of surveyed state legislators and 46 percent of local officials said they believed that adopting a split-rate tax system would lead to more suburban sprawl. About 51 percent of the state legislators and 53 percent of local officials surveyed said that split-rate taxation would have no effect on sprawl or would deter sprawl. The fact that so many respondents believe that split-rate taxation would foster more sprawl, presumably by encouraging development of open space in suburban and rural areas, should be troubling to advocates of land taxation.

Finally, a surprisingly small number of elected political leaders have been contacted by constituents regarding land taxation. Eleven percent of state legislators and 9 percent of local government officials said an individual constituent or organization had contacted them regarding the issue of land-based or split-rate taxation, and all were supporters of the idea.

What Does It All Mean?

What originally sparked my interest in this research project was the disconnect between scholarly opinion about land taxation and political action to promote it. I thought this discrepancy might be the result of ignorance of the concepts of land taxation on the part of state and local political leaders. If state legislators and city council members were unaware of land or graded taxation, then they could not be expected to champion such reforms.

The survey results show, however, that this discrepancy cannot be resolved by looking at level of awareness alone. Most state legislators and local officials involved in public finance and taxation issues are familiar with both land taxation and split-rate taxation, and they know that moving to a split-rate tax system would have a positive effect on economic development. Moreover, a slight majority of those surveyed believe that graded taxes would have no negative effects on sprawl.

Since state and local officials know about land taxation and believe it could lead to positive policy outcomes, why are so few local governments using this method of public finance? It is difficult to answer that question without eliciting views on more technical aspects of land or split-rate taxation. Implementation of land taxation raises complex issues as to the feasibility of adopting major property tax reforms, the effects on other revenue sources, and the administration of a land tax system, particularly with respect to valuation. Solving the mystery as to why more jurisdictions are not exploring the policy of taxing land at a higher rate than improvements may lie in analyzing these important operational factors.

References

Beamer, Glenn. 1999. Creative politics: Taxes and public goods in a federal system. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Brueckner, Jan K. 2001. Property taxation and urban sprawl. In Property taxation and local government finance, Wallace E. Oates, editor. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Brunori, David. 2003. Awareness of land taxation: Survey of state legislators. Working paper. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Brunori, David, and Jennifer Carr. 2002. Valuing land and improvements: State law and local government practices. State Tax Notes (September 30):1023–1033.

David Brunori is contributing editor of State Tax Notes for Tax Analysts in Arlington, Virginia, and research professor of public policy at The George Washington University in Washington, DC. This article is based on research he conducted as part of a David C. Lincoln Fellowship in Land Value Taxation, awarded by the Lincoln Institute.

The conservation movement has used both private enterprises and public programs to preserve lands of ecological, aesthetic, and historical value. One notably successful effort has employed referenda for the conservation of open space. Between 1998 and 2006, some 1,550 referenda appeared on state, county, and municipal ballots across the United States, and their success rate was very high: nearly 80 percent of these measures passed, many by a wide margin.