SHARE
Imagine for a moment that you are a political leader—a prime minister, president, or governor—and you awake to the news that natural disaster has struck. Citizens died, buildings collapsed, infrastructure is hobbled, and local leaders desperately need additional resources and support.
You respond immediately, sending personnel and equipment to the disaster zone and pledging additional assistance to local leaders. Your country, like many around the world, has institutionalized a scalable, tiered response system with regional, state, and national levels of government engaging as disaster-related demands exceed local capacities to respond. Yet within days, even hours—before all the casualties are treated and citizens are accounted for, and before the streets have been cleared of rubble and basic services have been restored—other leaders and the media are demanding answers to questions you haven’t had time to consider: How much money will be pledged to the rebuilding? What standards will guide it? Will all landowners be permitted to rebuild? Who will lead the process? Is a new institution or governance structure needed to cut through bureaucratic red tape and expedite the rebuilding?
This article summarizes ongoing research into the roles of various government levels in successful disaster recovery and rebuilding (table 1). It represents the synthesis of two decades of recovery research and planning practice following some of the largest disasters of our time in the United States, Japan, China, Taiwan, Indonesia, India, New Zealand, Australia, Chile, and elsewhere. Its purpose is to find common lessons in these disparate environments and help facilitate recovery for communities struck by disasters yet to come.
————————
Table 1: Recovery Management Experiences Around the World
Australia
Victoria Bushfire Recovery and Reconstruction Authority
Queensland Reconstruction Authority
Chile
Ministry of Housing and Urban Development (MINVU- Ministerio de Vivienda y Urbanismo)
China
General Headquarters for Earthquake Relief
India
Gujarat State Disaster Management Authority (GSDMA)
Abhiyan
Project Management Unit
Indonesia
Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Agency—BRR
Coordination Team for Rehabilitation and Reconstruction—TTN
Japan
National Reconstruction Agency
New Zealand
Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority
Taiwan
921 Post-Earthquake Recovery Commission
Morakot Post-Disaster Reconstruction Council
United States
Lower Manhattan Development Corporation
Louisiana Recovery Authority
————————
Recovery Management Around the World
Governments tasked with post-disaster reconstruction face an extraordinary set of management challenges. The first is the compression of activities in time, focused in space, as cities built over the course of decades if not centuries are destroyed or damaged suddenly and must be rebuilt in a fraction of the time it took to construct them. From this tension develops a second challenge: a keen tension between speed and deliberation, as the various recovery actors in stricken communities move with urgency while aiming to make thoughtful and deliberate decisions, to ensure optimal long-term recovery. From both these phenomena a third challenge arises: the need for immediate access to a deep wealth of money and information—the two currencies of the post-disaster recovery environment.
To meet these demands, governments in every country after every large disaster create new relief agencies or significantly rearrange existing organizations. The most common reason for these post-disaster governance transformations is lack of capacity. Governments still need to attend to their normal daily affairs while they coordinate the reconstruction or reinvention of impacted communities, so they appoint an entity that can focus daily attention on rebuilding while coordinating the recovery-related activities of multiple government agencies. Commonly designed to serve a variety of purposes and governmental settings, these recovery agencies provide a range of substantive functions as they rebuild infrastructure, housing, and economic activity. They differ depending on the type and scale of coordination they provide; the scope of their authority, especially regarding the flow of money and information; and the level of government they serve—at either the national, state, or intergovernmental level.
National governments handle very large disasters at the top political tier, mobilizing financial resources from national reserves or international aid and providing capacity support to lower levels of government in the disaster-stricken locality. When large disasters transcend state or provincial boundaries, national governments also assume active roles in developing recovery policies, and they create recovery organizations to assist them. Examples include Japan’s National Reconstruction Agency, established after the 2011 earthquake and tsunami; New Zealand’s Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority, created after the 2010 and 2011 earthquake sequence in Christchurch; and China’s General Headquarters for Earthquake Relief following the 2008 disaster in Wenchuan. Each of these international bodies hewed to the national administrative leadership, derived authority from the top rung of government, and articulated policies approved by the reigning administration.
Similarly, state-level recovery agencies are usually created in direct response to disasters that affect a region or other subnational jurisdiction. The authorities and legalities of these entities are more limited by their authorizing body’s secondary, subnational position in government. Examples include the Gujarat State’s Disaster Management Authority (GSDMA), created after the 2001 earthquake in western India; Louisiana’s Recovery Authority, founded after Hurricane Katrina in 2005; Victoria State’s Bushfire Reconstruction and Recovery Authority (VBRRA), established after the 2009 Australian bushfires; and Queensland State’s Reconstruction Authority, founded after the summer 2010–2011 floods in Australia.
A third class of organizations are designed to operate between levels of government, such as the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, created as a state and city partnership for recovery planning and funding following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in New York City. Another example, the Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Agency (BRR) created in Aceh, Indonesia, following the 2004 tsunami, consisted of three independent agencies whose membership came from a wide range of local and national stakeholders. Likewise, the Indonesian government’s Coordination Team for Rehabilitation and Reconstruction (TTN), following the 2006 earthquake in Yogyakarta and Central Java, was designed to provide a bridge between national agencies and local agencies, and it also monitored and investigated local implementation issues.
In some cases, governments choose to modify or adapt existing institutions and procedures to help manage recovery. For example, Chile established a national interministerial task force after the 2010 earthquake and tsunami, but the existing Ministry of Housing and Urban Development took on expanded roles and responsibilities and managed the national planning and implementation efforts.
The Mastery of Money, Information, Collaboration, and Time
Considering these factors, common to all post-disaster recovery settings, our research demonstrates that the key to governing large-scale crises effectively is the mastery of money, information, collaboration, and time. For this article, we offer here some best practice examples and lessons learned from our various country-organization studies.
1. Managing Money: Sourcing and distributing recovery funding efficiently, effectively, and equitably.
When large amounts of public funds are involved in a disaster cleanup, the true power over the recovery resides with the level of government that controls the flow of money and how it is acquired, allocated, disbursed, and audited. Sometimes, the recovery organization assumes all or some of these powers, and sometimes all funding authority continues to reside where it did before the disaster, in the same legislative and administrative branches. Important functions in the post-disaster environment include setting policies and priorities for allocating large sums of recovery funding and establishing accounting systems that allow for timely disbursal of critical financing while also providing transparency and minimizing corruption.
Some organizations, such as India’s state-level GSDMA, are established specifically to collect all the recovery funds in one place and then allocate and disburse them. Some, such as one of the three legs of Indonesia’s intergovernmental BRR, are created to independently audit and monitor the expenditures of recovery implementation organizations. In contrast, the state-level Louisiana Recovery Authority recommended funding priorities to the state and provided oversight as needed, but it had no direct control over recovery funds. Japan’s National Reconstruction Agency received national funding and allocates that money to the relevant national ministries and local governments.
2. Increasing Information Flows: Effectively gathering, integrating, and disseminating information to enhance decision making and actions by all recovery actors.
A critical demand is to accelerate and broaden the flows of information among recovery actors about the dynamics of reconstruction actions and emergent opportunities. This challenge includes the planning and public engagement processes that provide information to citizens and institutions involved in the recovery, facilitate communication and innovations among recovery actors, and convey citizen concerns to government agencies and NGOs in a timely manner. It also includes providing information between both governmental and nongovernmental organizations and establishing forums to facilitate coordination.
In Victoria, Australia, after the 2009 bushfires, national and state leaders worked with affected communities to form more than 30 local recovery committees, which were then charged with developing a community recovery plan that identified local priorities and projects. These committees were used by state and national governments as focal points for local funding distribution and by local communities to raise additional funds and establish local policy guidance for rebuilding. In Yogyakarta, Java, after the 2006 earthquake, TTN kept a variety of local and national agencies mutually informed of each other’s activities—which, in turn, helped to provide early alerts to officials regarding potential problems.
A critical function appropriately provided by a government-supported agency is the acquisition, synthesis, and distribution of basic information on damage, reconstruction activities, population, social and economic issues, and various recovery indicators. Such agencies issue regular progress reports and monitor recovery indicators, as both Japan’s National Reconstruction Agency and New Zealand’s Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority have done, using a variety of communication mechanisms, including website postings, press releases, newsletters, and forums. Frequent information from credible sources can help to ensure that all actors understand the current recovery environment, and it can also help reduce the spread of rumors and misinformation.
3. Supporting Collaboration: Building sustainable capacity and capability for long-term recovery through genuine collaboration and coordination, both horizontally among local groups and vertically among different levels of government.
Vertically organized, hierarchical agencies—with clear organizational charts and streamlined channels of communication—are usually not well suited to manage disaster recovery, because the lack of “connecting flow” across vertical hierarchies limits collaboration as well as the flow of new and updated information among organizations. U.S. national agencies involved in recovery, for example, are more adept at administering individual programs than they are at solving complex problems that cut across governmental institutional boundaries.
By contrast, horizontally organized agencies can promote interagency coordination and information sharing, allowing individual groups to adapt to new contexts and information while remaining responsible to their parent organization. If multiple states or local jurisdictions are involved, cooperation among multiple jurisdictions is essential. Technical assistance and capacity building for the key recovery actors is also important for building local capabilities to sustain long-term recovery.
After Hurricane Katrina in 2005, Governor Kathleen Blanco appointed the members of the Louisiana Recovery Authority, so it was technically an extension of the state-level administration. But the legislature eventually formalized it. As an intentionally bipartisan body, it operated independently as it interacted with both U.S. national officials and local governments, made policy recommendations, and provided oversight of state agency recovery activities. Even though its power was limited to making policy recommendations, it was able to exert considerable influence at multiple levels in a very politically contentious atmosphere. It also collaborated with U.S. national agencies to set standards for long-term community recovery planning and helped match technical assistance and provide other planning resources at regional, local, and neighborhood scales.
Because they carried the authority of state leaders, India’s GSMDA and Queensland Australia’s reconstruction authority were able to successfully coordinate the activities of other state agencies. Similarly, Chile’s MINVU and Taiwan’s national recovery agencies have had the centralized authority to coordinate activities of other national agencies. Abhiyan, an NGO officially endorsed by the Gujarat government in India but without any defined governmental authority, also played a crucial role in coordinating the work of hundreds of NGOs and in establishing a network of local subcenters to provide information and technical support.
The hierarchical recovery process after the 2008 Wenchuan Earthquake in China succeeded in quickly reconstructing buildings, but it left little room for local innovation, as it lacked genuine local capacity building and involvement in decision making. Because local conditions were not always considered, economic recovery appears to be uneven.
Likewise, in many tsunami-affected communities in the Tohoku region of Japan, recovery has stalled because the hierarchical system established under the national government and the National Recovery Agency leaves insufficient room for local innovation. Furthermore, within the complex and powerful Japanese ministry system, the National Reconstruction Agency lacks power to compel actions by other ministries.
Increasingly, research shows that if residents are partners in reconstruction planning, they are tolerant of delays, and they are more satisfied with the results. Still, even the best examples of decentralized processes involve an agency at the top establishing the framework and rules. This trend strongly suggests that governments should resist the urge to manage the details of reconstruction and act less as managers and more as coordinators and facilitators of the process.
4. Balancing Time Constraints: Effectively meeting the immediate and pressing local needs of recovery while also successfully capitalizing on opportunities for longterm betterment.
Governments face a balancing act as they confront the tensions between speed and deliberation, and between restoration and betterment. The most fundamental way to address these challenges is to increase information flows, as described above. But recovery agencies have found several other specific ways to attain both speed and improvement.
To hasten reconstruction, there are often opportunities to streamline normal bureaucratic processes of decision making, especially regarding construction permits, without compromising quality. Because such processes often involve multiple agencies, a recovery agency can be helpful to the extent that it can facilitate or compel line agencies to cooperate more effectively.
New Zealand’s parliament conferred upon the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority and its minister a wide range of unilateral powers that would enable the timely and coordinated recovery of greater Christchurch. Parliament continued the emergency authorities granted under previous legislation and extended the expiration date of those authorities where appropriate; permitted the minister to acquire land compulsorily; and allowed the suspension of any part or all of the national land use, local government, and transport management, plans or policies developed under various acts. It directed CERA to prepare a draft recovery strategy within nine months of its authorization. Similarly, it issued the Christchurch city council a nine-month deadline to draft a recovery plan for the city’s damaged central business district.
Most recovery agencies include disaster risk reduction in their reconstruction policies. A common recovery slogan is “build back better.” The slogan of the Louisiana Recovery Authority was “Safer, Stronger, Smarter.” The easiest form of post-disaster betterment is to adopt disaster-resistant building standards. The incorporation of new structural standards need not slow down the rebuilding process, but land use improvements such as relocating neighborhoods or entire communities can require considerable time for planning and land acquisition. These projects involve difficult tradeoffs between speed, design quality, and public involvement. New Zealand is undertaking a major buyout of neighborhoods that sustained heavy damage in the 2010–2011 earthquakes and remain vulnerable to damage from future tremors. Japan is encouraging relocation of coastal communities from tsunami hazard areas, and some of these will likely take up to ten years to complete.
One way to manage these goals simultaneously is to support participatory planning processes to create long-term betterment while also trying to meet immediate needs. In many cases, professional planners worked with neighborhoods—in Japan, Chile, New Orleans, and Bhuj, India, for example—but each project also involved difficult compromises in order to meet time constraints. Victoria and Queensland’s creation of local recovery planning committees, however, are great examples of state and national support systems that helped build local capacity to carry forward the rebuilding processes over time.
Next Steps in our Research
Governments know that their task is to manage information and money flows among many actors in a compressed time. Up to this point, we have identified many examples of how to accomplish this. But, even better, we would like to be able to create menus of organizational and process choices, based on combinations of disaster magnitude and scope and economic, political, environmental, and governmental contexts.
We also have several remaining questions: Why do many of the same institutional problems continue to appear from one disaster to the next, and is there a way to avoid repeating some of them? What are the effective outcomes—negative and positive—of these institutional arrangements that may inform future leaders facing similar reconstruction challenges? What specific kinds of technical assistance and capacity building should international donors and national governments focus on providing for local governmental and non-governmental organizations, so they can do their jobs better during the recovery process? In large-scale disasters, how do the tiered goals of a recovery (i.e. rebuilding households, neighborhoods, cities, regions, nations) relate to each other, in terms of consistency, efficiency, and effectiveness? And what happens when these disaster-related organizations cease to exist? Is the local capacity and capability in place for long-term community sustainability? By studying varied national and organizational experiences, we can better understand how the time compression phenomenon of post-disaster recovery affects other theoretical constructs guiding public policy and city management; planning, land development and growth management; and fiscal and capital management.
About the Authors
Co-authors of Clear As Mud: Planning for the Rebuilding of New Orleans (2010, APA Planners Press), Laurie A. Johnson and Robert B. Olshansky are currently collaborating on a Lincoln Institute book and policy focus report on governing post-disaster recovery. For the past two decades, they have been researching and practicing post-disaster recovery planning following urban disasters around the world. Johnson is an urban planner based in San Francisco and specializing in disaster recovery and catastrophe risk management. Olshansky is professor of urban and regional planning at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Contact: laurie@lauriejohnsonconsulting.com or robo@illinois.edu
References
Alesch, Daniel J., Lucy A. Arendt, and James N. Holly. 2009. Managing for Long-term Community Recovery in the Aftermath of Disaster. Fairfax, VA: Public Entity Risk Institute.
Chandrasekhar, Divya and Robert B. Olshansky. 2007. Managing Development After Catastrophic Disaster: A Study of Organizations That Coordinated Post-Disaster Recovery in Aceh and Louisiana. Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Olshansky, Robert B., Lewis D. Hopkins, and Laurie A. Johnson. 2012. Disaster and recovery: Processes compressed in time. Natural Hazards Reviews. 13(3):173–178.
Olshansky, Robert B., Laurie A. Johnson, and Kenneth C. Topping. 2006. Rebuilding communities following disaster: Lessons from Kobe and Los Angeles. Built Environment. 32(4): 354–374.
Smith, G., and Dennis Wenger. 2007. Sustainable disaster recovery: Operationalizing an existing agenda. In Handbook of disaster research (Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research). ed. Havidan Rodriguez, 234–257. New York, NY: Springer.
SHARE
The introduction of a market-oriented economic policy in Estonia after independence in 1991 set the stage for a plethora of reforms to restore property rights and establish a price system for goods, labor, capital and land. Land and ownership reforms had two goals: the restoration to former owners of land “unlawfully expropriated” during the Soviet regime, and the treatment of land as a valuable and scarce economic resource. As one might expect, these tasks have not been easy to accomplish, and frequent revisions in the laws and methods governing restitution and valuations have been made.
Historical Overview
Despite the far-reaching reforms taking place in Estonia today, the transformation of land ownership and the patterns of land use still reflect 55 years of history, including wars, occupation and annexation. In the first of three working papers I analyze the impact of these historical developments on land use, population structure and farm wealth in pre-Soviet Estonia. Prior to annexation to the Soviet Union in 1940, Estonia had a flourishing farm sector. Land was used mostly for agriculture, with the majority of the population residing in rural communes or municipalities.
Research also shows that a market for land was well established and reflected site specific characteristics. A distinguishing feature of this market was the coexistence of a sale-purchase price determined by the forces of supply and demand and other prices reflecting the “social” character of land use. For example, land acquisition for use by landless farmers (communal land) had a much lower price than the market price. This feature, although it may have served a social purpose, impacted the value of land for compensating former owners.
Another significant finding relates to the taxation of farms in pre-Soviet Estonia. Land and improvements on land (fixed assets) were subject to taxation, although the effective rate of taxation was quite small. This tax was a local tax with the receipts allocated to local government budgets.
Land Reform
The second paper provides a framework for the analysis of valuation formulae used by the Estonian Land and Tax Boards for the valuation of land for tax purposes. It includes a brief overview of the current land stock and land use, a discussion of land and ownership reforms, including valuation laws and methods, and a statistical analysis of the valuation model used by the Land Board.
Estonia’s experience with privatizing its economy is without a doubt at the forefront of liberalization efforts undertaken by the new independent states. The transformation of collective rights to land into individual rights took place in Estonia by means of legislation. First, the new Constitution in 1992 restored to citizens the rights of ownership of productive assets, including land, and property and land reform laws established a system for the restitution of land to former owners. Second, principles for establishing land value for compensation and privatization were spelled out by the valuation law(s).
A land market, especially for urban land, is likely to develop quickly, offering the Land Board useful information for adjusting their valuation models. Once a sufficient number of observations on land transactions becomes available, a hedonic price model or present value model can be developed to provide information on the marginal valuation of each land attribute, as well as the significance of other land characteristics not included in the current model. Using the Estonia Base Map, the spatial aspect of land and other amenities (GIS variables) may be incorporated in the model to yield good estimates of the marginal product of land in both urban and rural municipalities.
Given that land value is used as a tax base, it is incumbent upon public sector officials to assess it fairly and accurately. A land tax yield hinges on the size and distribution of the base. If the tax model neglects this, revenue will suffer and land use will be suboptimal. Economies in transition can ill afford this road.
Land Taxation and Tax Reform
The third paper integrates the two aspects of land reform, valuation and taxation, beginning with an historical overview of land taxation in Estonia leading up to the current (1995) land tax. It addresses the assignment of tax sources between the state and local governments, and the significance of land taxation as a revenue source for local governments. The paper also offers a statistical model for estimating land tax revenues based on the Estonian Land Board valuation maps, the land cadastre and tax rates selected by local municipalities and then contrasts the estimates with actual data obtained from the Estonian National Tax Board.
After independence in 1991, the Estonian government introduced a new tax system that replaced the Soviet system, and the state budget was completely “decoupled” from the USSR’s All-Union budget. On May 10, 1993, the Estonian parliament passed the Law on Land Tax as part of a reform agenda dealing with budgetary reform in general and land reform in particular. The path followed by Estonia is similar to that prescribed by the World Bank for many former Soviet republics. Guided by “western” principles of taxation, the Estonian tax system was designed to achieve efficiency in resource use as well as to meet national and local budgetary needs.
The land tax is one of several revenue sources collected from people and enterprises in Estonia. Although the land tax was established as a state tax with shared revenues between the state and local governments, it was quickly designated as a local tax with its proceeds dedicated for local budgets. Estonia also recognizes the efficiency of a special tax on land value, even though at the time of this study it accounted for only seven percent of local revenues.
Several conclusions emerge from this part of the study. First, a tax on land offers special efficiency benefits, although its implementation needs to be considered carefully. Second, for land to be a viable tax source serious attempts should be made to enhance the efficiency of financial and insurance markets, especially in rural areas. Third, land valuation should reflect two elements: the value of present attributes and the value of these attributes in the future, because a parcel of land valued at the best use of these attributes today may not capture their full value in the future.
Finally and perhaps most importantly for economies in transition, valuation and taxation of land should be viewed in the context of a “learning curve.” With the progress of the economy in general and land markets in particular, land taxation should be strengthened through annual valuation to enhance the tax capacity of municipal governments and to encourage the optimal development of land use over time.
Attiat F. Ott is professor of economics and director of the Institute for Economic Studies at Clark University in Worcester, MA. This article is adapted from three new working papers resulting from research supported by the Lincoln Institute.
SHARE
The Lincoln Institute sponsored a wide-ranging international conference in June on “Land Policies for Urban Development.” A few of the major themes and messages from the presentations are summarized below.
The three most populous developing countries, China, India, and Indonesia, with 40 percent of the world’s population, are entering the stage of rapid urbanization simultaneously. By 2030, they are projected to add an additional 2.2 billion persons to urban areas, increasing the world’s urban population by nearly 80 percent over the 2000 figure of 2.8 billion. The related infrastructure investment needs are likely to reduce or eliminate any perceived savings surplus in the world. Economic growth and urbanization in most East Asian countries have occurred in coastal regions and near ports. In India, however, urbanization and growth are currently focused on inland cities and on information technology rather than on labor-intensive manufacturing. This may be due to weaknesses in traditional infrastructure services, particularly in transport.
A review of property tax practices across 25 countries found an extremely wide range of practices in terms of tax base definitions, tax rate levels, and assessment practices. In most developing countries property tax rates are very low (a fraction of one percent of market values). Nevertheless, property taxes are one of the few revenue sources under local control and are an important component of local government revenues. Simplicity was found to be a virtue of property tax regimes in developing countries, because complexity raises administrative costs and erodes public support for property taxes.
Efforts to measure land values in urban areas of the United States—either by analyzing vacant land sales or by subtracting the value of the structure from property sales—indicate that they have appreciated more rapidly than construction costs since 1985, with a 2005 value between $12 and $24 trillion. This compares to estimates for 1980 of about $3 trillion, suggesting that land values have increased four to eight times in a period when consumer prices have increased only 2.4 times. In addition, land values have been volatile, falling by around 40 percent from 1989 to 1995 in many urban markets before increasing rapidly in the past 10 years.
While average housing prices across the United States have increased faster than construction costs, increases in housing prices have been particularly sharp in urban areas on the West Coast and on the East Coast from the mid-Atlantic region to New England. In these coastal metropolitan areas, median single-family housing prices are nearly five times larger than median prices in the least expensive metropolitan areas in other regions.
Analysis across all U.S. metropolitan areas shows a strong association between the level of housing market regulation and the level of prices—metropolitan areas with the most regulations on residential development have the highest housing prices. Moreover, areas with the highest prices also have low growth rates of housing stocks. Together these findings suggest that rapid growth in housing prices in coastal cities is due in large part to growing impediments on the supply side of the market. Supply constraints may not be only a U.S. phenomenon. A review of planning experience in the United Kingdom showed that urban development corporations, which have the power to overrule local regulations, have been more effective than most other approaches in fostering urban revitalization.
The ownership of second homes (for own use, not for rent to others) has been growing rapidly in the United States, and about 5.6 percent of all U.S. housing units were second homes in 2004. The main determinants of second-home ownership are income, wealth, and age of the household head. Second-home ownership is highest for those in their sixties, suggesting that the aging of the baby boom generation will increase second-home ownership. Additional research (and better data) is required to determine if this trend is related to the location or characteristics of a household’s primary residence.
The complete collection of papers and commentaries presented at the conference will be published as an edited volume in 2007.
SHARE
Ethan Seltzer is a professor in the Nohad A. Toulan School of Urban Studies and Planning at Portland State University. He previously served for six years as the director of the school, and prior to that for eleven years as the founding director of Portland State’s Institute of Portland Metropolitan Studies.
Before joining Portland State in 1992 he served as the land use supervisor for Metro, the regional government in the Portland area; assistant to Portland City Commissioner Mike Lindberg; assistant coordinator for the Southeast Uplift Neighborhood Program in Portland; and coordinator of the Drinking Water Project for the Oregon Environmental Council.
Seltzer received his Ph.D. in City and Regional Planning and Master of Regional Planning from the University of Pennsylvania. His doctoral dissertation examined the role of citizen participation in environmental planning. Current research interests include regional planning, regionalism, regional development, and planning in the Pacific Northwest.
In addition to his current work with the Lincoln Institute, his publications include chapters titled Maintaining the Working Landscape: The Portland Metro Urban Growth Boundary, in Regional Planning for Open Space, edited by Arnold van der Valk and Terry van Dijk (Routledge 2009); and It’s Not an Experiment: Regional Planning at Metro, 1990 to the Present, in The Portland Edge, edited by Connie Ozawa (Island Press 2004).
Land Lines: How did you become associated with the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy?
Ethan Seltzer: Regional planning has been at the center of my career for a long time. I used to be the land use supervisor for Metro, the regional government in the Portland metropolitan region. In the late 1980s we were just starting work on what is now the Region 2040 Growth Concept. Part of that work involved seeking out new ideas about planning, land use, land management, and related topics, and through that search, I started to engage with the Lincoln Institute. A few years later, I was part of a planning project organized through the Regional Plan Association in New York that brought U.S. and Japanese planners together. I met Armando Carbonell (chair of the Institute’s Department of Planning and Urban Form) through that process, and we have remained collaborators on a number of projects since then.
Land Lines: What was the first project you conducted for the Lincoln Institute?
Ethan Seltzer: The first one I recall had to do with re-establishing a dialogue around regional planning and building on the ideas put forth by the old Regional Plan Association of America going back to the 1920s. I was also a part of numerous Lincoln Institute seminars, including one held in Chicago on the relationships and interdependencies between cities and suburbs. The papers were published by the Institute in 2000 in the book Urban-Suburban Interdependencies, edited by Rosalind Greenstein and Wim Wiewel. Since then I have been involved in several Institute-sponsored projects and events, most recently in conjunction with the showing of the film Portland: Quest for the Livable City as part of the Making Sense of Place documentary film series.
Land Lines: How has your association with the Lincoln Institute influenced your research?
Ethan Seltzer: I think the Lincoln Institute is one of the only, maybe the only, institution that has consistently focused on the confluence of issues associated with planning practice, place, regionalism, and land use. There are few other places that address these issues in such a thoughtful, deliberate manner. The support that the Lincoln Institute provides for thinking and writing about these issues is part of what makes it possible for me to find both an audience and like-minded colleagues. There are other networks important to me as well, notably the connections provided by the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning. Nonetheless, the Lincoln Institute is uniquely a forum for the things that I am most interested in and where I hope to contribute.
Land Lines: What are your current projects for the Lincoln Institute?
Ethan Seltzer: I am working on a book on regional planning in America with an explicit focus on practice. I teach courses in regional planning and, though there is an interesting literature on the reasons why regional planning might make sense and the stark challenges to pulling it off, there is not much information available regarding what regional planners do, and how regional planning is distinguished from other types of planning (i.e., city, urban, transportation).
With support from the Lincoln Institute, and in collaboration with coeditor Armando Carbonell, I was able to recruit a group of talented authors and put together a series of chapters that, we expect, will more completely present what gets done in the name of regional planning in the United States today. We also hope this project will provide a basis for better understanding the unique aspects of regional planning practice.
The working title for the book is American Regional Planning: Practice and Prospect. Coauthors include Tim Beatley, Robert Fishman, Kate Foster, John Fregonese and CJ Gabbe, Frank and Deborah Popper, Manuel Pastor and Chris Benner, Gerrit Knaap and Rebecca Lewis, Fritz Steiner, and Bob Yaro. The manuscript will be completed this fall and the book will be published in the spring of 2011.
Land Lines: Regional planning seems to be a really challenging idea in America. Why are you so interested in it?
Ethan Seltzer: You are absolutely right, but it’s often hard to find a place in the scheme of things for regions and regional planning. The history of America is told with broad, sweeping regions in mind—the South, New England, the West—but the history of planning in America is largely one of local institutions, states, and the federal government.
Regional planning, then, is both present at the outset and a latecomer to the planning game. The institutional turf is quite congested. Although the need for better regional coordination and planning actually predates the “invention” of modern city planning in America (consider that the Burnham Plan for Chicago was a regional plan), regional planning has never been able to mount a convincing challenge to the profoundly local emphasis of planning.
Still, it simply makes too much sense to put aside regional planning for long. One need not be a rocket scientist to recognize that many of the things we care about and depend on are not well managed or defined by local jurisdictions. When I worked as the land use supervisor for Metro in Portland, I was struck by the fact that everyone—rich, poor, and in-between—lived regional lives. That is, households in our region were working, socializing, recreating, worshipping, schooling, and sleeping in territories of their own devising, none of which corresponded to any single local jurisdiction. Consequently, planning by jurisdiction, which is the norm in Oregon and elsewhere, becomes a more complicated proposition. It really makes one wonder for whom the planning is intended. If it is simply about maintaining local property values, then we’ve both made that task overly complicated and are poorly serving a whole host of larger values, goals, and objectives.
However, the other thing that struck me while working for Metro is that if people don’t feel empowered to address the issues right in front of them when they walk out the front of their house or apartment building, then they will never relate to the kinds of things we are talking about at the regional scale. Local empowerment made regional planning and growth management possible. Local and regional, then, go hand in hand, and you cannot have one without the other.
Having worked at the regional level, served as president of my local planning commission, and provided planning assistance to neighborhood associations early in my career, I am familiar with the ongoing tensions between these scales—the scale at which we live in the region, and the scale at which we are empowered at the locality. I think this tension is always going to be present, and I am under no illusions that it will evaporate or that the region will “win” any time in the future.
Still, I, like others, keep coming back to the region because to ignore it is to give up on things that are important to our sense of place and quality of life. The region helps us understand the world and how it works, and makes one look deeply into the causal relationships that link us together and to the natural world. I guess the ecologist in me will never give up on that.
Land Lines: What other kinds of research topics have you been investigating?
Ethan Seltzer: I guess you could summarize my work under several headings. I have written about planning in Portland, particularly regional planning and the way that Metro developed a regional growth management plan. That work has been incorporated in publications and projects in the United States, Japan, and the Netherlands.
More recently, I have been engaged in the work of America 2050 on megaregions. I have provided information about Cascadia, the megaregion of the Pacific Northwest, and participated in several research seminars organized to further our understanding of the nature of megaregions, planning for megaregions, and the utility of that concept for better understanding issues associated with sustainability and competitiveness in the years ahead.
I have also worked with Connie Ozawa, a colleague at Portland State, on the kinds of skills needed by entry-level planners, and therefore the nature of the relationship between graduate planning education and planning practice. I am also working with colleagues at the University of Oregon and Oregon State University to investigate the dynamics underlying and opportunities for bridging the “urban/rural” divide in Oregon. A book on that topic will be published by Oregon State Press in 2011. The fundamental themes that tie all of this together have to do with place and practice—the place being the Portland metropolitan region and the Pacific Northwest, and the practice being what actually gets done by planners.
Land Lines: Any last thoughts?
Ethan Seltzer: In an interesting way, the Lincoln Institute’s association with the ideas of Henry George and their extension into thematic areas of land as property, taxation, and land planning is very contemporary. The challenges we face in the United States and globally due to climate change and instability, the pressure for sustainability, urbanization, and the future of our cities and metropolitan regions all come together around these themes.
Ultimately, the challenges that we talk about in sweeping terms must make sense and be addressed democratically and locally. Pulling that off in a manner that acknowledges the global context for local action is really about infusing what we do as planners and academicians with a new ethical commitment to acknowledging and acting at the true scales at which these issues operate.
SHARE
Veintitrés estados ofrecen un incentivo para preservar el espacio abierto, que consiste en un avalúo preferencial del impuesto a la propiedad sobre las parcelas elegibles (tabla 1, pág. 17). Estas reducciones en el impuesto a la propiedad pueden considerarse como gastos, ya que reducen los ingresos disponibles para otros usos con el interés de proteger la gran cantidad de atracciones y beneficios ambientales que proporciona un terreno sin desarrollar.
Los programas varían mucho de un estado a otro, pero todos los programas de avalúo preferencial para el espacio abierto deben definir el tipo y tamaño de las parcelas elegibles, los usos permitidos, los requisitos de certificación, los métodos de avalúo, la duración del plazo de inscripción y las sanciones (de corresponder) en el caso de cancelar la condición preferencial de la parcela. Varios estados ofrecen más de un programa, cada uno de los cuales establece sus propios requisitos de elegibilidad. En el presente artículo consideramos estas diferencias, ofrecemos ejemplos del cálculo del gasto fiscal y describimos los posibles beneficios y costos sociales derivados de dichos programas.
Determinación de la elegibilidad para el avalúo preferencial
Cada estado define la elegibilidad de diferentes maneras, pero los requisitos son, por lo general, relativamente sencillos de cumplir. Una parcela puede ser elegible simplemente por no estar desarrollada. Varios estados permiten que los terrenos con valor paisajístico sean elegibles siempre que la densidad de construcción no exceda los límites establecidos. Por ejemplo, en Washington se permite que los terrenos sean elegibles si cumplen al menos con uno de once requisitos muy generales, tales como la protección de corrientes de agua o recursos hídricos, la conservación o mejora de recursos naturales o paisajísticos, la preservación de la calidad visual a lo largo de los caminos o la mejora de las oportunidades recreativas.
Aunque estos criterios son muy generales, los estados pueden elevar el nivel mediante la imposición de requisitos adicionales a los propietarios. Algunos estados requieren que los propietarios elaboren un plan de gestión de la propiedad, aprobado por el estado, con el fin de fomentar los beneficios de la vida silvestre del lugar. En Vermont se establece que una organización de conservación elegible debe poseer y gestionar el espacio abierto. Uno de los dos programas vigentes en Texas requiere que los propietarios realicen actividades de gestión de terrenos y vida silvestre con el fin de propagar una población de animales salvajes indígenas, que estén criando, migrando o hibernando, para uso humano, incluidas alimentación, medicina o recreación.
Varios estados ofrecen un avalúo preferencial a las propiedades que han obtenido la condición de espacio abierto a nivel federal. Por ejemplo, las parcelas que se encuentran limitadas por una servidumbre de conservación que cumple con los requisitos del IRS (Servicio de Rentas Internas) para ser considerada una donación de beneficencia son automáticamente elegibles para un avalúo preferencial en Illinois y Oregón. En Ohio, las parcelas son elegibles sólo si son objeto de un contrato con alguno de los cuatro programas de la USDA (Departamento de Agricultura de los Estados Unidos): el Programa de Reserva de Conservación, el Programa de Mejora de Reserva de Conservación, el Programa de Reserva de Pantanos y el Programa de Preservación de Pastizales.
Además, es posible que las parcelas deban cumplir requisitos de tamaño mínimo. El mínimo más común es de 4 hectáreas contiguas, aunque algunos programas permiten propiedades más pequeñas, de hasta 0,8 hectáreas y otros programas directamente no establecen requisitos en este sentido. Unos pocos estados limitan el total de hectáreas que un propietario en particular puede inscribir en el programa. Por ejemplo, en Tennessee se limita la elegibilidad a 607 hectáreas por propietario y condado, incluyendo tierras agrícolas, bosques y espacio abierto combinados. La declaración del tipo de uso de la propiedad puede tener influencia sobre la posibilidad de que dicha propiedad sea aceptada o no, ya que algunos estados prohíben específicamente las propiedades con fines comerciales, tales como los campos de golf. No obstante, al menos dos estados tienen programas diseñados específicamente para los campos de golf y otras propiedades con fines comerciales que brindan oportunidades de recreación al aire libre.
Criterios estatales versus criterios municipales
Los gobiernos estatales por lo general autorizan la creación de programas de avalúo preferencial y los criterios de inclusión. Seis estados permiten que los funcionarios municipales o de cada condado determinen los criterios: el estado autoriza un programa y solamente establece, por ejemplo, que las parcelas estén “incluidas en un plan de preservación aprobado por una agencia de planificación estatal o municipal” (Chervin, Gibson y Green 2009, 8) o que el organismo gubernamental respectivo acepte la propiedad mediante una resolución. Los estados que establecen este requisito son California, Connecticut, Florida, Nevada, Tennessee y Oregón. Los funcionarios municipales o de cada condado deben luego escoger los criterios de elegibilidad que, en algunos casos, incluyen la denominación de parcelas específicas. En otros casos, la oficina de avalúo determina la elegibilidad teniendo en cuenta las características de la propiedad y evaluando si ésta cumple con los criterios.
Este enfoque permite a los gobiernos municipales controlar la cantidad de gastos realizados en sus respectivas jurisdicciones y adaptar el programa con el fin de proteger las cualidades específicas que resultan más importantes para esa área en particular. Por ejemplo, es posible que los funcionarios en un entorno predominantemente agrícola prefieran utilizar los gastos fiscales en bosques o pantanos, mientras que los campos abiertos tal vez sean más valorados en un entorno más urbano.
Cálculo del valor del gasto fiscal
Los programas de avalúo preferencial de espacios abiertos por lo general utilizan uno de los tres métodos para determinar el valor fiscal de la propiedad. Nueve estados valúan el espacio abierto como si estuviera inscrito en el programa del estado para agricultura o bosques, aun cuando el terreno no se utilice para ninguna de estas actividades. Otros nueve estados ordenan a los tasadores valuar las propiedades teniendo en cuenta solamente su utilización actual, sin incluir el valor de los derechos de desarrollo (es decir, el valor de mercado como si su uso futuro estuviera permanentemente limitado a su uso actual). Cuatro estados establecen que los tasadores deben determinar el valor justo de mercado como si el terreno no estuviera inscrito en el programa y luego aplicar una fórmula establecida por ley con el fin de determinar el valor fiscal preferencial. Illinois tiene tres programas de avalúo preferencial para el espacio abierto, que varían según sus criterios de elegibilidad, aunque todos ofrecen reducciones establecidas por ley que se encuentran entre el 75 por ciento y el 85 por ciento. Nevada aplica un descuento establecido por ley más reducido del 26 por ciento.
En ocasiones, los estados deciden definir valores máximos o mínimos por hectárea para las parcelas en espacios abiertos. Por ejemplo, en Maryland se estableció un valor en todo el estado de US$187,50 por acre (US$75 por hectárea) para el año 2009. En Washington se permite que los gobiernos municipales determinen el valor de uso para su región, según un sistema de calificación de beneficios públicos; en el caso de que no exista tal sistema, los terrenos en espacios abiertos pueden recibir una valuación no menor que la valuación agrícola más baja del condado. En Massachusetts se calcula el valor preferencial como valor de uso, que no debe exceder el 25 por ciento del valor justo de mercado.
Duración del programa y sanciones por rescisión anticipada
Muchos programas establecen la renovación anual automática a menos que el propietario decida retirarse del programa. En algunos casos, la duración del contrato está predeterminada: con frecuencia es de 10 años, período que generalmente se traslada al nuevo propietario cuando se vende la propiedad, a menos que el nuevo propietario altere el uso de la propiedad e infrinja los términos del programa. Los propietarios deben pagar una multa por retirarse del programa para alterar el uso del terreno o por alterarlo sin notificar esta decisión. Las sanciones suelen ser equivalentes al valor del gasto fiscal recibido para una determinada cantidad de años antes del año en curso, más los intereses sobre dichos gastos. Varios estados aplican un monto del 10 por ciento del valor justo de mercado cuando la utilización de la parcela cambia, o cobran un impuesto a la transferencia o transmisión de la propiedad cuando una parcela inscrita en el programa se vende.
Sin embargo, si un propietario retira una parcela de un programa después de transcurrida una cantidad mínima de años, el estado puede reducir o incluso eliminar las sanciones. Por ejemplo, en Vermont se les cobra a los propietarios el 20 por ciento del valor justo de mercado por retirar la propiedad durante la primera década, y un 10 por ciento por retirarla después de los 10 años. Rhode Island deduce el 10 por ciento del nuevo valor justo de mercado por retirar una propiedad del programa después de transcurridos 6 años, pero dicha multa se va reduciendo hasta que el contrato se rescinde, es decir, a los 16 años de la inscripción en el programa.
Beneficios económicos de la preservación del espacio abierto
La abundante bibliografía en torno a los efectos que las atracciones ambientales tienen sobre los valores de las propiedades circundantes sugiere que si se evita el desarrollo en una parcela, esto traerá como consecuencia el aumento del valor de las parcelas adyacentes. Sin embargo, en estas investigaciones se observaron factores de complicación que dificultan la predicción de cambios en el valor para regiones específicas. Por ejemplo, los resultados de un estudio realizado en Maryland arrojaron que los programas para espacios abiertos tienen efectos muy diferentes en el valor de las propiedades en tres condados distintos, probablemente debido, al menos en parte, a las variaciones en la cantidad de espacios abiertos que existen (Geoghegan, Lynch y Bucholtz 2003). Muchos otros estudios indican que el valor del espacio abierto para propietarios en particular disminuye a medida que aumenta la distancia desde la parcela protegida (Chamblee y otros 2011). El tipo de hábitat o espacio verde probablemente también sea un factor de influencia: según un análisis, la presencia de árboles frondosos en un barrio se asocia con valores positivos, pero la presencia de abetos tiene un efecto negativo en los valores de la propiedad (Garrod y Willis 1992). Los resultados de un análisis de precios de viviendas en Tucson, Arizona, arrojaron que existe una preferencia por viviendas en áreas con espacios verdes, inclusive el hábitat ribereño nativo (Bark y otros 2009; 2011).
El acceso público a espacios abiertos de propiedad privada con fines recreativos o educativos probablemente también brindaría grandes bene-ficios al municipio en muchos casos. Los estados casi nunca requieren que el acceso público sea una condición para el gasto fiscal, aunque tanto Maine como Nueva Hampshire fomentan esta condición, ya que ofrecen una reducción adicional en el valor fiscal del 25 por ciento y el 20 por ciento, respectivamente.
El espacio abierto protegido también puede reducir el crecimiento en la demanda de servicios provistos por el municipio y, así, evitar los efectos negativos del desarrollo, tales como el tránsito intenso o las escuelas superpobladas, que muy probablemente se traducirían en una mayor carga fiscal para los residentes actuales. La creciente bibliografía en cuanto al costo de los servicios comunitarios indica que los impuestos a la propiedad que se pagan por los terrenos desarrollados son, por lo general, insuficientes a la hora de cubrir el costo de los servicios creados con el fin de apoyar dicho desarrollo, mientras que los espacios abiertos frecuentemente generan ingresos fiscales que exceden el costo de los servicios utilizados en la propiedad. El American Farmland Trust observó, según los resultados de 151 estudios realizados en condados y municipios de 25 estados, que los propietarios de terrenos de cultivo o espacios abiertos con frecuencia pagan impuestos superiores al costo de los servicios que reciben en dichas propiedades (e incluso llegan a ser el doble), mientras que los propietarios de inmuebles residenciales por lo general pagan menos que el costo de los servicios que reciben (Farmland Information Center 2010).
Resultados de este tipo sugieren que el avalúo preferencial puede justificarse con base en la equidad, ya que es posible que los propietarios de espacios abiertos estén subsidiando servicios prestados a los propietarios de inmuebles desarrollados. Sin embargo, el hecho de que la mayoría de los programas requieran un contrato a largo plazo e incluyan sanciones por la rescisión anticipada indica que el objetivo no es la equidad sino evitar el desarrollo durante un período determinado.
Lamentablemente, existe muy poca bibliografía sobre la estimación de si los programas de avalúo preferencial pueden evitar el desarrollo futuro en parcelas que no se encuentran protegidas en forma permanente, tales como las servidumbres. Gran parte de las evidencias que existen actualmente está basada en estudios sobre los programas de protección de terrenos agrícolas en lugar de evaluaciones del impacto que los gastos del impuesto a la propiedad tienen sobre el espacio abierto. En dos estudios llevados a cabo por el programa Greenbelt (cinturón verde) de Tennessee se evaluó una encuesta realizada a propietarios de zonas boscosas inscritos en el programa y sus resultados arrojaron muy pocas pruebas que sustentaran la hipótesis de que el avalúo preferencial reducía la probabilidad de que se llevaran a cabo desarrollos en dichas parcelas (Brockett, Gottfried y Evans 2003; Williams y otros 2004).
Es mucho más sencillo evaluar los terrenos sujetos a una protección a largo plazo o permanente, ya sea mediante una servidumbre de conservación perpetua como a través de un contrato de avalúo preferencial a largo plazo que incluya importantes sanciones en caso de rescisión anticipada. En dichos casos, es posible predecir con un gran nivel de confianza la presencia continua del espacio abierto. Lamentablemente, dichos contratos de protección pueden anteceder al avalúo preferencial o, en otros casos, no estar influenciados por dicho avalúo.
Costos del avalúo preferencial para el espacio abierto
Además del gasto fiscal en sí, estos programas pueden generar otros posibles costos. Por ejemplo, aquellos programas que requieren la aprobación de un plan de conservación podrían generar un gasto particularmente significativo. Aun cuando una agencia estatal pudiera desarrollar y aprobar dicho plan, resultaría muy costoso garantizar el cumplimiento de las condiciones del mismo.
La supervisión del cumplimiento del programa requiere evaluar no sólo los cambios en el valor de mercado de la propiedad sino también los cambios en la utilización de la propiedad. Por ejemplo, si el espacio abierto se usa para pastura del ganado, este nuevo uso podría proteger la situación de no desarrollo de la propiedad pero, aun así, los beneficios ambientales podrían verse disminuidos.
Además, los resultados de los estudios sugieren que, en algunos casos, la preservación del espacio abierto puede reducir el valor de la propiedad por transferencia de los patrones de desarrollo que, generalmente, dan como resultado el desarrollo de las propiedades adyacentes (Irwin y Bockstael 2004; McDonald y otros 2007). Si el avalúo preferencial evita el desarrollo en determinadas parcelas, dicho desarrollo podría trasladarse a otras parcelas de tal manera que aumentaría la expansión urbana descontrolada. Si se da un patrón de desarrollo discontinuo a causa de un programa que evitó el desarrollo parcela por parcela, los efectos negativos (tales como mayores costos de infraestructura) podrían superar en gran medida cualquier beneficio público que generara el programa.
Debido a la naturaleza voluntaria de estos programas y a los cambios que pueden darse en los patrones de desarrollo, en el peor de los casos, las parcelas de menor calidad podrían recibir un avalúo preferencial, lo que aumentaría la presión para llevar a cabo desarrollos en las parcelas que generan mayores beneficios públicos. Por un lado, la aprobación del gobierno municipal podría disminuir este problema, ya que permitiría que las personas que tienen un mejor conocimiento del área pudieran escoger las parcelas que merecen más protección. Por otro lado, esto podría inspirar a los funcionarios municipales a proteger el espacio abierto en sus respectivas jurisdicciones, lo que incitaría el desarrollo en las comunidades vecinas y generaría patrones de desarrollo no deseados a nivel regional. Es importante destacar además que el avalúo preferencial del espacio abierto genera, hasta cierto punto, un sistema de tarifas diferenciadas, según el cual la tarifa más alta se aplica sobre los terrenos desarrollados, especialmente sobre las mejoras realizadas a los terrenos; este problema ha sido un motivo de preocupación para muchos académicos en el campo del impuesto a la propiedad y puede afectar en gran medida los patrones de uso del suelo.
Finalmente, el valor de los beneficios públicos no es estático, ya que puede aumentar o disminuir dependiendo de la condición de la propiedad y el área circundante. Los cambios pueden ser independientes de los futuros cambios en el valor fiscal o, incluso, pueden estar negativamente correlacionados con los mismos. Por ejemplo, una presión más intensa para llevar a cabo desarrollos podría aumentar el beneficio de preservar una parcela de grandes dimensiones como espacio abierto, o podría disminuir el beneficio de preservar una pequeña parcela aislada. Un espacio abierto de 10 hectáreas en medio de una ciudad podría beneficiar en gran manera a la comunidad; sin embargo, si se llevan a cabo desarrollos en 9 de esas hectáreas, esto probablemente reduciría los beneficios ambientales de la hectárea restante. Sin embargo, en ambos casos, es probable que aumenten los ahorros fiscales derivados del avalúo preferencial, ya que la presión por el desarrollo genera un aumento en los valores de las propiedades en el lugar.
Estos factores indican que, a pesar de que el avalúo preferencial ofrece a los propietarios un incentivo para preservar los beneficios públicos, la cantidad del incentivo puede no compensar, o incluso compensar de más, el beneficio generado. Esto dará como resultado un programa ineficiente en sí mismo, aunque este tipo de programas siga dando importantes beneficios netos si se compara con el hecho de no tener ningún programa.
Consecuencias en la distribución
Los gastos en el impuesto a la propiedad con el fin de proteger el espacio abierto tendrán consecuencias en la distribución. De manera más inmediata, el programa redistribuiría la carga fiscal a otros propietarios de inmuebles en los mismos distritos tributarios, a medida que los gobiernos modifican el tipo fiscal a tanto por mil a fin de mantener la recaudación presupuestada. Los propietarios de inmuebles desarrollados constituirían así una gran parte de la base imponible y, como resultado, deberían pagar una fracción mayor de la factura de cobro total del impuesto.
Debido a que los programas de avalúo preferencial se encuentran diseñados principalmente para mantener el espacio abierto existente, las parcelas inscritas en dichos programas continúan generando beneficios, aunque dichos beneficios no aumenten necesariamente. De esta manera, sería de esperar que los beneficios públicos continuaran devengándose como hasta ahora. Sólo los residentes locales se beneficiarán con los paisajes y los costos externos previstos del desarrollo, mientras que tanto residentes como no residentes por igual podrán obtener los beneficios derivados de la protección de las cuencas de agua o los hábitats de especies en riesgo (Anderson y West 2006). No obstante, podría esperarse un aumento de los beneficios si el programa requiriera a los propietarios que mejoraran el valor del espacio abierto realizando actividades tales como la restauración de hábitats.
Varias investigaciones indican que los efectos del espacio abierto en los valores de las propiedades adyacentes dependen significativamente del tipo de protección y de su capacidad para evitar el desarrollo en el futuro. Por ejemplo, los terrenos adquiridos como parques o reservas forestales o los terrenos que se encuentran sujetos a una servidumbre de conservación tienen un efecto mucho más positivo en el valor de las propiedades adyacentes que el espacio abierto que no se encuentra protegido de forma permanente (Geoghegan 2002). La inscripción en un programa de avalúo preferencial podría tener pocos efectos, o incluso ninguno en absoluto, en los valores de las propiedades adyacentes si la protección se percibe como algo temporal, lo que puede dar como resultado reducciones permanentes en la recaudación o tasas de impuesto permanentemente altas sobre las parcelas que no se encuentran inscritas.
Cálculo del costo fiscal de los gastos del avalúo preferencial
La metodología para calcular el gasto fiscal derivado del avalúo preferencial del espacio abierto es clara. El propietario del inmueble percibiría una carga fiscal reducida, resultado de la diferencia entre el avalúo sin el programa y el avalúo preferencial. Esta disminución en el valor fiscal puede reducir la recaudación fiscal debido a la reducción de la base imponible. De forma alternativa, la pérdida de recaudación podría compensarse transfiriendo dicha carga fiscal a otros propietarios de inmuebles, a los que se les aumenta la tasa del impuesto. También es posible una combinación de ambos resultados. En el informe de gastos fiscales de Oregón (tabla 2) se observó tanto la pérdida como la transferencia del impuesto; en dicho informe se indican valores de exención de US$126 millones en el ejercicio 2009–2010 para los tres programas aplicables al espacio abierto. La pérdida de recaudación estimada en dos ejercicios es de US$3,2 millones, mientras que la recaudación estimada derivada de la transferencia del impuesto durante dicho período es de US$0,7 millones.
Los datos son desiguales de un estado a otro, lo que dificulta la estimación de los efectos del avalúo preferencial en la recaudación. Los datos totales que se presentaron respecto de Oregón son mucho más útiles que los datos presentados por otros estados. Aquellos estados que no calculan los gastos del impuesto a la propiedad con regularidad no facilitan el acceso a dichos datos; como mucho, por lo general presentan cifras totales que combinan los resultados de los programas para terrenos agrícolas, bosques y espacios abiertos. En la tabla 2 también se indican los alcances relativos del espacio abierto en dicho contexto. Los valores de exención para las zonas boscosas privadas fueron superiores a los US$5 mil millones, y los valores de exención para los terrenos de labranza y las viviendas en zonas agrícolas fueron de US$14,1 mil millones. Los tres programas de conservación combinados representan aproximadamente el 0,5 por ciento del valor total de exenciones y menos del 1 por ciento de la recaudación perdida o trasladada.
Estos cálculos también dependen de otros efectos que pueden ser muy difíciles de observar. Será imposible determinar los alcances de la transferencia de la recaudación sin tener información detallada acerca de la capacidad de respuesta del gobierno municipal a la hora de modificar el tipo fiscal a tanto por mil. En este caso, la estimación sólo corresponderá a la recaudación prevista. También será necesario ignorar los posibles efectos positivos del programa en cuanto al valor inmobiliario en las parcelas adyacentes.
Conclusión
La tarea de diseñar un programa de avalúo preferencial para el espacio abierto requiere una cuidadosa consideración. Aunque los terrenos con poco desarrollo brindan atracciones y beneficios ambientales bajo numerosas circunstancias, el valor de dichos beneficios puede variar significativamente según las condiciones de cada lugar. Si el objetivo principal del programa es proporcionar beneficios a nivel municipal en vez de regional, establecer un único conjunto de criterios para todo el estado probablemente no maximizaría los beneficios. La determinación de criterios de inscripción a nivel municipal puede otorgar la flexibilidad necesaria para reaccionar ante las mencionadas condiciones variables, mientras que los criterios a nivel estatal probablemente son necesarios para proteger los recursos regionales, tales como las cuencas de agua.
La escasez de investigaciones empíricas en esta área de estudio dificulta la tarea de evaluar la efectividad de los programas actualmente en vigencia. Si el objetivo es verdaderamente evitar el desarrollo en ciertas parcelas, al diseñar el programa debería tenerse en cuenta la duración del contrato y las sanciones por rescisión anticipada del mismo. Los retrasos a corto plazo en el desarrollo generarán beneficios principalmente para los propietarios del espacio abierto. Para que un programa tenga éxito, el espacio abierto debe generar beneficios significativos para la comunidad, ya sea mediante una protección ambiental a largo plazo como la aplicación de mayores valores inmobiliarios para otros residentes del área. Si el programa establece mayores requisitos de elegibilidad, esto debería reducir la cantidad de hectáreas inscritas; no obstante, el objetivo principal del programa no debería ser la cantidad de hectáreas inscritas, a menos que la intención de los legisladores sea únicamente la reducción del desarrollo a nivel municipal. La inscripción de una significativa cantidad de parcelas en el programa podría tener importantes implicaciones fiscales para las juris-dicciones municipales, especialmente cuando el establecimiento de criterios amplios y sanciones de poco monto por rescisión anticipada permite que los propietarios fácilmente se inscriban en el programa y luego lleven a cabo desarrollos en su propiedad. El diseño de los programas debe garantizar un máximo de beneficios públicos a cambio de los efectos fiscales.
El presente artículo es una adaptación del documento de trabajo del Instituto Lincoln titulado “Avalúo preferencial para el espacio abierto”: https://www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/dl/2281_1620_Sundberg_WP13JS1.pdf
Sobre el autor
Jeffrey O. Sundberg es profesor de Artes liberales y negocios en la Fundación James S. Kemper y profesor de Economía en la Universidad Lake Forest. Obtuvo su doctorado (Ph.D) en Economía por la Universidad de Stanford. Sus intereses de investigación actuales son la eficiencia de los incentivos fiscales estatales y federales para las donaciones de servidumbre de conservación y los programas de avalúo preferencial para el espacio abierto. Sundberg también se desempeñó como presidente del directorio de un fideicomiso de suelo en el condado de Lake, Illinois, durante cuatro años. Contacto: jsundber@mx.lakeforest.edu.
Recursos
Anderson, Soren y Sarah West. 2006. Open space, residential property values, and spatial context. Regional Science and Urban Economics 36: 773–789.
Bark, R. H., D. E. Osgood, B. G Colby y E. Halper. 2011. How Do Homebuyers Value Different Types of Green Space? Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 36(3): 395–415.
Bark, R. H., D. E. Osgood, B. G. Colby, G. Katz y J. Stromberg. 2009. Habitat preservation and restoration: Do homebuyers have preferences for quality habitat? Ecological Economics 68(5): 1465–1475.
Brockett, C. D., R. R. Gottfried y J. P. Evans. 2003. The Use of State Tax Incentives to Promote Forest Preservation on Private Lands in Tennessee: An Evaluation of Their Equity and Effectiveness Impacts. Politics and Policy 31(2): 252–281.
Chamblee, John F., Peter F. Colwell, Carolyn A. Dehring y Craig A. Depken. 2011. The Effect of Conservation Activity on Surrounding Land Prices. Land Economics 87(3): 453–472.
Chervin, Stan, Teresa Gibson y Harry Green. 2009. Greenbelt Revisited. Tennessee Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. http://www.tn.gov/tacir/PDF_FILES/Taxes/greenbeltrevisited.pdf.
Farmland Information Center, American Farmland Trust. 2010. Fact Sheet: Cost of Community Services Studies. http://www.farmland.org/documents/Cost-of-Community-Services-08-2010.pdf.
Garrod, Guy y Ken Willis. 1992. The environmental economic impact of woodland: a two-stage hedonic price model of the amenity value of forestry in Britain. Applied Economics 24: 715–728.
Geoghegan, Jacqueline, Lori Lynch y Shawn Bucholtz. 2003. Capitalization of Open Spaces into Housing Values and the Residential Property Tax Revenue Impacts of Agricultural Easement Programs. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 32(1): 33–45.
Geoghegan, Jacqueline. 2002. The Value of Open Spaces in Residential Land Use. Land Use Policy 19(1): 91–98.
Irwin, Elana G. y Nancy E. Bockstael. 2004. Land Use Externalities, Open Space Preservation, and Urban Sprawl. Regional Science and Urban Economics 34:705–725.
SHARE
Local governments exercise greater land use authority in the United States than in any other advanced democracy. Yet local governments have themselves evolved piecemeal in the typical U.S. metropolitan area, producing a pattern of fragmented authority. Most notably, as metropolitan areas have exploded outward, the local government system has adapted mainly by creating new suburbs and single-function districts rather than by expanding the boundaries of existing central cities.
Illustratively, when Robert Wood studied the New York metropolitan region in the late 1950s, he counted roughly 1,400 local governments. When Jameson Doig and Michael Danielson examined the same region in the early 1980s, the number had grown to 2,200, of which more than 800 exercised land use regulatory authority.
Critics levy numerous charges against this system. Above all, they contend it invites parochialism and, in dealing with issues of regional scale, gridlock. These failings are particularly apparent when the potential ends of land use policy are controversial. But they are visible in many other circumstances as well—wherever, for example, there is substantial risk that the instruments of policy (from regional overrides of local zoning to the siting of new incinerators) will be highly controversial and no consensus has yet emerged about the severity of a crisis that might justify accepting such risk.
In other respects, however, the system is both adaptive and finely tuned to citizen desires. Numerous functions have been shifted from localities to regional authorities and higher levels of government in recent decades, yet the changes have been highly selective and incremental.
When broad agreement has emerged that a particular function—such as mass transit or environmental protection—requires decisionmaking and management at supra-local scale, the political leaders in many metropolitan areas have frequently crafted new institutional arrangements. They have typically defined the new institutions quite precisely, however, so as to avoid sapping local authority any more than necessary to deal with the specific problems that gave rise to the consensus for change. Where large numbers of voters still favor local control, moreover—as, preeminently, in the field of land use regulation—metropolitan-area political leaders have taken great care to avoid disturbing it.
To be sure, certain objectives are all but impossible to realize through this piecemeal, consensus-dependent mode of institutional adaptation (most notably, greater class and racial integration at regional scale, and prevention of urban sprawl). But others (e.g., the preservation of neighborhood character and vigorous grassroots democracy) are accomplished much more reliably than would be likely in a more “rationalized” system.
Balancing Communal and Individualistic Values
Controversies about this system invariably reflect a mix of conflicting interests and values. Since a considerable body of scholarship exists on the interests most commonly in dispute, let us concentrate here on the values.
Americans consider land use issues within the framework of two disparate ideologies: one communal and egalitarian, the other individualistic and disposed to leave distributional outcomes to the marketplace. In any given controversy, self-interested groups organize their briefs around aspects of one or the other of these ideologies. So it is easy to miss the crucial fact that both enjoy near-consensual support. Americans favor both private capitalism and government action to further collective values–each in its place. The disputes typically arise in situations where parties disagree about which ideology ought to take precedence or about how the differing ideological claims should be balanced.
The land use arena is chock full of such points. Ownership is private. Most development initiative is private. And tradition favors viewing land as a market commodity. But most human activities take place on land; the byproducts of land use profoundly affect every aspect of the human environment; and no one is an owner every place he or she goes. So everyone has a powerful stake in the preservation of some common spaces, in society’s rules for behavior in such spaces, and in some regulation of land use “overspill” effects.
Owners themselves, moreover, are eager for collective services. The value of urban real estate hinges critically on the availability and quality of such services, from highway access to public safety to education. In addition, neighborhood characteristics and the level of investor confidence in the neighborhood’s future profoundly affect real estate values. As a result, whether their aim is development or simply enjoyment of what they already have, property owners are drawn inevitably to the public realm.
Within the public realm, however, communal values–including the presumption of equal access to collective services regardless of income or wealth–predominate. This poses a severe problem for relatively affluent property owners who are reluctant to trigger wide egalitarian claims.
The fragmentation of metropolitan areas into independent suburbs, a problem for some, is for these voters a solution. It provides a means of confining the application of communal norms within relatively small population groups. And it makes available to such groups an instrument of extraordinary power for the pursuit and preservation of homogeneity: land use regulation.
Public Regulation vs Market Forces
Pressures have built in recent decades, nonetheless, for public land use action on a wider scale. Some of these pressures (e.g., for major infrastructure investments and for environmental protection) come largely from property owners themselves and do not pose much redistributive threat even when higher-level governments assume responsibility for action. Nearly all of the centralization that has occurred has been in response to pressures of this sort.
A second set of pressures for supra-local action has come primarily from less favored groups and their political representatives, seeking fiscal equalization and residential integration. There have been considerable shifts of money in response to these pressures. But resistance has been fierce to reforms that might force racial or class integration at the neighborhood level. With rare exceptions it has been successful.
The reform idea with the greatest apparent potential to override local land use parochialism would be a shift of some land use regulatory authority to the state level. Movement in this direction occurred in about one-quarter of the states during the 1970s and 1980s. Except in the notable cases of Oregon and Florida, however, the changes were slight, and the historic pattern of local land use autonomy remained firmly entrenched. Concerns about growth, moreover, rather than concerns about equality or integration drove these state land use reforms. Consequently, with weak real estate markets in the early 1990s interest in them has waned.
The question remains whether shifting land use authority from the local to the state level, if it does occur, will be likely to produce more egalitarian and integrationist outcomes than would the existing pattern of fragmented land use governance. One can plausibly argue that it will, stressing that egalitarian norms tend to prevail within (even if not between) U.S. public jurisdictions. Thinking of the immediate future, however, the likelihood is that such shifts will be rare and that, even when they occur, their egalitarian impacts will be meager.
For better or worse, the overwhelming trend of the 1990s, at all levels of government, is toward greater market deference rather than more vigorous public action to achieve redistributive objectives.
_____________
Alan Altshuler is professor in urban policy and planning and director of the Taubman Center for State and Local Government at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. He is also a faculty associate of the Lincoln Institute, which distributes several of his publications. This article is reprinted with permission from the 1995-96 Annual Report of the Taubman Center.
SHARE
In the past decade, nearly 50 mansions have been demolished and replaced in the historic Chicago suburb of Kenilworth. Four demolition permits are currently pending review, while permits have been approved for two other historically significant houses. To slow the teardown trend, Kenilworth has enacted a nine-month waiting period between issuance of a demolition permit and initiation of the teardown process. However, the village does not have a historic preservation ordinance, and local officials generally support the rights of property owners to demolish and replace their houses. The National Trust for Historic Preservation included Kenilworth on its 2006 list of the 11 most endangered places nationwide (Black 2006).
The practice of demolishing and replacing houses in high-priced areas generates passionate controversy. The fight to save the Skiff House in Kenilworth is illustrative (Nance 2005). That property at 157 Kenilworth Avenue is one of the premier locations in one of Chicago’s most expensive suburbs, three blocks west of Lake Michigan and five blocks from the commuter train station in the village center.
The house was built in 1908 for Frederick Skiff, the first director of Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History. This beautiful and historically significant house was designed by the architectural firm of Daniel H. Burnham, who was considered the preeminent architect in America at the turn of the twentieth century. He oversaw the construction of the 1893 World’s Columbian Exposition and helped design a series of lakefront parks as part of the 1909 Plan of Chicago.
Plans to demolish the Skiff House shortly after it was purchased in 2004 for $1.875 million created an uproar. While many neighbors supported the owner’s right to tear down the property—after all, they might want to do the same—others saw it as an assault on the community’s character. “Save 157 Kenilworth” signs began to appear in front yards throughout the village, and a neighborhood group, Citizens for Kenilworth, led a campaign to save the house. After months of controversy, and only days after an auction to sell off valuable parts of the house before demolition, a neighbor purchased the house for $2.35 million in order to save it.
Historic houses continue to be torn down in Kenilworth and elsewhere, but not all teardowns generate controversy. Residents of many Chicago suburbs have been supportive of the teardown trend. Naperville is a representative case. Founded in 1831 and incorporated in 1857, Naperville grew slowly until plans for the East-West Tollway (I-88) were announced in 1954. The population grew from 7,013 in 1950, to 21,675 in 1960, to 140,106 today.
Naperville’s downtown has undergone a renaissance over the last decade, attracting new restaurants, shops, and residences. Although the city has a historic district just to the east of the downtown area, teardown activity has been concentrated in what were formerly more humble areas. Small, older houses are being purchased for about $400,000 and replaced by much larger houses that may sell for $1 million.
The teardown trend in Naperville is illustrated by one small house being sold as a teardown, with an announcement of an upcoming public hearing posted in the yard. It is likely to be replaced by a house that is similar to the recently constructed house next door (see pages 6 and 7). Though teardown activity is not entirely without controversy in Naperville, it does not generate the same passion as the Skiff House did.
How Widespread is the Teardown Phenomenon?
Nationwide the teardown phenomenon has attracted much media and public attention. The decennial Census of Population and Housing offers a way to quantify the practice using the “net replacement method.” For example, suppose the Census lists 10,000 housing units in an area for 1990 and 10,500 units in 2000—an increase of 500 units. Now suppose the Census shows that 800 housing units were built during the decade. Then 300 of the newly built units must have simply replaced existing units. The 300 replacement units are a crude but nonetheless enlightening measure of teardown activity in that community.
Figure 1 shows counties where at least one census tract had a net replacement rate in excess of 4 percent. Teardown activity is clustered in older urban areas in the Northeast, Midwest, and California. In fact, the map does not look substantially different from a map of population density in the United States. This simple analysis shows that replacement of the preexisting housing stock is an extensive phenomenon that is national in scope.
Nevertheless, it is surprisingly difficult to track teardown activity on a case-by-case basis. The classic teardown is a house whose sale is followed by the issuance of both demolition and building permits, but timing is a key factor in tracking these permits. If a demolition permit is issued four years after a sale, was the house really sold as a teardown? Similarly, a building permit may be issued long after a dilapidated house was demolished, yet this situation is not what most people have in mind when they think of teardowns.
Some teardowns are carried out by the current owner without a sale. Other houses are so extensively remodeled that they are effectively teardowns, even though no demolition permit is issued. Even when data on sales, demolition permits, and building permits are available, it is difficult to merge the different sources of information since they frequently come from different agencies that vary in the quality of their database management.
The National Trust for Historic Preservation has described the Chicago metropolitan area as the “epicenter of teardowns.” Aside from Kenilworth, teardowns are common in both the city of Chicago and its suburbs. The Village of Skokie (2005) surveyed 20 of its neighbors in Chicago’s near north suburbs and compared the number of detached single-family housing unit demolition permits from 2000 to 2003 to the total number of such units as reported in the 2000 U.S. Census. Thirteen of the 20 communities reported demolition permits representing more than 1 percent of the housing stock over the four-year period.
Richard Dye and I (forthcoming) have used data from Chicago and six suburban communities to document the degree of teardown activity in the region. We were able to obtain data on house sales and demolition permits for Chicago; one of its suburbs to the west, Western Springs; the northwest suburb of Park Ridge; and four suburbs on the North Shore—Glencoe, Kenilworth, Wilmette, and Winnetka.
Between 1996 and 2003, the number of demolition permits ranged from 29 in Kenilworth to 273 in Winnetka and 12,236 in Chicago. Of course, Kenilworth has only 2,494 residents, whereas Winnetka’s population is 12,419, and Chicago has 2.9 million residents. Figure 2 shows the number of demolition permits as a percentage of total housing units for each community. More than 9 percent of Winnetka’s housing stock was torn down between 1996 and 2003, and teardown rates were also quite high in Winnetka and Kenilworth. Even Chicago, with more than 400,000 housing units, had a demolition rate near 3 percent.
These six suburbs were not chosen randomly. All had high median incomes in 2000, ranging from $73,154 in Park Ridge to more than $200,000 in Kenilworth. All of these suburbs have stations on commuter train lines to downtown Chicago, little or no vacant land on which to build, and good schools and other local public services. In other words, demand to live in these suburbs is high. Teardown activity in Chicago is concentrated in comparable neighborhoods within the city, such as Lincoln Park, West Town, and Lakeview on the near north side.
The Costs and Benefits of Teardowns
Teardowns can impose significant social costs. Local residents often complain that new houses destroy the character of a neighborhood. Those houses may be built to the limits of the zoning code, tower above their neighbors, and reach to the edge of the property line. Sometimes neighbors simply dislike the design of new buildings, particularly those that replace historic houses. When tall apartment buildings replace single-family houses or two-family houses in the city, neighbors complain of the loss of sunlight, lack of parking spaces, and increased traffic congestion. The construction process itself can be noisy and disruptive. New, expensive houses may cause assessments to increase in the neighborhood. And, teardowns may reduce the stock of affordable housing.
Teardowns also carry some benefits, however. In places that rely on the property tax to fund local services, the additional revenue from high-priced replacement houses is often quite welcome. Not all teardown buildings are historic, architecturally significant, or mourned when they are demolished. Some teardowns are simply eyesores.
Some of the new houses being built today will eventually be viewed as historically significant properties in their own right. Once entire blocks are rebuilt, the new housing no longer looks out of place. It is surprising to discover how stark and incompatible some properties built in the early 1900s appear in historic photographs taken before trees grew and the neighborhood filled in with similar houses.
It also is important to recognize that teardowns may help to curb sprawl. One reason people move to the urban fringe is to build a new house in a contemporary construction style. Allowing people to tear down a small, outdated house and replace it with a modern house may induce them to stay in centrally located areas. In general, encouraging housing and economic growth helps maintain the vitality of previously developed areas, which is a strategic complement to anti-sprawl policies designed to limit growth at the fringe.
Policy Responses
Local jurisdictions have been creative in responding to teardowns. Some policies are designed to the slow the amount of teardown activity by making it more costly, through demolition fees and fines for illegal demolitions. Others, such as a moratorium on new demolition permits or an enforced waiting period between permit issuance and the time when demolition can start, are simply designed to cool a potential teardown fever. Such policies also raise the cost of teardowns by making developers wait for some time after purchasing a property before being able to recoup their costs. Complementary policies include landmark designation and historic district designation, which make it more difficult or even impossible to tear down existing structures.
Policies on the other side of the balance sheet may give developers an incentive not to demolish existing structures. Communities may offer tax breaks to owners who rehabilitate existing houses rather than demolish them to build new ones. Or, owners may be granted variances from restrictive zoning provisions in order to enlarge rather than demolish an existing house.
At the same time, jurisdictions often use zoning to influence the type of new housing that is built in their community. Lot-coverage and floor-area restrictions are used to ensure that new structures do not dwarf their neighbors. Other policies include maximum building sizes; set-back and open space requirements; and restrictions on such design elements as garage and driveway locations, roof pitch, bulk limits, solar access, and the alignment of the new house with neighboring structures. Many communities have design review boards that can revoke building permits for structures that are not in compliance. These standards are not always clear beforehand, however, and they can increase the level of uncertainty for developers, delay construction, and raise costs.
Even if communities do not attempt to curb teardown activity, they often adopt policies designed to reduce the disruption caused by new construction. The builder may be required to notify neighbors when construction is about to begin, and a time window may be imposed for completion of the building. Construction activity may be limited to certain hours of day, the site may need to be fenced, and work vehicle and dumpster location requirements are often imposed. Communities also may require that contractors be bonded and certified.
How successful are these policies in slowing the rate of teardown activity? As we have seen, the Skiff House was saved because Kenilworth’s nine-month waiting period between permit issuance and the start of demolition provided enough time for a buyer to step forward before the house was razed. However, the potential for profits in such transactions make it difficult to stop teardowns completely. If a developer can purchase an existing property for $300,000, demolish it for $20,000, and spend $400,000 to build a new house according to current construction standards, then he has incurred $720,000 in costs. With new upscale houses routinely selling in excess of $1 million in communities with many teardowns, it should not be surprising that developers continue this practice.
Implications for Land Values
Assessors encounter enormous difficulties in placing a value on land in built-up areas. When few vacant lots exist, it is nearly impossible to find enough sales of vacant land to assess the value of land accurately. In the absence of direct land sales data, land values can be estimated by subtracting construction costs less depreciation from the sale price of improved properties in the area.
Statistical analysis of mass appraisal data can account for such structural characteristics as square footage in order to control for the contribution of the building to total property value. With a complete set of these characteristics, the residual from the regression reflects the contribution of location to property value—in other words, land value. Unfortunately, any unobserved structural characteristic will also be part of the residual.
Teardowns can help estimate the value of land in developed areas. Consider the earlier example of a property that is purchased for $300,000, demolished for $20,000, and replaced by a million-dollar house. If the developer could purchase a vacant lot of the identical size next door for $290,000, which property would he prefer? If there is no salvage value for parts of the existing house, it will cost the developer $320,000 before it is possible to build on the lot with the existing house. Yet the vacant lot is available in the same general location for $30,000 less. The vacant lot is preferable even though it does not include a house—in fact, it is preferable precisely because it does not include an existing structure.
If the price of the vacant lot rises to $310,000, the developer still obtains a lot that is ready to build upon for $10,000 less than the cost of building on the neighboring lot. Only at $320,000 will the developer be indifferent between the two lots. It follows that the value of land in this case is $320,000. This key insight leads to an extremely useful method of valuing land in areas experiencing teardowns. The value of land is simply the sales price of a teardown property plus any demolition cost.
An important implication of this line of reasoning is that only location determines the value of a teardown property; characteristics of the structure are irrelevant except insofar as they influence demolitions costs or salvage value. This implication is somewhat surprising to people who think that a historic house has intrinsic value. Though it is tempting to think that the Skiff House in Kenilworth is worth approximately $2 million because of its historic and architectural value, a vacant lot next door would sell for nearly the same price. Any house near Lake Michigan in Kenilworth will sell for well more than $1 million. The conclusion to be drawn is simply that land is expensive along Chicago’s North Shore.
Richard Dye and I (forthcoming) test the prediction that only location characteristics influence sales prices in our sample of seven communities in the Chicago area. Our measures of location include such variables as lot size, distance from the nearest commuter train station, and proximity to Lake Michigan. Structural characteristics include such variables as building size, age, and whether the house is built of brick and has a basement, garage, or fireplace. We identify teardowns as houses for which a demolition permit was issued within two years of a sale. As predicted, structural characteristics do not significantly influence the sales price of teardown properties. Teardowns are purchased for the land underneath.
Final Thoughts
The teardown phenomenon is not new. Houses have been demolished and replaced for as long as they have been built. American cities grew rapidly in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries and again in the years just after World War II. Tastes now appear to be changing toward larger houses with spacious rooms and high ceilings. Many people find the existing housing stock less desirable than new construction. In this situation, it is not surprising that buyers purchase, demolish, and build new houses, especially in high-demand areas. The trick for local governments is to keep the costs of teardown activity from overwhelming the less obvious benefits.
Daniel P. McMillen is professor in the Department of Economics and the Institute for Government and Public Affairs at University of Illinois at Chicago. He has published widely in urban economics, real estate, and applied econometrics. He is a visiting fellow in 2006–2007 at the Lincoln Institute.
References
Black, Lisa. 2006. Kenilworth added to list of endangered historic towns. Chicago Tribune, May 20.
Dye, Richard, and Daniel P. McMillen. Forthcoming. Teardowns and land values in the Chicago metropolitan area. Journal of Urban Economics.
Nance, Kevin. 2005. Teardown ‘madness has to stop’: Developer rescues historic Burnham house, but says it’s just a start. Chicago Sun-Times, November 6.
Village of Skokie. 2005. Comprehensive Plan Appendix C: Near north suburban housing activity study. http://www.skokie.org/comm/Appendix%20C.pdf.
Municipalities around the country face a daunting fiscal crisis. Federal stimulus assistance has expired, and many states have made significant cuts in aid to municipalities. Meanwhile property values have declined 31 percent since their 2006 peak according to the S&P/Case-Shiller national home price index.
It will take several years to know how this historic decline will affect property tax revenues, because changes in property tax bills significantly lag changes in market values. However, cities faced declines in general fund revenues of 2.5 percent in 2009, and approximately 3.2 percent declines in 2010 (Hoene 2009; Hoene and Pagano 2010). Municipal responses to revenue shortfalls have included making cuts to personnel (71 percent of cities), delaying or cancelling capital projects (68 percent), and making across the board cuts (35 percent) (McFarland 2010).
To avoid further cuts, municipalities will need to raise additional revenues. But with anti-tax sentiment running high, many cities and towns may try to avoid raising tax rates and look instead to increased reliance on fees and other alternative revenue sources. One alternative that has attracted the attention of many local officials recently is payments in lieu of taxes (PILOTs) by nonprofit organizations.
PILOTs are voluntary payments made by tax-exempt nonprofits as a substitute for property taxes. These payments typically result from negotiations between local government officials and individual nonprofits, but the exact arrangements vary widely. PILOTs can be formal, long-term contracts, routine annual payments, or irregular one-time payments. The payments can go into a municipality’s general fund, or be directed to a specific project or program. PILOTs are most frequently made by hospitals, colleges, and universities, but also by nonprofit retirement homes, low-income housing facilities, cultural institutions, fitness centers, and churches. Some such payments are not even called PILOTs, but are know as “voluntary contributions” or “service fees.”
Since 2000, PILOTs have been used in at least 117 municipalities in at least 18 states (Kenyon and Langley 2010). These payments are concentrated in the Northeast, and especially in Massachusetts where they have been made in 82 out of 351 municipalities (figure 1). It is hard to make definitive statements about trends in the use of PILOTs, because there is no comprehensive source that tracks them, but press accounts suggest growing interest in PILOTs since the early 1990s, with a noticeable uptick in recent years. Major multiyear agreements have recently been reached in Pittsburgh and Baltimore; commissions have studied PILOTs in Boston, New Orleans, and Providence; and many smaller municipalities have reached new agreements with local charities.
The Revenue Potential of PILOTs
The revenue potential of PILOTs varies across municipalities because of large differences in the impact of the charitable property tax exemption on their tax bases. Figure 2 shows that in 23 large U.S. cities the value of tax-exempt nonprofit property as a share of total property value ranged from 10.8 percent in Philadelphia to 1.9 percent in Memphis and El Paso. Similarly, a fiscal year 2003 study of 351 municipalities in Massachusetts found that if the tax exemption for charitable and educational nonprofits were removed, these organizations would account for more than 10 percent of the property tax levy in 18 municipalities and between 2.5 and 10 percent in another 68, but less than 1 percent of the tax levy in 179 municipalities (McArdle and Demirai 2004).
Since nonprofit property tends to be highly concentrated in a relatively small number of municipalities, especially central cities and college towns, PILOTs have the potential to be a very important revenue source for some municipalities, even if they are unlikely to play a significant role in financing local government in the majority of cities and towns. Table 1 looks at PILOTs in ten municipalities where they rarely account for more than 1 percent of total revenues, but the dollar figures are often significant.
The impact of the charitable property tax exemption on municipal budgets also depends on the degree of reliance on property taxes as a revenue source. Local governments with a heavier reliance on sales and excise taxes, user fees, or state aid are in a better position to deal with forgone property tax revenues through those other sources.
Collaboration on PILOT Agreements
In seeking PILOT agreements, local officials sometimes resort to adversarial pressure tactics, which can backfire and jeopardize important relationships between municipalities and nonprofits. A more collaborative approach is usually more successful when local officials work to build genuine support among nonprofits for a PILOT program that is rooted in shared interests and mutual dependence for each other’s long-term success.
Many large nonprofits like hospitals and universities are quite immobile, and other smaller nonprofits may be committed to serving their local communities even if they could relocate with relative ease. The long-term success of these organizations depends on the municipality’s success. Because population loss, crime, and crumbling infrastructure can imperil a nonprofit’s future, having a local government with the capacity to provide quality public services is in its own self-interest.
Similarly, nonprofits are often major employers and provide services and activities that attract people to a city and improve the quality of life for local residents. Thus, the success of these organizations is also crucial for a municipality’s future. Even if the nonprofits are tax-exempt, their presence can significantly expand the local tax base by attracting businesses and homeowners.
Recognition of these shared interests by both sides is crucial to reaching sustainable PILOT agreements. Private conversations between high-ranking municipal and nonprofit officials can help break down barriers that sometimes block PILOTs. To make the case for PILOTs, municipalities often appeal to the nonprofits’ sense of fairness and community responsibility—arguing that it is fair for nonprofits to pay for the cost of public services they consume, and that a contribution will directly benefit the community.
These conversations should also touch on what the nonprofits need for their future success. In practice, municipalities are often most successful in obtaining PILOTs when nonprofits need something from the local government, such as building permits or zoning changes. The quid pro quo nature of these agreements is often viewed negatively—as a form of extortion or special treatment. However, accommodating these requests is often in a municipality’s own interest.
For major nonprofit development projects, a shortened approval process with less red tape can cut overall costs significantly, and such discussions can result in more creative arrangements. For example, as part of a 20-year PILOT agreement with Clark University, the City of Worcester, Massachusetts agreed to work with the university to convert a short section of a street into a pedestrian area.
When local officials use more aggressive tactics to obtain PILOTs, such as trying to shame nonprofits into making payments or threatening to challenge their tax-exempt status in court, the organizations may become defensive and less willing to cooperate. Charitable nonprofits have a strong record of defending their property tax exemptions, so such divisive tactics are likely to leave a municipality with no PILOT, potentially significant legal fees, and a damaged reputation.
Problems with PILOTs
PILOTs have the potential to provide crucial revenue for municipalities with large nonprofit sectors, but there are many problems with these payments compared to more conventional taxes and fees.
First, at the same time that municipalities face a fiscal crisis caused by the recession, nonprofits face their own fiscal crisis due to declining endowment values and donations. In addition, government contracts—a major funding source for health and human service nonprofits—were cut, and some government entities are delaying contracts or payments. A 2009 survey found that 80 percent of nonprofit organizations were experiencing fiscal stress in the wake of the recession (Center for Civil Society Studies 2009). To nonprofits facing uncertain financial futures, it appears unfair for local governments to begin requesting PILOTs at this time (National Council of Nonprofits 2010).
Second, some degree of horizontal and vertical inequity in PILOT programs is almost inevitable, because their voluntary nature means there is no way to ensure that nonprofits with similar property values make comparable PILOTs. For example, even with Boston’s long-standing PILOT program, the four largest universities in the city made very different contributions in fiscal year 2009. Boston University paid $4,892,138 (8.53 percent of what it would pay in property taxes if taxable); Harvard University paid $1,996,977 (4.99 percent); Boston College paid $293,251 (1.92 percent); and Northeastern University paid only $30,571 (0.08 percent).
Third, PILOTs are a limited and frequently unreliable revenue source, rarely accounting for more than 1 percent of total revenues. This limited revenue potential must be weighed against some potentially significant costs associated with reaching PILOT agreements, such as upfront administrative costs, time spent by high-ranking officials negotiating agreements, or costs to obtain accurate assessments of exempt properties. PILOTs can also be an unreliable revenue source from one year to the next if they rely on short-term agreements.
Finally, the process used to reach PILOT agreements is often contentious and secretive, with contributions determined in an ad hoc manner lacking objective criteria. A collaborative approach can make PILOT requests less controversial, but reliance on private conversations also makes the process less transparent.
Systematic Programs to Mitigate Problems
Many of these problems with PILOTs can be mitigated if municipalities set up a systematic program that does not rely solely on case-by-case negotiation, especially for municipalities with a large number of nonprofits. A framework that applies to all organizations can provide guidance and bring consistency to the negotiations with individual nonprofits. The recommendations of Boston’s PILOT Task Force provide a concrete example (box 1).
Baltimore, Maryland: The city reached a $20 million six-year PILOT agreement with hospitals and universities in June 2010, with $5.4 million to be paid in each of the first two years. In return, the city dropped a proposed $350 fee per dorm and hospital bed, and protected hospitals and universities from increases in telecommunications and energy tax rates over the next six years (Walker and Scharper 2010).
Boston, Massachusetts: Beginning in January 2009, a task force of representatives from nonprofits, city government, business, labor, and the community met with a goal of making the city’s existing PILOT program more consistent. The final report has recommendations on key features of a systematic PILOT program: only nonprofits with property values exceeding a $15 million threshold are included in the program; the target PILOT for each institution is equal to 25 percent of what it would pay in property taxes, because roughly one-quarter of the city’s budget is devoted to core public services that benefit nonprofits; assessed value is used as a basis for the payments; and guidelines determine which types of services will count for community benefit offsets (City of Boston 2010).
New Orleans, Louisiana: A Tax Fairness Commission has been tasked with recommending changes to make the city’s tax system fairer and to broaden the tax base. While the commission may consider PILOTs, it is particularly interested in narrowing the nonprofit property tax exemption (Nolan 2011). Louisiana has a very broad charitable exemption compared to most states, with all properties owned by eligible institutions exempt from taxation regardless of use, including those not typically tax-exempt such as fraternal organizations, labor unions, and trade associations (Bureau of Government Research 1999).
Providence, Rhode Island: The mayor and city council members sought to increase the amount of PILOTs from the city’s four colleges and universities, but the Commission to Study Tax-Exempt Institutions (2010) recommended against renegotiating the 20-year $48 million PILOT agreement reached in 2003. Instead the commission recommended that the city should focus on forming partnerships with local nonprofits to foster economic growth, and the state should provide full funding of its PILOT program and provide Providence with a share of new income and sales tax revenues that result from nonprofit expansion.
Municipalities interested in establishing a systematic PILOT program should consider the following features.
Use a threshold level of property value or annual revenues to determine which nonprofits to include in the PILOT program. Excluding from PILOT requests certain types of nonprofits, such as religious organizations or small social service providers, may be a popular notion, but it can result in arbitrarily targeting some nonprofits while ignoring others. A more systematic policy with a threshold approach is easy to administer and will exclude only those nonprofits that do not meet the financial threshold to make significant contributions, rather than favor some organizations based on the nature of their activities.
Set a target for contributions that is justified. Instead of reaching an arbitrary dollar figure in negotiations, a target that applies to all nonprofits in the program can reduce horizontal inequities and may raise more revenue by creating the expectation for a certain contribution. For example, the target can be justified by estimating the cost of local public services that directly benefit nonprofits, such as police and fire protection and street maintenance.
Use a basis to calculate suggested payments. Using a basis with the rate set to reach the target contribution will also promote consistency. The fairest basis is the assessed value of exempt property, because the PILOT request will be proportional to the tax savings each organization receives from the property tax exemption. However, municipalities that want to avoid having to accurately assess tax-exempt properties can use another basis, such as the square footage of property or the organization’s annual revenues.
Include community benefit offsets, so nonprofits can reduce their target cash PILOTs in return for providing certain public services for local residents. Charitable nonprofits are typically more willing to provide in-kind services than to make PILOTs, and are well positioned to leverage their existing expertise and resources to provide needed services. For example, nonprofit hospitals can set up free health clinics, and universities can establish after-school tutoring programs. Local officials should be clear and consistent about which services are most needed by local residents and will count for community benefit offsets, and should rely on nonprofits to estimate the cash value of these donated in-kind services.
Reach long-term PILOT agreements. Both municipalities and nonprofits are better off with a long-term approach that allows them to build predictable payments into their respective budgets. Additionally, because PILOT requests can require considerable time to negotiate, both parties will benefit from reaching an agreement and then moving on to focus on their primary missions and perhaps other partnerships to serve the community. Several municipalities have 20- or 30-year PILOT agreements in place.
Alternatives to PILOTs
Given some of the common problems with PILOTs, municipalities with large nonprofit sectors that face revenue shortfalls may want to consider alternative revenue-raising measures.
Increase reliance on traditional user fees or special assessments. This alternative may be the most palatable in the current anti-tax climate. One consideration favoring this option is that nonprofits are typically not exempt from these charges, so increasing reliance on such sources will obtain revenue from a broad group of entities, including tax-exempt nonprofits. For example, a municipality could finance garbage collection through a fee instead of the property tax, or use special assessments to pay for sewer hookups in new subdivisions.
Establish municipal service fees. Some municipalities have carved out specific services that are normally funded through property taxes and instead charged nonprofits a fee for the service. These fees may or may not be assessed solely against tax-exempt nonprofits, and they often use a basis for the payments related to the size of the property rather than the assessed value. For example, Rochester, New York, has a local works charge to fund snowplowing and street repair. It is applied to both taxable and tax-exempt organizations using the property’s street frontage as the basis. Minneapolis, Minnesota, has a street maintenance fee that also uses square footage as the basis, but is only charged to nongovernmental tax-exempt properties.
Develop agreements for needed services. Local officials can decide not to pursue cash PILOTs, but instead develop formal partnerships with nonprofits to provide specific services for local residents or work together to foster economic development. Direct provision of needed services, sometimes known as services in lieu of taxes or SILOTs, will help the fiscal situation of the municipality in the short run, while joint efforts to foster economic development can have significant long-run benefits.
Expand the tax options for municipalities. This final alternative would require a change in state law in many instances. Some municipalities across the country have the ability to levy sales taxes, special excise taxes such as hotel taxes, income taxes, or payroll taxes. But most cities in the Northeast do not have these alternative tax sources, and are especially reliant on the property tax, which can be problematic if the tax-exempt sector is large or growing rapidly.
Conclusion
PILOTs have the potential to provide crucial revenue for municipalities that have a significant share of total property value owned by tax-exempt nonprofits, both as a stop-gap in the current municipal fiscal crisis and in the future. However, PILOTs rarely account for more than 1 or 2 percent of municipal revenues, so expecting these payments to eliminate local government deficits is unrealistic. Furthermore, singling out nonprofits to help address a municipal fiscal crisis is unfair since they face their own challenges due to the recent recession.
Local officials who do want to pursue PILOT agreements must tread carefully if they want to avoid some common pitfalls. First, PILOT requests can be highly contentious when local officials resort to heavy-handed pressure tactics to reach agreements. It is preferable for local officials to work collaboratively with nonprofit leaders to craft PILOT agreements that serve their mutual interests. Second, the voluntary nature of PILOTs limits the revenue potential of these agreements, results in inconsistent treatment of nonprofits, and leads to other problems. Municipalities with a large number of nonprofits can mitigate these problems by establishing a systematic PILOT program to provide guidance and bring consistency to their negotiations with individual nonprofits.
About the Authors
Daphne A. Kenyon is a visiting fellow in the Lincoln Institute’s Department of Valuation and Taxation and principal of D. A. Kenyon & Associates, Windham, New Hampshire.
Adam H. Langley is a research analyst in the Lincoln Institute’s Department of Valuation and Taxation and a master’s student in economics at Boston University.
References
Bureau of Government Research. 1999. Property tax exemption and assessment administration in Orleans parish. New Orleans, LA.
Center for Civil Society Studies. 2009. Impact of the 2007-09 Economic Recession on Nonprofit Organizations. Communique No. 14. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University for Policy Studies. June 29.
City of Boston. 2010. Mayor’s PILOT task force: Final report and recommendations. December.
Commission to Study Tax-Exempt Institutions. 2010. A call to build the capital city partnership for economic growth: Report to the Providence City Council from the Commission to Study Tax-Exempt Institutions. Providence, RI. November.
Hoene, Christopher W. 2009. City budget shortfalls and responses: projections for 2010-2012. Washington, DC: National League of Cities.
Hoene, Christopher W. and Michael A. Pagano. 2010. Research brief: City fiscal conditions in 2010. Washington, DC: National League of Cities.
Kenyon, Daphne A. and Adam H. Langley. 2010. Payments in lieu of taxes: Balancing municipal and nonprofit interests. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Lipman, Harvy. 2006. The value of a tax break. The Chronicle of Philanthropy 19(4): 13.
McArdle, Regina, and Donna Demirai. 2004. A study of charitable and educational property tax exemptions. City and Town, January. Boston: Massachusetts Department of Revenue, Division of Local Services.
McFarland, Christiana. 2010. State of America’s cities survey on jobs and the economy. Washington, DC: National League of Cities.
National Council of Nonprofits. 2010. State budget crises: Ripping the safety net held by nonprofits. Washington DC. March 16.
Nolan, Bruce. 2011. N.O. Tax Fairness Commission begins rethinking property taxes. The Times-Picayune. February 3.
Walker, Andrea K., and Julie Scharper. 2010. Baltimore City Council committee backs $15 million in new taxes; deal with hospitals and universities announced for $20 million more. Baltimore Sun. June 10.
SHARE
Twenty-three states offer an incentive to preserve open space by providing preferential property tax assessment of qualifying parcels (table 1, p. 15). These property tax reductions can be considered expenditures in that they reduce revenue available for other uses in the interest of protecting the many amenities and environmental benefits of undeveloped land.
Programs vary widely from state to state, but all preferential assessment programs for open space must define the type and size of qualified parcels; permissible uses; certification requirements; assessment methods; enrollment term lengths; and penalties, if any, for removing a parcel from preferential status. Several states offer more than one program, each with its own qualification requirements. This article considers these differences, offers examples of how the tax expenditure is calculated, and describes potential societal benefits and costs of such programs.
Determining Eligibility for Preferential Assessment
States define eligibility in many different ways, but the requirements are usually relatively easy to meet. A parcel might qualify simply by being undeveloped. Several states allow landscaped land to qualify provided the building density doesn’t exceed established limits. Washington, for example, allows land to qualify if it meets at least one of eleven very general requirements, including the protection of streams or water supplies, conservation or enhancement of natural or scenic resources, preservation of visual quality along roads, or enhancement of recreational opportunities.
While these criteria are very general, states may raise the bar by placing additional requirements on landowners. Some states require landowners to create and seek state approval for a property management plan that improves benefits for local wildlife. Vermont stipulates that a qualified conservation organization must own and manage the open space. One of two Texas programs requires landowners to provide land and wildlife management to propagate a breeding, migrating, or wintering population of indigenous wild animals for human use, including food, medicine, or recreation.
Several states offer preferential assessment to properties that have attained federal status as open space. For example, parcels restricted by a conservation easement that meets the IRS requirements for a charitable donation automatically qualify for preferential assessment in Illinois and Oregon. Ohio will qualify only parcels under contract to one of four USDA programs (Conservation Reserve Program, Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, Wetlands Reserve Program, and Grassland Preserve Program).
Parcels may have to meet minimum size requirements as well. The most common minimum is ten contiguous acres, though some programs allow properties as small as two acres, and several have no stated requirements. A few states limit the total acreage that any individual landowner may enroll. Tennessee, for example, limits eligibility to 1,500 acres per owner per county, including agricultural land, forest, and open space combined. The stated use of the property may influence its acceptability; several states specifically prohibit commercial property, including golf courses. At least two states, however, have programs specifically designed for golf courses and other commercial properties that provide outdoor recreational opportunities.
State Versus Local Criteria
State governments typically authorize preferential assessment programs and the criteria for inclusion. Six states allow local or county government officials to determine criteria by authorizing a program and requiring only that parcels be “included within a plan for preservation approved by state or local planning agencies” (Chervin, Gibson, and Green 2009, 8), for example, or by requiring that the appropriate governing body accepts the property via resolution. States with this requirement include California, Connecticut, Florida, Nevada, Tennessee, and Oregon. It is then up to local or county officials to choose the criteria for qualification, in some cases naming specific parcels. In other cases, the assessor’s office determines the eligibility, based on the characteristics of the property and whether it meets the criteria.
This approach allows local governments to control the amount of the expenditure in their jurisdiction and tailor the program to protect the specific qualities most important to the area. For example, officials in a predominantly agricultural environment may prefer to use tax expenditures on forests or wetlands, while open fields might prove most valuable in a more urban setting.
Calculating the Value of the Tax Expenditure
Open space preferential assessment programs typically use one of three methods to determine the property’s assessed value. Nine states value open space as if it were enrolled in the state’s program for agriculture or forestry, even though the land isn’t used for either activity. Nine other states instruct assessors to value the property considering only its current use, excluding the value of development rights (i.e., the market value as if its future use were permanently restricted to its current use). Four states instruct the assessor to determine the fair market value as if it were not in the program and then apply a statutory formula to determine the preferential assessed value. Illinois has three programs for preferential assessment of open space, which vary by the criteria for eligibility; all offer statutory reductions that range between 75 percent and 85 percent. Nevada applies a lower statutory reduction of 26 percent.
States occasionally choose to define maximum or minimum values per acre for open space parcels. For example, Maryland set a statewide value of $187.50 per acre for 2009. Washington allows local governments to determine a use value for their region, depending on a public benefit rating system; if no such system exists, open space land may receive an assessment no lower than the lowest agricultural valuation in the county. Massachusetts calculates the preferential value as use value, not to exceed 25 percent of fair market value.
Program Duration and Penalties for Early Withdrawal
Many programs provide for automatic annual renewal unless the landowner chooses to withdraw from the program. In some cases, length of contract is predetermined, most frequently for ten years, which generally carries forward upon the sale of the property unless the new property owner alters the use and violates the terms of the program. Landowners pay a penalty for withdrawing from the program in order to alter land use, or for altering it without notification. Such penalties tend to equal the value of the tax expenditure received for a specified number of years prior to the current year, plus interest on that expenditure. Several states either charge 10 percent of the fair market value when use of the parcel changes, or charge a conveyance or transfer tax when a parcel in the program is sold.
If an owner withdraws a parcel from the program after a minimum number of years, however, the state may reduce or even eliminate penalties. For example, Vermont charges owners 20 percent of fair market value for withdrawing the property in the first decade and 10 percent for withdrawing after more than 10 years. Rhode Island exacts 10 percent of the new fair market value for removing a property after 6 years, but that penalty declines until it terminates, 16 years after enrollment.
Economic Benefits of Open Space Preservation
The large literature discussing the effect of environmental amenities on surrounding property values suggests that preventing development on a parcel will raise the value of neighboring parcels. The studies find complicating factors, however, that make it difficult to predict changes in value for specific regions. One study in Maryland, for example, finds that open space programs have very different effects on the value of property in three different counties, probably due at least in part to variations in the amount of open space present (Geoghegan, Lynch, and Bucholtz 2003). Numerous other studies indicate that the value of open space for individual homeowners declines with distance from the protected parcel (Chamblee, et al. 2011). The type of habitat or green space is also likely to be influential; one analysis finds that the presence of broad-leaved trees in a neighborhood is associated with positive values, but the presence of spruce trees has a negative effect on property values (Garrod and Willis 1992). An analysis of home prices in Tucson, Arizona, finds a preference for homes in areas with green space including native riparian habitat (Bark, et al. 2009; 2011).
Public access to privately owned open space for recreation or educational purposes would also be likely to provide substantial local benefits in many cases. States rarely require public access as a condition for the tax expenditure, but Maine and New Hampshire both encourage it by offering an additional reduction in assessed value of 25 percent and 20 percent, respectively.
Protected open space can also reduce growth in the demand for municipally provided services and forestall negative effects of development, such as heavy traffic or overcrowded schools, which would likely impose a heavier tax liability on current residents. A growing literature on cost of community services indicates that the property taxes paid on developed land are often insufficient to cover the cost of services created to support that development, while open space frequently generates tax revenues well in excess of the cost of services expended on the property. The American Farmland Trust, reporting results from 151 studies covering counties and municipalities in 25 states, finds that the owners of working and open land frequently pay taxes above or even twice the cost of services received on those properties, while residential property owners typically pay less than the cost of services received (Farmland Information Center 2010).
Findings like these suggest that preferential assessment can be justified on the grounds of fairness, because the owners of open space may be subsidizing services sent to owners of developed property. However, the fact that most programs require a long-term agreement and include penalties for early conversion indicates that the goal is not fairness, but preventing development for a specified period.
Unfortunately, there is very little literature evaluating whether preferential assessment programs prevent future development on parcels that aren’t under permanent protection such as an easement. Much of the existing evidence is based on studies of farmland protection programs rather than evaluations of the impact of property tax expenditures on open space. Two studies of Tennessee’s Greenbelt Program evaluated a survey of woodland owners enrolled in the program and found little support for the hypothesis that preferential assessment reduced the likelihood of development on these parcels (Brockett, Gottfried, and Evans 2003; Williams, et al. 2004).
It’s easier to evaluate land under long-term or permanent protection of either a perpetual conservation easement or a long-term preferential assessment contract with substantial penalties for withdrawal. In those cases, it’s possible to reliably predict the continued presence of open space; unfortunately, these protection agreements may predate the preferential assessment or be otherwise uninfluenced by it.
Costs of Preferential Assessment for Open Space
In addition to the tax expenditure itself, these programs may incur several other potential costs. Programs that require an approved conservation plan, for example, might generate a particularly challenging expense. While a state agency could develop and approve such a plan, it will be costly to ensure that conditions of the plan are met.
Program enforcement requires evaluating not only changes in a property’s market value but also changes in its use. If open space is used to graze livestock, for example, this new use might protect the undeveloped condition of the property but still reduce the environmental benefits.
Additionally, evidence suggests that in some instances open space preservation can lower property values by shifting development patterns, typically by resulting in the development of nearby properties (Irwin and Bockstael 2004; McDonald, et al. 2007). If preferential assessment prevents development on particular parcels, that development may shift to other parcels in ways that increase sprawl. If a leapfrog pattern of development occurs because a program prevented development on a parcel-by-parcel basis, the negative effects, such as higher infrastructure costs, could overwhelm any public benefits from the program.
Given the voluntary nature of these programs and resulting changes in development patterns, a worst-case scenario is that lower-quality parcels might receive the preferential assessment, increasing development pressure on parcels that generate greater public benefits. On the one hand, local government approval might reduce this problem by allowing individuals who know the area best to choose the parcels that most deserve protection. On the other hand, it might inspire local officials to protect open space in their jurisdiction, pushing development into other communities and creating undesirable development patterns at the regional level. It is also important to mention that preferential assessment of open space to some degree creates a split-rate system with a higher rate on developed land, particularly on improvements to the land—an issue that concerns many property tax scholars and may also significantly affect land use patterns.
Finally, the value of the public benefits is not static; it may increase or decrease depending on the condition of the property and surrounding area. The changes may be uncorrelated, or even negatively correlated, with future changes in assessed value. For example, more intense development pressure might increase the benefit of preserving a large parcel as open space; or it might decrease the benefit of preserving a small “island” parcel. Twenty-five acres of open space in the middle of a town can greatly benefit a community, but, if 24 of those acres are developed, it will likely diminish the environmental benefits of the remaining acre. Both scenarios, however, are likely to increase tax savings from preferential assessment, as development pressure drives up local property values.
These factors indicate that, while preferential assessment does offer landowners an incentive to preserve public benefits, the amount of the incentive may under-correct or even over-correct for the benefit being created. This will result in an inherently inefficient program, though such programs may still result in significant net benefits compared to having no program at all.
Distributional Consequences
Property tax expenditures to protect open space will have distributional consequences. Most immediately, the program would redistribute the tax burden onto other property owners in the same tax districts, as governments change the mill rate in order to maintain budgeted revenue. Owners of developed properties will now constitute a larger share of the tax base and will need to pay a greater fraction of the total tax bill as a result.
Since preferential assessment programs are primarily designed to maintain existing open space, enrolled parcels continue to generate benefits, but those benefits don’t necessarily increase. Thus the public benefits should be expected to continue to accrue as before. Local residents alone will benefit from scenic views and the foregone external costs of development, while residents and nonresidents alike may benefit from protecting watersheds or habitat for endangered species (Anderson and West 2006). Benefits may be expected to increase, however, if the program requires owners to improve the value of the open space by activity such as habitat restoration.
Several studies indicate that the effects of open space on surrounding property values depend critically on the type of protection and its ability to prevent development in the future. For example, land acquired as a park or forest preserve, or land placed under a conservation easement, has a much more positive effect on neighboring property values than open space that is not permanently protected (Geoghegan 2002). Enrollment in a preferential assessment program might have little or no effect on surrounding property values if the protection is perceived to be temporary, resulting in either permanent reductions in revenue or permanently higher tax rates on the non-enrolled parcels.
Calculating the Fiscal Cost of Preferential Assessment Expenditures
The methodology for calculating the tax expenditure resulting from the preferential assessment of open space is straightforward. The property owner will see a reduced tax burden based on the difference between the assessment without the program and the preferential assessment. This reduction in assessed value can lower tax revenue due to a reduced base. Alternatively, the lost revenue could be recouped by shifting the burden onto other property owners by increasing the tax rate. A combination of both outcomes is also possible. Oregon reports both the loss and the shift in their tax expenditure report (table 2), which listed exemption values of $126 million in fiscal year 2009–10 for the three open space programs. The estimated revenue loss over two fiscal years is $3.2 million, while the estimated revenue shift during that period is $0.7 million.
Data is inconsistent from state to state, which makes it difficult to estimate the revenue effects of preferential assessment. The aggregate data presented for Oregon is much more useful than what many other states present. States that do not calculate property tax expenditures frequently do not make such data available; at best, they usually offer aggregate figures that combine the programs for agriculture, forestry, and open space. Table 2 also indicates the relative scope of open space in that context. The exemption values for private forestry were over $5 billion, and the exemption values for farmland and farm home sites were $14.1 billion. The three conservation programs combined represent approximately one-half of one percent of the total exemption value, and less than one percent of the revenue lost or shifted.
Such calculations also depend on other effects that may be very difficult to observe. It will be impossible to determine the extent to which revenue shifted, without detailed information about local government’s ability to respond by changing the mill rate. In that case, the estimate will account for only foregone revenue. It will also be necessary to ignore the program’s possible positive property value effects on neighboring parcels.
Conclusion
Designing a preferential assessment program for open space requires careful consideration. While land with limited development does provide amenities and environmental benefits under many circumstances, the value of those benefits may vary dramatically according to local conditions. If the program’s goal is primarily to provide local, rather than regional, benefits, one set of criteria for the entire state is unlikely to maximize benefits. Local determination of the enrollment criteria may provide the flexibility necessary to react to those varying conditions, whereas state-level criteria are probably necessary to protect regional resources such as watersheds.
The shortage of empirical work in this area makes it difficult to assess the effectiveness of existing programs. If the goal is genuinely to forestall development on certain parcels, program design should consider the length of contract and penalty for early conversion. Short-term delays in development will primarily benefit the owners of open space. For a program to succeed, the open space must generate significant community benefits in the form of either long-term environmental protection or higher property values for other residents of the area. Higher eligibility requirements for inclusion in the program should reduce the amount of acreage enrolled; however, the number of acres should not be the program’s primary goal unless legislators intend it solely as a means to reduce local development. Significant enrollment in the program could have substantial fiscal implications for local jurisdictions, especially if broad criteria and low conversion penalties make it easy for landowners to enroll and then develop the property later. Program design must ensure a maximum of public benefit in exchange for the fiscal effects.
This article was adapted from the Lincoln Institute working paper, “Preferential Assessment for Open Space”: https://www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/dl/2281_1620_Sundberg_WP13JS1.pdf.
About the Author
Jeffrey O. Sundberg is the James S. Kemper Foundation Professor of Liberal Arts and Business and Professor of Economics at Lake Forest College. He received a Ph.D. in economics from Stanford University. His recent research interests include the efficiency of state and federal tax incentives for conservation easement donations and preferential assessment programs for open space. He has also served on the board of a land trust in Lake County, Illinois, serving as board president for four years. Contact: jsundber@mx.lakeforest.edu.
Resources
Anderson, Soren and Sarah West. 2006. Open space, residential property values, and spatial context. Regional Science and Urban Economics 36: 773–789.
Bark, R. H., D. E. Osgood, B. G Colby, and E. Halper. 2011. How Do Homebuyers Value Different Types of Green Space? Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 36(3): 395–415.
Bark, R. H., D. E. Osgood, B. G. Colby, G. Katz, and J. Stromberg. 2009. Habitat preservation and restoration: Do homebuyers have preferences for quality habitat? Ecological Economics 68(5): 1465–1475.
Brockett, C. D., R. R. Gottfried, and J. P. Evans. 2003. The Use of State Tax Incentives to Promote Forest Preservation on Private Lands in Tennessee: An Evaluation of Their Equity and Effectiveness Impacts. Politics and Policy 31(2): 252–281.
Chamblee, John F., Peter F. Colwell, Carolyn A. Dehring, and Craig A. Depken. 2011. The Effect of Conservation Activity on Surrounding Land Prices. Land Economics 87(3): 453–472.
Chervin, Stan, Teresa Gibson, and Harry Green. 2009. Greenbelt Revisited. Tennessee Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. http://www.tn.gov/tacir/PDF_FILES/Taxes/greenbeltrevisited.pdf.
Farmland Information Center, American Farmland Trust. 2010. Fact Sheet: Cost of Community Services Studies. http://www.farmland.org/documents/Cost-of-Community-Services-08-2010.pdf.
Garrod, Guy, and Ken Willis. 1992. The environmental economic impact of woodland: a two-stage hedonic price model of the amenity value of forestry in Britain. Applied Economics 24: 715–728.
Geoghegan, Jacqueline, Lori Lynch, and Shawn Bucholtz. 2003. Capitalization of Open Spaces into Housing Values and the Residential Property Tax Revenue Impacts of Agricultural Easement Programs. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 32(1): 33–45.
Geoghegan, Jacqueline. 2002. The Value of Open Spaces in Residential Land Use. Land Use Policy 19(1): 91–98.
Irwin, Elana G. and Nancy E. Bockstael. 2004. Land Use Externalities, Open Space Preservation, and Urban Sprawl. Regional Science and Urban Economics 34:705–725.
SHARE
Una versión más actualizada de este artículo está disponible como parte del capítulo 1 del libro Perspectivas urbanas: Temas críticos en políticas de suelo de América Latina.
El proceso de globalización de las inversiones, las nuevas tecnologías de comunicación y la generalizada movilidad corporativa y personal están provocando una verdadera transformación de las “ciudades-región” del mundo entero. Desde hace muchos años los estudiosos de asuntos urbanos han advertido sobre la emergencia de una nueva clase de asentamiento humano, con estructuras económicas y sociales particulares y sus formas físicas asociadas.
Estas fuerzas globales fueron el tema central de la Conferencia realizada en el Instituto Lincoln, Cambridge, en septiembre de 1995. Este consorcio estuvo organizado por los investigadores David Barkin, Gary Hack y Roger Simmonds, quienes estudiaron doce grandes ciudades-región de Europa, Asia y las Américas. Si bien cada una de las ciudades del estudio exhibe sus propias características y patrones exclusivos, todas cumplen con los siguientes criterios:
Las doce ciudades del estudio son:
Ankara, Turquía
Bangkok, Tailandia
Yakarta, Indonesia
Lyon, Francia
Madrid, España
Randstad, Países Bajos
San Diego, Estados Unidos
Santiago, Chile
São Paulo, Brasil
Taipei, Taiwan
Tokio, Japón
Toronto, Canadá
Tomando las doce ciudades anteriores como casos de estudio, se diseño una investigación en varios niveles a fin de construir un modelo que representara a las ciudades-región y los motivos de sus características. El primer objetivo fue examinar los efectos de la economía política global en el crecimiento y desarrollo de las ciudades a lo largo del tiempo. ¿Qué efecto ha tenido la pérdida de la agricultura tradicional o han tenido las economías industriales y la introducción de nuevos capitales de inversión en el funcionamiento de las ciudades? ¿Cómo han respondido las ciudades ante estas poderosas fuerzas externas?
Un segundo objetivo de la investigación fue entender las relaciones entre la cambiante forma urbana y las inversiones en infraestructuras regionales tales como sistemas de transporte y nuevos centros tecnológicos. ¿Cómo se ha distribuido la población en torno a los nuevos centros económicos y redes de transporte? ¿Qué influencia tienen las labores de planificación regional en los cambios de la forma espacial y en el efecto sobre el medio ambiente?
En tercer lugar se exploraron las consecuencias de la dinámica de la globalización sobre la calidad de la vida urbana. ¿Qué problemas sociales y económicos enfrenta hoy la población urbana? ¿Qué están haciendo los gobiernos municipales y nacionales para resolverlos?
Previo a la conferencia, los equipos de investigación de todas las ciudades-región recopilaron datos para mapear el crecimiento y el movimiento de la población, los cambios en la infraestructura y el desarrollo económico e industrial a lo largo de las últimas tres décadas. A fin de que los datos fueran comparables más alláa de las fronteras nacionales, elaboraron planos de la evolución física de las doce ciudades-región en 1960, 1970, 1980 y 1990, y correlacionaron estos planos con cambios en los indicadores económicos y sociales fundamentales durante el mismo período. Asimismo, cada grupo elaboró un informe sobre los problemas especiales que enfrentan sus gobiernos y las acciones de los legisladores para conformar la forma espacial cambiante de la región.
Un retrato de las ciudades-región
Si bien las doce ciudades-región estudiadas presentan variaciones sustanciales, también tienen muchos patrones comunes en cuanto a crecimiento y cambio. Sus poblaciones oscilan entre unos 2 millones de habitantes, en Lyon, más de 32 millones en Tokio, la ciudad más grande del mundo y también una de las más ricas.
En todas estas ciudades el modelo predominante de crecimiento físico ha sido la dispersión desde el centro histórico y los anillos interiores adyacentes hacia espacios abiertos distantes y tierra agrícola. Esta dispersión implica desarrollo residencial y comercial —aunque a veces en direcciones diferentes— y se ha facilitado gracias al vertiginoso aumento en el uso y la disponibilidad del automóvil en todo el mundo. El ejemplo más notable es el de Taipei, en donde el número de automóviles aumentó desde aproximadamente 11 mil en 1960 a más de 1 millón en 1990; en ese mismo periodo, el número de personas por automóvil disminuyó de 127 a 5. Por otra parte, las ciudades de Ankara y Santiago, con 13 personas por automóvil en 1990, han sido las menos afectadas por el “síndrome automotor” hasta la fecha.
Incluso al mismo tiempo en que la mayoría de las ciudades se están dispersando hacia las afueras, ciertos núcleos interiores han visto aumentar su población gracias a la migración de clases adineradas y de empleos del sector de servicios hacia los centros nuevamente pujantes. La construcción de obras monumentales como estadios deportivos, centros de convenciones, hoteles de lujo y condominios residenciales han contribuido a avivar el turismo y la vida cultural de estos núcleos urbanos. La otra cara de la moneda, sin embargo, es el creciente deterioro que se observa fuera de los centros debido al desplazamiento de grandes números de pobres urbanos a zonas carentes de servicios.
Excepciones notables de este patrón son los centros urbanos deprimidos y los opulentos suburbios de baja densidad poblacional de los Estados Unidos. Ciudades como Bangkok y Taipei exhiben mayor integración vecinal de ricos y pobres que otras, pero su patrón predominante continúa mostrando zonas opulentas segmentadas y mayor definición de pobreza con el paso del tiempo.
Irónicamente, en esta nueva era de globalización los patrones residenciales están perdiendo importancia frente a los patrones de interacción, conforme los participantes de la economía global se comunican más a menudo con sus semejantes de otras ciudades u otros países —bien sea electrónicamente o en persona— que con sus propios vecinos.
Los cambiantes patrones demográficos han disminuido las tasas de crecimiento urbano a un 3 por ciento, en comparación con 6 a 8 por ciento en la década de 1960. La mayoría de las ciudades han experimentado una reducción en sus tasas de natalidad y de migración desde zonas rurales del interior del país o de las regiones inmediatas. No obstante, la turbulencia política y las cambiantes oportunidades laborales también están dando pie a nuevas olas de migración transnacional. Muchos nuevos inmigrantes se asientan en áreas de la ciudad separadas del sector pobre indígena, y presentan un nuevo grupo de problemas sociales y económicos para los gobiernos nacionales y municipales. En San Diego, por ejemplo, inmigrantes de México y Centroamérica contribuyen al crecimiento poblacional y a la mayor segmentación dentro de la región. Por otra parte, São Paulo ha experimentado una emigración neta, dado que las nuevas políticas y programas brasileños fomentan la descentralización hacia nuevas comunidades de ese vasto país.
Según los datos de 1990, los sectores económicos tienen una composición similar entre países. Por lo general, menos del 5 por ciento de la fuerza laboral se dedica a la agricultura y a la extracción de recursos, mientras que el 20 al 30 por ciento trabaja en el sector manufacturero y el 65 al 75 por ciento en el sector de servicios. Como interesantes excepciones en estas tendencias laborales son los casos de Yakarta, con una tasa de participación en el sector agrícola de casi el 16 por ciento en 1990, y San Diego, con un 83 por ciento de tasa actual en el sector de servicios. Bangkok y Taipei muestran los mayores declives en agricultura, desde un 20 por ciento en 1960 a menos del 2 por ciento en 1990. En ese mismo año, ambas ciudades mantenían tasas relativamente altas en el sector manufacturero; 32 y 36 por ciento respectivamente.
En cuanto a la distribución del ingreso en las regiones, se observan patrones similares: el 20 por ciento más pobre de la población suele recibir apenas un 5 a 7 por ciento de los ingresos totales, en comparación con un 40 a 50 por ciento de dichos ingresos que llega al 20 por ciento más rico de la población. Santiago, São Paulo y Yakarta exhiben las mayores concentraciones de riqueza en los niveles superiores, mientras que Tokio y Taipei, seguidos cercanamente por Randstad y Madrid, exhiben la menor desigualdad entre los niveles de ingresos. San Diego, a pesar de su ingreso per cápita relativamente alto, muestra una distribución de ingreso de rango medio del 44 por ciento para el extremo superior, pero apenas un 4 por ciento del ingreso ganado para el 20 por ciento más pobre de su población.
Una economía mundial llena de cambios y contradicciones
Durante la conferencia se revelaron varias realidades nuevas sobre el mundo en que vivimos. Quizás la más importante sea la dificultad que enfrentan las autoridades municipales y nacionales para diseñar políticas eficaces que modifiquen las poderosas fuerzas económicas que moldean las nuevas estructuras productivas de sus regiones.
Un tema recurrente en los análisis regionales fue la contradicción existente entre las inversiones privadas altamente centralizadas y los cambios arrolladores que surgen con la inserción de la ciudad-región en la economía internacional. En la mayoría de las regiones, los “corredores de élite” de la globalización presentan un agudo contraste con la precaria “ciudad residual”. Dichos enclaves adinerados, receptores de las inversiones de corporaciones transnacionales productoras para mercados mundiales, están redicadas cerca de las zonas donde viven y compran los participantes de esta economía. En estos centros financieros y comerciales, prósperas empresas de profesionales capacitados realizan operaciones de producción y marketing mundial para garantizar retornos atractivos a los inversionistas internacionales, casi siempre haciendo caso omiso de la economía local.
Paralelamente con el declive poblacional, las oportunidades de empleo también se han estancado. En cada una de las ciudades-región se observa el desplazamiento acelerado de la fuerza laboral hacia empleos a tiempo parcial de baja paga en el sector de servicios, con un concomitante desequilibrio de oportunidades económicas que condena a un segmento creciente de la población a la pobreza.
Esta amenaza está acompañada por cambios en el sector agrícola. Gran parte de los productores rurales de pequeña escala no pueden competir en los mercados internacionales con productores agrícolas de gran escala, quienes tienen acceso a un capital que les permite equiparse con las más modernas maquinarias para aumentar su producción. El proceso inexorable de expansión global también está provocando la salida del mercado de plantas manufactureras de pequeña y mediana escala.
La mayoría de los participantes de la conferencia aceptaron y adoptaron de buena gana la nueva dinámica de la globalización. Sus gobiernos trabajan activamente para reposicionar sus regiones a fin de atraer inversionistas extranjeros y promotores de bienes raíces que prometen la modernización, esperando poder convertir sus ciudades en guías que conduzcan a sus naciones hacia el proceso de integración mundial. Casi todos consideran que su tarea principal será la de desenmarañar los obstáculos —normativos y otros— de las épocas anteriores, y facilitar la iniciativa privada mediante el ofrecimiento, a veces gratuito, del suelo y de la infraestructura requeridos para las nuevas instalaciones.
Muchas de las ciudades están específicamente orientando sus estrategias de inversión en infraestructura para expandir la economía de servicios. Bangkok, Taipei y Tokio están esforzándose para convertirse en los centros financieros de Asia, esperando la caída de Hong Kong como primer competidor. Bangkok, en particular, está invirtiendo en redes sustanciales de transporte y comunicaciones y en la capacitación de su fuerza laboral. En Europa, Madrid está aprovechando su papel como centro mundial de la cultura española para mejorar sus servicios de comunicación; Randstad está promoviendo sus instalaciones de soporte aeroportuario; y Lyon se está convirtiendo en un novedoso centro de industrias tecnológicas emergentes.
Impactos en el desarrollo regional
Los casos estudiados y las discusiones durante la conferencia pusieron en evidencia numerosos problemas de ese entusiasmo por la globalización. El complejo y preocupante fenómeno de la expansión urbana se está generalizando en el mundo entero conforme el automóvil facilita la distribución de la población a centros de empleo satélites y suele reducir la densidad de las ciudades regionales. Dos excepciones interesantes de este patrón son Tokio, cuyo sistema de tránsito masivo contribuye a mantener centralizada la actividad económica, y Taipei, donde la geografía montañosa restringe el desarrollo hacia las afueras. Por otra parte, en Randstad se está observando el desarrollo acelerado de espacios vacantes que existían entre antiguos asentamientos, aun cuando la tasa de crecimiento general ha sido bastante lenta.
Parte de esta descentralización proviene de los esfuerzos gubernamentales para hacer frente a asuntos como el alto precio del suelo, el congestionamiento vehicular o la protección ambiental. En las afueras de Santiago, Lyon, Randstad, Taipei, Tokio y Yakarta se están construyendo nuevos pueblos o “tecnópolis”, mientras que en Bangkok se está construyendo un nuevo puerto a unos cuantos kilómetros del centro de la ciudad. En São Paulo, estrictos reglamentos de protección de las zonas de cuenca están forzando el desplazamiento de nuevos desarrollos a sitios distantes.
Más que moldear el desarrollo, la infraestructura suele seguirle los pasos a éste. Los inversionistas privados tienen capacidad de responder con mayor rapidez a planes de crecimiento dentro de sus regiones, de lo que pueden las agencias públicas responsabilizarse por implementar grandes proyectos de infraestructura. De esa manera el desarrollo privado presiona al sector público para que dote de servicios a zonas que ya están siendo urbanizadas. Este proceso tiene serias implicaciones para la planificación regional a largo plazo, si ésta continúa siendo impulsada por el desarrollo mientras que el gobierno le sigue los pasos para no quedarse atrás.
Otro tema que emergió durante la conferencia fue el de una mayor conciencia sobre los problemas ambientales. En la mayoría de las ciudades-región, la acumulación de riqueza y el consiguiente aumento de consumo están imponiendo enormes presiones sobre el medio ambiente. Con el paso acelerado de la integración regional y la desregulación de la economía, las corporaciones transnacionales pueden funcionar como les plazca en la economía internacional. Los participantes señalaron repetidamente las dificultades de controlar estos retos de manera constructiva en cada una de sus ciudades-región. Así y todo, la preocupación por el ambiente fue vista también como el principal factor de motivación de la planificación regional estratégica considerada.
Calidad de vida
La globalización promete un mundo de mayor prosperidad. La mayoría de las ciudades representadas en la conferencia experimentaron aumentos relativos en varios índices promedio de calidad de vida entre 1960 y 1990: ingreso per cápita, esperanza de vida y nivel de educación. Estas entradas crecientes, junto con los avances tecnológicos que incrementan la productividad y la mayor diseminación de información sobre bienes disponibles en los mercados mundiales, han permitido que habitantes urbanos de todas partes satisfagan sus necesidades con nuevos productos. No obstante, modelos globales poderosos de organización y producción están también imponiendo nuevos patrones homogéneos de consumo que amenazan con acabar la extraordinaria variedad de estilos de vida que caracteriza a la mayoría de las regiones urbanas.
El aumento en movilidad física resultante del automóvil particular ha abierto las puertas a un mundo de lugares donde vivir, comprar y trabajar. Al mismo tiempo, los viajes diarios entre la casa y el trabajo duran unos 45 minutos en promedio, desde menos de 30 minutos en San Diego a más de hora y media en Bangkok.
Los participantes de la conferencia estuvieron de acuerdo en que este aumento de movilidad ha minado el sentido de comunidad del pasado, conforme los seres humanos comienzan a identificarse con lugares urbanos más dispersos o a desarrollar identidades “sin tierra”. Prácticamente todos los representantes de las ciudades hicieron mención de la “McDonaldnización” de la cultura mundial, que abarca expresiones como la música, la ropa, la arquitectura y la comida. Igualmente, a medida que los mercados de bienes de consumo se globalizan, los habitantes de muchas ciudades-región están comenzando a depender de esos mercados para que suministren servicios que solían ser semipúblicos, tales como educación y recreación.
Los cambios en la función económica de grandes ciudades —de manufactura y transporte a finanzas y turismo— han causado también pérdidas importantes. Muchos centros históricos han sido modificados para fines de turismo cultural. Edificios o ciudades que en el pasado fueron fábricas o almacenes son ahora tiendas o museos. Los trabajadores u obreros portuarios de antaño que solían vivir cerca de sus trabajos, han desaparecido para dar lugar a visitantes que se desplazan por automóvil o avión desde otras ciudades o incluso otros países para admirar edificios que han sido restaurados en forma, pero cuya función ha sido completamente transformada. Nuevos rascacielos, centros de convención, estadios y hoteles de lujo son impuestos sobre el paisaje urbano, generalmente sin tomar en cuenta el contexto espacial y social.
Ciertos puntos del proceso de globalización son alentadores, especialmente si se consideran las contribuciones de la ciencia médica y aspectos básicos de educación y sanidad que pueden ofrecerse con inversiones públicas de relativo bajo costo. Sin embargo, el estándar de vida y las oportunidades de empleo se están deteriorando para números crecientes de la población mundial.
La mayoría de los nuevos trabajadores urbanos viven en un mundo de mercados laborales más flexibles y menos seguridad laboral, diferente al mundo en que laboraron sus padres como granjeros u obreros de plantaciones. Las nuevas tecnologías informáticas y financieras globales facilitan a las empresas buscar los sitios y mano de obra más baratos del mundo y cambiar los empleos de un país a otro en cuestión de semanas, de ser necesario.
Los mismos nuevos medios de información y de transporte, que permiten a consumidores y trabajadores elegir entre una amplia variedad de artículos o empleos, también permiten que los criminales elijan de entre una amplia variedad de potenciales blancos. Algunos participantes de la conferencia argumentaron que la actual percepción de menor seguridad física es algo más imaginario que real, especialmente en los Estados Unidos. Lo cierto es que la percepción de por sí está claramente alentando la demanda mundial de urbanizaciones enrejadas o viviendas más seguras.
Los efectos positivos y negativos de la globalización en la calidad de vida, más que concesiones, son las dos caras de la moneda. Las mismas tecnologías de información y organización de mercados que difunden nuevos bienes de consumo alrededor del mundo en cuestión de semanas, también transmiten malas noticias, como el sida. Los mismos automóviles que facilitan el acceso a oportunidades de recreación en el campo para los habitantes urbanos, también dan lugar a ciudades que se expanden y ocupan tierras de la periferia que se convierten en patios privados en vez de vistas escénicas de granjas o bosques.
Debido a estas contradicciones, es de menester buscar otros modelos de producción y consumo, modelos que permitan a los habitantes fortalecer sus comunidades y proteger sus ambientes, que ofrezcan la posibilidad de crear empleos productivos para toda la población, y que restrinja el acelerado proceso de polarización.
El papel del gobierno
¿Hasta qué punto los ciudadanos de las ciudades-región piden a sus gobiernos municipales, metropolitanos o nacionales encontrar formas de eliminar los efectos negativos de la globalización? Como un ejemplo, los representantes de San Diego, Ankara y Tokio apuntaron al hecho de que las elecciones municipales se centran ahora en torno a quién se beneficia de la globalización. Los ciudadanos que se identifican más con la economía global que con la municipal exigen que los gobiernos inviertan en infraestructura de alta tecnología, construyan centros de convención o estadios y fomenten las oportunidades de educación con el fin de atraer empleos futuros.
En contraste, la mayoría de los peones y trabajadores de poca formación educativa ven la globalización como una amenaza más que una oportunidad, y les interesa más invertir los limitados recursos municipales en servicios públicos como escuelas y clínicas comunitarias. En cualquier caso, es posible que aquellos gobiernos que se concentran en los servicios municipales para no tener que tomar decisiones políticas impopulares, están únicamente postergando los impactos inevitables de la globalización, entre ellos sus efectos potencialmente beneficiosos a largo plazo.
A la larga, quizás la capacidad de gobiernos de cualquier nivel para manejar las fuerzas globales sea limitada. Existe una discrepancia inherente entre la economía global y el gobierno, no sólo en el sentido espacial de gobiernos municipales o fragmentados que están luchando para dominar las fuerzas económicas regionales o globales, sino en los modos operativos contrastantes de los mercados y los gobiernos.
La globalización ha dificultado cada vez más definir tanto “la región” que debería planificarse como “la comunidad” que debería participar en dichos planes. Los gobiernos municipales —e incluso la mayoría de los gobiernos nacionales— no tienen muchos recursos para proteger los negocios locales contra la competencia global. En casi todas las ciudades-región representadas en la conferencia se han multiplicado los grupos de interés especializados y las organizaciones no gubernamentales, al mismo tiempo que los gobiernos omnipresentes han comenzado a dar pasos hacia la fragmentación y descentralización. La devolución política, bastante avanzada en los Estados Unidos, está comenzando a sonar fuerte en otras partes.
La tendencia actual de los gobiernos de las ciudades-región es prescindir de técnicas de planificación espacial complicadas, y en cambio ajustarse a lo que uno de los planificadores de la conferencia denominó como “las nuevas reglas de la propiedad y la política”. Sin embargo, esta filosofía deja una herencia de muchas contradicciones: entre las oportunidades para las élites y los pobres; entre los defensores de una mayor autonomía municipal y aquellos comprometidos a patrones regionales emergentes de interdependencia; y entre políticas que favorecen el crecimiento en vez de la redistribución de recursos. Sin un sistema gubernamental eficaz, todas estas dicotomías tienen gran potencial para la confrontación.
