SHARE
Sustaining local communities will require mechanisms to envision and plan for the future and to engage residents in the process. Scenario planning is an increasingly effective way to address these efforts, and Western Lands and Communities, the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy’s joint venture with the Sonoran Institute, is working to advance the necessary tools.
Scenario Planning to Address Uncertainty
Land use decisions and planning efforts are critical as communities look 20 to 50 years into the future to guide policy choices and public investments that are sustainable across economic, social, and environmental dimensions. As uncertainty increases and available resources decrease, it becomes ever more important to consider the full range of emerging conditions and to strive to ensure our ability to respond to those changes, adopt policies, and pursue investments that will be resilient across a variety of potential futures.
Key areas of uncertainty include population and demographic changes, economic trends, climatic variability and change, resource costs and availability, land markets, housing preferences, housing affordability, and the fiscal health of local governments. Simultaneous with increasing uncertainty and decreasing resources, or perhaps in part because of them, decision makers face conflicting perspectives on desired futures and on the role of government in providing services and infrastructure as well as regulation and planning.
Increased polarization means that more civic engagement and an informed and supportive public are needed to ensure stable policies and adequate investments in a community’s future. Scenario planning offers a mechanism to address these needs and issues of potential uncertainty and conflict. Fortunately, as the scope and complexity of planning and the demand for broader engagement have increased, advances in computing power and public access to technology are making new and more powerful tools available.
The Lincoln Institute has a long history of supporting the development of planning tools and publishing the results (Hopkins and Zapata 2007; Campoli and MacLean 2007; Brail 2008; Kwartler and Longo 2008; Condon, Cavens, and Miller 2009). This article covers lessons learned from the use of scenario planning tools in several projects undertaken by Western Lands and Communities (WLC), as well as mechanisms to expand their application.
Superstition Vistas
Superstition Vistas is a 275-square-mile expanse of vacant state-owned trust land on the urbanizing edge of the Phoenix metropolitan area (figure 1). State trust lands such as this site in Arizona are key to future growth patterns because the state owns 60 percent of the available land in the path of development. Colorado and New Mexico to a lesser degree face similar opportunities with their state trust lands (Culp, Laurenzi, and Tuell 2006). Creative thinking about the future of Superstition Vistas began to gain momentum in 2003, and the Lincoln Institute, through the WLC joint venture, was an early proponent of these efforts (Propst 2008).
Initial WLC objectives for Superstition Vistas scenario planning included capacity building, tool development, and opportunities to catalyze a planning process. More specifically, we sought to:
WLC, along with regional partnerships, neighboring jurisdictions, the regional electric and water utility, two private hospital providers, and a local mining company, formed the Superstition Vistas (SV) Steering Committee to advance the planning effort, secure funding, and hire a consulting team. The consultants, working with the committee over a three-year period, conducted extensive public outreach and values research, assembled data on Superstition Vistas, developed and refined a series of alternative land use scenarios for the development of a community of 1 million residents, evaluated the impacts of the different scenarios, and produced a composite scenario for the site.
The Arizona State Land Department (the landowner) adapted the consultants’ work to prepare a draft conceptual plan for Superstition Vistas in May 2011 and submitted a proposed comprehensive plan amendment to Pinal County. The county is now considering the proposed amendment and its Board of Supervisors is expected to act in late 2011.
Sustainability Lessons
The scenario analysis, utilizing enhancements supported by WLC, identified the most important factors in shaping development patterns and potential conflicts among desired outcomes (figure 2). The inclusion of individual building and infrastructure costs for the alternative scenarios facilitated examining the sensitivity of varying these key factors and the cost effectiveness of four increasing levels of energy and water efficiency in each building type.
The scenarios also examined the impact of urban form on vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Scenario model outputs included land use indicators, energy and water use, VMT, carbon emissions, and construction costs. This analysis revealed the “low-hanging fruit” for sustainability improvements. The consulting team, working with the Steering Committee, identified a number of lessons that illustrate the value of scenario planning tools and can be applied to other efforts to design more sustainable and efficient urban areas (Superstition Vistas Consulting Team 2011).
1. Create mixed-use centers to reduce travel times, energy use, and the carbon footprint. Mixed-use centers along public transportation routes and close to homes and neighborhoods are one of the most effective ways to reduce travel times, energy use, and the resulting carbon footprint. Smaller homes, more compact forms of urban development, and multimodal transportation systems all create similar benefits (figure 3). However, the scenario modeling for Superstition Vistas demonstrated that mixed-use centers would be substantially more important than increased density in affecting transportation choices, energy use, and the carbon footprint.
2. Foster upfront investments and high-quality jobs to catalyze economic success. A strong local economy and a diverse balance of nearby jobs, housing, and shops are critical for a sustainable community, especially when high-quality jobs are provided at the beginning of development. Significant upfront public investment and public-private partnerships can supply critical infrastructure and have an enormous impact on shaping development and increasing the value of state trust land. State owned trust land could also provide unique opportunities for patient capital, with enhanced trust land management authorities providing access to resources for upfront capital investment and the ability to recapture these investments when the land is sold or leased later at a higher value.
3. Provide multimodal transportation infrastructure and regional connections to facilitate efficient growth. Another critical step is determining how to phase transportation improvements as the region grows and the market can support increased services. Phased components may include buses first, then Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), with rights-of-way set aside for eventual commuter or light-rail corridors. Identifying and building multimodal transportation corridors and infrastructure prior to sales for residential and commercial development should establish the cohesiveness of the entire area and enable the evolution to more capital-intensive transportation infrastructure as the community matures.
4. Design efficient buildings that save water and energy resources and reduce the community’s carbon footprint. Incorporating construction costs and return on investment (ROI) data in resource planning allows for financial feasibility and cost-benefit calculations. The consulting team modeled four levels of water and energy use (baseline, good, better, best) for each scenario and building type. Results demonstrated that investments in energy efficiency would be better spent on residential than commercial and industrial buildings. An additional finding showed that building centralized renewable power generation may be a better investment than extreme conservation.
5. Offer housing choices that meet the needs of a diverse population. Ensuring a viable community means meeting the needs of all potential residents with a broad variety of development types and prices that local workers can afford and that allow for adjustments under future market conditions.
6. Incorporate flexibility to respond to changing circumstances. A challenge for large-scale master plans that will take shape in multiple phases over 50 years or more is how to plan so the development itself can evolve and even redevelop over time. Plan implementation needs to include mechanisms to limit future NIMBY (not in my back yard) problems for necessary infill and redevelopment projects.
Procedural Lessons
The visioning process for Superstition Vistas involved planning a completely new city or region of communities in a vacant area with a single public landowner and no existing population. Given the recent economic downturn, as well as the limited capacity of the state agency to bring land to market, development of this area will likely be postponed for a number of years. Despite these particular conditions, procedural lessons learned in the project to date are relevant to other long-term and large-scale efforts, and to the expanded use of scenario planning for community decision making in general.
Agreed-upon procedures and planning processes become increasingly important as the planning and development time period grows and the number of stakeholders increases. Significant changes in participants, perspectives, and external factors, such as the recent collapse of the development economy, should be expected in any long-term, multiparty project. Such challenges need to be considered and incorporated into project tasks.
1. Design for change. Long-term projects need to accommodate changes in stakeholders, decision makers, and even political perspectives during the course of planning and implementation. Projects would benefit enormously from anticipating such changes, agreeing on mechanisms to transfer knowledge to new participants, establishing certain criteria and decisions that new stakeholders would be expected to follow, understanding how to deal with political or market conditions that will change, and building resiliency for such factors into the alternative scenarios themselves.
2. Consider governance. This is an issue for planning and implementation efforts and for the political decision-making structure of a new community. In building a new city it is important to consider how to create a governance system capable of implementing a consistent, comprehensive vision for a community that does not yet exist.
3. Incorporate new community designs into local and regional comprehensive plans. It is also critical to consider how a project at the scale of Superstition Vistas, with up to 1 million residents and a buildout plan of 50 years or more, can be incorporated into the framework of a typical county comprehensive plan. Scenarios and visions must reflect ideas and plans that local jurisdictions will be politically willing and administratively able to incorporate into their planning processes.
4. Phase development. Communities need to establish mechanisms that allow the adoption of a long-term buildout vision and then incorporate a series of flexible and adaptable phased plans to implement that vision in appropriate stages.
5. Plan for market changes. Market conditions, housing preferences, and employment opportunities will evolve, and large-scale projects with creative and compelling visions may even create their own demand. No one knows what future markets may offer, so consideration of alternative markets and adaptable community designs are critical. Projected housing mixes and estimates of development absorption need to be flexible and not based only on current preferences and trends.
6. Connect to common values. Demonstrating how development proposals connect to common visions and values that are shared and stable over time is also important. For Superstition Vistas, values such as an opportunity for healthy lifestyles and choices for residents across the socioeconomic spectrum were found to be broadly accepted. Planners also need to recognize values that are more controversial or may be transient and likely to change.
Challenges and Opportunities
The WLC experience in planning for Superstition Vistas has been successful in several respects. The community came together through the Steering Committee to develop a consensus vision that represented multijurisdictional cooperation around sustainable “smart” growth. Neighboring communities, at the request of the state land commissioner, deferred any consideration of annexation. In addition, the Arizona State Land Department developed a plan for a geographic scale, time horizon, and level of comprehensiveness well beyond anything attempted previously. However, the proposed comprehensive plan amendment for Superstition Vistas is at best a first step toward a vision for a community of up to 1 million people.
The Arizona State Land Department has been unable, at least so far, to push the envelope very far on new and more creative ways to conceptualize large-scale developments that could enhance the economic value of state trust lands and improve regional urban form. The recent collapse of land and housing markets throughout the country has also impacted this project and local perceptions of future growth potential. Since the overall effort to conceptualize and implement development plans for Superstition Vistas is just beginning, initial on-the-ground development is not expected for at least a decade. There will be multiple opportunities to build on these planning efforts to bring bolder and more comprehensive visions forward as the real estate economy recovers and the land becomes ripe for development.
Scenario planning and effective visualizations become both more important and more challenging to achieve when conducting larger and longer-term visioning exercises. Visualizations that provide compelling depictions of activity centers and higher-density, mixed-use neighborhoods can help to gain public acceptance. Effective mechanisms are also needed to convey to current participants that the planning process is imagining community characteristics and housing and lifestyle preferences for their grandchildren or great-grandchildren many years in the future.
As noted earlier, upfront investments in transportation, economic development, education, and utility services can significantly shape a community, serve as a catalyst for higher-level employment, and earn high returns. To achieve this potential, mechanisms are needed to facilitate these investments, whether on private lands or state trust lands. Continued work on the contributory value of land conservation, infrastructure investment, planning, and ecosystem services, as well as the integration of this information into scenario planning, would greatly aid efforts to address uncertainty and advance community sustainability.
Other Projects and Lessons Learned
WLC conducted three additional demonstration projects to further enhance scenario planning tools and apply them in different situations.
Gallatin County, Montana
Sonoran Institute staff worked with Montana State University (MSU) to engage local stakeholders in a workshop where each of four teams produced scenarios for concentrating projected growth within the currently developed “triangle” region of Bozeman, Belgrade, and Four Corners. This effort successfully integrated Envision Tomorrow scenario planning with housing unit projections from the Sonoran Institute’s Growth Model and demonstrated the value of ROI tools as a reality check on proposed land use and building types. The project also demonstrated the value of scenario planning to local experts.
Lessons learned include recognizing that (1) for many participants working with paper maps was more intuitive that the touch screen technology we had employed; (2) additional information on land characteristics, such as soil productivity and habitat values, should be used in preparing growth scenarios; and (3) more effective techniques are needed to visualize the density and design of different land use types, as well as to incorporate political and market realities that are not typically captured with scenario planning tools.
Products from this Montana project will include the creation of a library of regionally appropriate building types for use with ROI and scenario modeling and a report examining the costs and benefits, including sustainability impacts, of directing future growth to the triangle area of Gallatin Valley. With WLC support MSU has been able to incorporate the use of scenario planning tools in its graduate program.
Garfield County, Colorado
Sonoran Institute’s Western Colorado Legacy Area office, with support from the Lincoln Institute, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and other local contributors, utilized the Envision Tomorrow tool in a new way to advance implementation of previously adopted plans calling for mixed-use infill and redevelopment in target growth areas. This project focused on stakeholder education regarding the mechanisms necessary to implement recently adopted comprehensive plans calling for town-centered development, rather than on scenario generation for a comprehensive plan.
Examination of policy and market feasibility for redevelopment in downtown Rifle, Colorado, was one of three separate efforts undertaken. The City of Rifle project successfully utilized an ROI tool to identify financial and regulatory factors that could impact revitalization efforts and engaged the key parties necessary for implementation, including property owners, developers, realtors, planning commissioners, local officials, state transportation representatives, and local staff.
Among the lessons learned from this project was the importance of grounding bold visions with market reality. For example, previous planning efforts in Rifle had focused on six-to-eight-story mixed-use buildings, but in the current market even three-to-four-story projects are not considered feasible (figure 4c). Most attention now is given to two-story mixed-use projects and townhomes. Visualizations for an underutilized parcel in the center of town illustrated the type of one-story option that may be most feasible for initial commercial development (figure 4b). Constraints related to parking requirements and high minimum lot coverage requirements were also identified as limits on investment. In addition to pinpointing changes in Rifle’s building code, these findings spurred discussion about the role of public-private partnerships in catalyzing downtown development.
Morongo Basin, California
This area of high open space and wildlife habitat values between Joshua Tree National Park and the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center in Southern California may be impacted by spillover from regional growth. This project with the Morongo Basin Open Space Group involves an innovative effort to link results from the ongoing conservation priority-setting efforts with both a GIS tool to analyze and predict how land use patterns impact wildlife habitat and the scenario planning capability of Envision Tomorrow.
We are evaluating the environmental impacts of the current and potential alternative development patterns and location-specific planning and land use options. The tools being developed for this effort will be useful to land trusts throughout the country that are interested in engaging partners on local and regional planning issues and incorporating larger landscape conservation and wildlife habitat goals into their projects.
Open Source Planning Tools
Western Lands and Communities has recently been focusing on efforts to develop open source planning tools as a mechanism to increase the use of scenario planning. Key factors that hinder their use include: (1) the cost and complexity of the tools themselves; (2) the cost and availability of data; (3) a lack of standardization, making integration of tools and data difficult; and (4) proprietary tools that may be difficult to adapt to local conditions and may impede innovation.
Proponents of open source modeling tools believe open and standardized coding will facilitate increased transparency and interoperability between models, ultimately resulting in faster innovation and greater utilization. As a result of our work with Envision Tomorrow on the Superstition Vistas project, WLC and other members of an open source planning tools group are continuing to advance scenario planning tools and pursue the promise of open source tools that can foster sustainable communities in many more locations.
About the Author
Jim Holway directs Western Lands and Communities, the Lincoln Institute’s joint venture with the Sonoran Institute, based in Phoenix, Arizona. He was previously assistant director of the Arizona Department of Water Resources and a professor of practice at Arizona State University.
References
Propst, Luther. 2008. A model for sustainable development in Arizona’s Sun Corridor. Land Lines 20(3).
Superstition Vistas Consulting Team. 2011. Superstition Vistas: Final report and strategic actions. www.superstition-vistas.org
Lincoln Institute Publications
Brail, Richard K. 2008. Planning support systems for cities and regions.
Campoli, Julie, and Alex S. MacLean. 2007. Visualizing density.
Condon, Patrick M., Duncan Cavens, and Nicole Miller. 2009. Urban planning tools for climate change mitigation.
Culp, Peter W., Andy Laurenzi, and Cynthia C. Tuell. 2006. State trust lands in the West: Fiduciary duty in a changing landscape.
Hopkins, Lewis D., and Marisa A. Zapata. 2007. Engaging the future: Forecasts, scenarios, plans, and projects.
Kwartler, Michael, and Gianni Longo. 2008. Visioning and visualization: People, pixels, and plans.
SHARE
From its initial economic reform in 1978 through its liberalization of foreign investment and private sector development from the mid-1980s to the present, China’s major economic reforms have given priority to achieving a high rate of economic growth. The policies worked so well that China’s constant dollar GDP per capita grew nearly 10 percent a year from 1980 to 2010. This growth performance is unparalleled for a large country, but it has been accompanied by unaccounted-for costs, including the structural transformation of the economy, social adjustment and migration, and environmental degradation. A new Lincoln Institute book, China’s Environmental Policy and Urban Development, edited by Joyce Yanyun Man, addresses the last of these topics. It reports estimates from governmental agencies of undocumented environmental costs associated with economic production ranging from 9.7 percent of GDP in 1999 to 3 percent in 2004.
Economic growth in low-income countries is typically accompanied by environmental costs. This tradeoff is embodied in the “environmental Kuznets curve,” which postulates that environmental quality deteriorates with economic growth at low income levels and then improves with growth at higher income levels. Estimates of the environmental Kuznets curve for Chinese cities over the years 1997 to 2007 as reported in this book show that measures of industrial pollution in China declined as incomes increased over this period, indicating that cities with higher incomes experienced improvements in these measures of environmental quality as their incomes grew.
Several chapter authors argue that China’s environmental policies and performance are in transition. Environmental indicators are improving in response to new policies and regulations while economic growth continues. At the same time, there have been setbacks. For example, extreme events, such as this winter’s combination of extremely cold weather and atmospheric inversions in Beijing, produced very high levels of particulate concentrations in that city.
The logic behind the environmental Kuznets curve involves elements of both demand and supply. On the demand side, higher income populations have a growing appreciation for environmental amenities, and they advocate for environmental improvements. On the supply side, investment in new capacity uses modern equipment with more environmentally friendly processes and more affordable control technologies. China’s recent environmental improvements also stem from its strengthened environmental regulatory institutions. In 1982 the role of the Environmental Protection Agency was mainly advisory. It was transformed into a national agency in 1988, became the more independent State Environmental Protection Agency in 1998, and then was elevated as the Ministry of Environmental Protection in 2008.
The growing influence of central environmental agencies has been accompanied by a change in the style of regulation. The earlier emphasis on command-and-control regulations (such as emission standards) was partially replaced by instruments based on economic incentives (such as taxes on inputs and a newly announced tax on carbon emissions). Research indicates that to date the commandand-control regulations generally have been more effective.
While central agencies set national standards, the responsibility for monitoring and enforcement was largely decentralized to municipal or metropolitan environmental bureaus. The performance of local managers is reviewed annually based on criteria that emphasize economic growth. Additional improvements in environmental outcomes may occur only when these criteria give greater weight to environmental improvements. For example, a rapid increase in the control of sulfur dioxide emissions from power plants followed the inclusion of reduced sulfur emissions as an annual performance criterion.
While China has much to do to reduce urban air pollution, clean up rivers and lakes, and improve energy efficiency, these objectives are becoming more important to its citizens. The increased availability of data on environmental indicators is stimulating the national dialogue on environmental quality. Professor Man’s new volume contributes to this dialogue by reporting on progress, identifying immediate challenges, and assessing new policies and regulatory approaches to environmental improvement.
SHARE
Muchas áreas suburbanas de los Estados Unidos están mostrando signos de deterioro, con propiedades abandonadas, centros comerciales vacantes y espacios subutilizados. Estos paisajes han venido a caracterizar la expansión descontrolada: lugares construidos para el automóvil y a los que sólo se puede acceder por automóvil. Pero estos suburbios también tienen enormes oportunidades de reinvención creativa. Varias comunidades a lo largo del país están rediseñando la escala de sus suburbios para convertirlos en lugares animados y accesibles a peatones, construidos para la gente.
Los barrios suburbanos reorientados para peatones pueden prosperar y diversificarse para brindar un mayor respaldo a las economías locales, elevar los indicadores de calidad de vida, y mejorar las condiciones medioambientales locales y regionales. Incluso los suburbios deteriorados, plagados de estructuras en desuso y otras zonas muertas, tienen el potencial para generar nueva infraestructura de vivienda, acceso al transporte público, espacios abiertos y tiendas.
La Universidad de Utah estima que hay 1,1 millones de hectáreas de lotes de estacionamiento y otras áreas grises que están listas para ser revitalizadas, y medio millón de hectáreas están disponibles en áreas comerciales subutilizadas, como centros comerciales abiertos y tiendas vacantes (Dunham Jones y Williamson 2009). La transformación de estos paisajes va a ser una prioridad de planificación y desarrollo en los Estados Unidos en el siglo XXI.
Muchas ciudades están revitalizándose constantemente y capitalizando las recientes tendencias demográficas que respaldan dichos esfuerzos, pero las regiones económicamente robustas también necesitan comunidades suburbanas florecientes. Encuestas recientes realizadas por la Asociación Nacional de Corredores de Bienes Raíces y la Asociación Americana de Planificación han revelado que una mayoría de compradores potenciales prefiere vivir en barrios peatonales, con diversidad de tipos de vivienda y una mezcla de opciones residenciales, empresariales y comerciales. A medida que los “baby boomers” envejecen y la mayor parte de la generación del milenio ingresa en la adultez, una creciente cantidad de estadounidenses está dejando sus automóviles para vivir en entornos más céntricos y peatonales. En 2012, aproximadamente la mitad de la población prefería casas más pequeñas en barrios bien conectados con lugares para vivir, trabajar, hacer las compras y jugar (Asociación Nacional de Corredores de Bienes Raíces, 2011, Asociación Americana de Planificación, 2014).
A pesar de la creciente evidencia en favor de la revitalización urbana, muchos líderes locales no saben a ciencia cierta cómo empezar. Este artículo explora 10 maneras en que las comunidades de todo el país han reducido la escala de partes significativas de sus suburbios de expansión descontrolada para convertirlos en centros sociales florecientes.
1. Compartir una visión y elaborar un plan
Muchas comunidades comienzan por imaginar cómo quieren crecer y después elaboran un plan para concretar esa visión. ¿Los residentes quieren más viviendas, un centro de entretenimiento peatonal, un nuevo distrito de artes o una zona de agricultura urbana? ¿Es más importante aumentar la base gravable, reducir las víctimas mortales de peatones y de ciclistas, o aumentar el acceso a comida fresca? Las metas específicas ayudan a dirigir los esfuerzos de revitalización.
Los planes regionales y barriales hacen participar a los miembros de la comunidad en un diálogo sobre cómo aplicar las inversiones de infraestructura y aprovechar las oportunidades de revitalización a medida que aparecen. Los gobiernos locales pueden comenzar con un sitio pequeño —como un lote vacante o un edificio municipal— y, después de que dicho proyecto haya sido exitoso, continuar con más obras, generando el impulso necesario para rediseñar un barrio o corredor urbano entero, o incluso un sitio contaminado una vez que se haya limpiado. Un propósito compartido acerca de un lugar puede ser un incentivo poderoso para guiar el cambio en el futuro.
Considérese Midvale Slag y Sharon Steel, dos sitios contaminados adyacentes ubicados aproximadamente a 16 kilómetros al sur de Salt Lake City en Midvale, Utah. Ambos fueron descontaminados aproximadamente al mismo tiempo, pero sólo uno está prosperando.
En 2000, el Concejo Municipal de Midvale adoptó la “Evaluación de Reutilización y Plan de Ordenamiento de Bingham Junction” para el sitio de Midvale Slag, de 180 hectáreas de superficie. Los funcionarios municipales trabajaron con residentes, autoridades de la Agencia de Protección Ambiental (EPA) y otras partes interesadas para crear una estrategia de revitalización del sitio y convertirlo en un área de uso mixto comercial, residencial y recreativa. Ahora próspero, Bingham Junction creó aproximadamente 600 puestos de trabajo, 1,5 millones de dólares en ingresos anuales por el impuesto sobre la propiedad, y un aumento de 131 millones de dólares en el valor de las propiedades (EPA 2011). Las familias se han mudado a nuevos condominios, y se piensa construir 2.500 unidades residenciales más. También se han construido edificios de oficinas, un supermercado y otros almacenes, y la comunidad piensa desarro-llar hasta 200 mil metros cuadrados de oficinas comerciales y tiendas.
En contraste, el sitio de Sharon Steel, de 100 hectáreas, que no tenía un plan de revitalización ni una visión para el futuro, permanece vacante. Sin embargo, gracias al éxito de Bingham Junction, los funcionarios municipales han comenzado el proceso de planificación y construcción de visión en ese sitio.
2. Identificar activos
A muchos gobiernos locales les cuesta determinar dónde concentrar sus esfuerzos iniciales de planificación y construcción de visión. Los siguientes tipos de preguntas pueden ayudar a identificar qué tipos de activos aprovechar.
1. ¿Hay transporte público disponible? En caso afirmativo, ¿hay áreas subutilizadas cerca o inmediatamente adyacentes a paraderos de transporte que se podrían revitalizar para mejorar el acceso?
2. ¿En qué se invertirá el dinero de infraestructura existente? Por ejemplo, ¿en caminos, agua, alcantarillado, escuelas, estructuras cívicas, parques?
3. ¿Hay lotes de estacionamiento, edificios o centros comerciales vacantes o subutilizados cerca de estas inversiones de infraestructura?
4. ¿Cuáles de estas áreas tienen planes de revitalización o respaldo barrial para nuevos emprendimientos?
5. ¿Cuáles de estas áreas están cerca o adyacentes a otros activos públicos, como escuelas, biblio-tecas, parques o espacios abiertos?
6. ¿Algunos de estos sitios se pueden alinear con áreas de empleo existentes o emergentes?
7. ¿Algunas de estas propiedades están disponibles para ser revitalizadas? Es decir, ¿hay algún dueño dispuesto a colaborar con los objetivos y planes de revitalización de la comunidad?
Esta evaluación de propuestas no es un proceso lineal, paso por paso. A veces un sitio puede dejar de estar accesible de improviso, o se puede recibir un subsidio federal para convertir una carretera en una ruta principal. En otras situaciones, un dueño quizás no tenga voluntad para cooperar, o un sitio puede considerarse no apto. De todas maneras, una evaluación de las condiciones existentes puede ayudar a identificar sitios potenciales o barrios prioritarios.
3. Aprovechar las inversiones en infraestructura
Para atraer inversiones privadas y nuevos emprendimientos, los gobiernos locales pueden realizar inversiones públicas significativas, ya sea modernizando la infraestructura existente o invirtiendo en infraestructura nueva. Muchas ciudades y pueblos aprovechan la oportunidad para realizar inversiones de infraestructura en barrios que quieren revitalizar. Las investigaciones han demostrado que al aprovechar las inversiones públicas, las comunidades pueden aumentar el valor del suelo de un 70 a un 300 por ciento, estimulando al mismo tiempo las inversiones privadas, el capital social, el turismo y la actividad comercial un promedio del 30 por ciento (Litman 2010). También pueden alcanzar objetivos de planeación y revitalización reformando espacios públicos comunitarios para aumentar su valor compartido.
Norman, Oklahoma, ubicada aproximadamente 40 kilómetros al sur de Oklahoma City, es una obra interesante en curso. El pueblo tenía 27 millones de dólares para mejorar el flujo de tráfico y aumentar la seguridad en un segmento de siete cuadras de una calle que cruzaba la típica línea de tiendas de un distrito, con grandes lotes de estacionamiento a ambos lados de la calle. El pueblo se unió para ver cómo utilizar este dinero para realizar mejoras de mayor alcance en el paisaje vial, junto con las mejoras de seguridad necesarias. Empresarios, funcionarios universitarios y líderes locales se unieron para participar en planes estratégicos de ecología urbana y ver cómo se podría crear un área comercial peatonal.
Las municipalidades también pueden aprovechar las inversiones de capital para alcanzar otros objetivos comunitarios. Con recursos cada vez más escasos, los gobiernos locales no pueden ya darse el lujo de invertir en infraestructura con un objetivo único. Por ejemplo, la ciudad de Lenexa, Kansas (un suburbio de Kansas City), se propuso ser una comunidad más sostenible y vivible, y usó proyectos de infraestructura verde para alcanzar esta meta. Usando fondos de la Ley de Recuperación y Reinversión Americana, los funcionarios municipales implementaron una serie de mejoras en las bocas del alcantarillado a nivel vial que satisficieron objetivos claves de planeación y revitalización urbana, como la creación de espacios abiertos y el fomento de actividad peatonal, al mismo tiempo que resolvían los problemas del desagüe de la aguas pluviales.
4. Alinear códigos y ordenanzas
Algunos de los mayores impedimentos para el rediseño de los entornos suburbanos son los códigos y ordenanzas anticuadas e incoherentes. Estas regulaciones para el desarrollo del suelo —desde ordenanzas de zonificación a normas viales, requisitos de estacionamiento, cobertura de predios y límites de altura— son con frecuencia responsables de los patrones existentes de transporte y uso del suelo, y conforman la estructura legal por defecto de todos los emprendimientos nuevos. La consecuencia es que la construcción de un barrio peatonal de uso mixto es frecuentemente ilegal, y el emprendedor tiene que solicitar exenciones o permisos especiales, que pueden generar incertidumbre y demoras en el proceso de desarrollo o desalentar por completo los proyectos de revitalización.
Los estudios han demostrado que el respaldo gubernamental al desarrollo en las áreas de interés es el mejor predictor de inversiones privadas (Hook et al. 2013). Una de las maneras más fáciles de apoyar un crecimiento nuevo es cambiar los códigos y ordenanzas para legalizar los emprendimientos con acceso peatonal. Los nuevos códigos se pueden incorporar a una zona de actividad superpuesta o un plan barrial, para permitir el tipo de construcción necesario para transformar un área.
Hay una serie de recursos disponibles para ayudar a los gobiernos locales a determinar dónde y cómo cambiar sus códigos, como SmartCode (www.smartcodecentral.org), códigos basados en formularios (http://formbasedcodes.org), los códigos inteligentes de la Asociación Americana de Planificación: Regulación de desarrollo modelo de suelo (https://www.planning.org/research/smartgrowth), o la serie Essential Fixes (Correcciones esenciales) de la EPA (www.epa.gov/dced/essential_fixes.htm).
Por ejemplo, Columbia Pike en Arlington, Virginia, un corredor urbano de 5 kilómetros de longitud al que se llega cruzando el río Potomac desde el centro de Washington, DC, fue revitali-zado a escala peatonal después de que el condado modificó los códigos y ordenanzas de desarrollo subyacentes. En Columbia Pike, ubicada en un condado urbano que creció de forma explosiva en décadas recientes, el desarrollo y la inversión habían sido, por el contrario, mínimas en los últimos 30 años. A finales de la década de 1990, los líderes del condado crearon un código basado en formularios para fomentar una revitalización del corredor orientada al transporte público y el tránsito peatonal. El código es un código optativo (también conocido como código paralelo); la zonificación subyacente permanece activa, pero su uso es alentado por procedimientos de revisión y aprobación rápida. Desde la adopción del código en 2003, se han construido en la zona de Columbia Pike 1.000 unidades de vivienda nuevas y 22.297 metros cuadrados de edificación comercial, y se han aprobado 600 unidades de vivienda nuevas y 2016 metros cuadrados de edificación comercial.
5. Diseñar bien las calles
Para cualquier esfuerzo de revitalización, la red vial de la comunidad es fundamental. Los suburbios típicos tienen carriles anchos y de alta velocidad, diseñados para que los automóviles se puedan desplazar eficientemente por la zona. Pero el interés principal de todo esfuerzo de rediseño urbano debería ser el de posibilitar el desplazamiento a la gente y no los automóviles por un área. Este objetivo se puede lograr construyendo aceras anchas y atractivas, instalando carriles y estacionamiento para bicicletas, creando zonas de aislamiento entre la gente y el tránsito vehicular; desarrollando lugares atractivos para caminar; y diseñando cruces viales seguros. Las calles bien concebidas también pueden desencadenar inversiones y el proceso de revitalización. Sin embargo, en muchas comunidades suburbanas, que tienden a ser menos competitivas, el sector público quizás tenga que catalizar el crecimiento con inversiones iniciales de respaldo de infraestructura y equipamiento para atraer fondos privados.
Por ejemplo, Lancaster, California, una ciudad de tamaño mediano a 100 kilómetros al norte de Los Ángeles, transformó una arteria de cinco carriles en una calle comercial invirtiendo en una serie de mejoras viales. Estrecharon y redujeron la cantidad de carriles de tránsito, y agregaron estacionamiento en la calle y vegetación vial, lo cual redujo el tráfico de 60 kilómetros por hora a 25 kilómetros por hora. La inversión de 11,5 millones de dólares de la ciudad atrajo más de 300 millones de dólares en inversiones privadas.
6. Diseñar bien el estacionamiento
El estacionamiento es un problema para cualquier emprendimiento, pero es particularmente problemático en áreas suburbanas donde la comunidad está tratando de eliminar su dependencia del automóvil. La creencia popular es que el estacionamiento es esencial para la supervivencia de las tiendas; por lo tanto, muchas áreas suburbanas tienen un exceso de oferta de estacionamiento, debido a los distintos requisitos de código, diseño o financiamiento. Pero todo esfuerzo exitoso para rediseñar un suburbio requiere que los planifica-dores sopesen las necesidades de estacionamiento actuales con una visión creativa para un futuro menos dependiente del automóvil.
Las comunidades pueden evaluar cuánto estacionamiento es necesario y explorar modos alternativos de satisfacerlo colocando lugares de estacionamiento en la calle, permitiendo el estacionamiento compartido, o desvinculando los espacios de estacionamiento de las unidades de vivienda (EPA 2006). Para promover un entorno vial atrac-tivo para los peatones, es fundamental eliminar o reducir el estacionamiento de superficie, o colocarlo detrás de las áreas de tiendas. Los proyectos de revitalización más grandes quizás requieran un garaje de estacionamiento, pero debería estar ubicado en la parte trasera del sitio y no inmediatamente adyacente a otras oportunidades de tránsito. Es cada vez más común “envolver” el garaje de estacionamiento con unidades de viviendas más pequeñas u oficinas, para poder proporcionar estacionamiento sin interrumpir el paisaje vial.
A medida que el barrio reduce su dependencia del automóvil, puede reconvertir los garajes de estacionamiento incorporando jardines comunitarios en los pisos superiores o creando espacio de alquiler económico para empresas nacientes en los pisos inferiores. Una comunidad de Albany, Nueva York, transformó un viejo garaje de estacionamiento y concesionaria de automóviles en condominios de lujo.
Al planificar para usos futuros, un barrio puede mantener los espacios de estacionamiento que necesita ahora y permitir que el área evolucione, sin perder las inversiones iniciales efectuadas durante el proceso de revitalización. Los gobiernos locales también pueden modificar los códigos de zonificación y edificación para demandar que los constructores de garajes cumplan con requisitos mínimos de adaptabilidad (Jaffe 2013).
7. Agregar más zonas verdes
Los paisajes suburbanos se han descrito como “hostiles” o “insalubres” debido a sus amplias zonas subutilizadas, dominadas por superficies pavimentadas. Pero muchas comunidades están recuperando la naturaleza en estos entornos edificados, y transformando las calles y los pasajes que se encuentran entre un edificio y otro en zonas peatonales atractivas y florecientes.
Los árboles, las plantas, los espacios verdes abiertos y caminos recreativos ofrecen un descanso a la gente, proporcionan áreas de reunión social, mejoran las condiciones medioambientales y crean paisajes viales más habitables (Benfield 2014). Los sitios suburbanos pueden facilitar la integración de espacios verdes en nuevos proyectos de desarrollo porque frecuentemente tienen más acceso al suelo y flexibilidad que las áreas urbanas. Como inversión pública, el espacio verde también puede atraer iniciativas de desarrollo privado.
Los espacios verdes se pueden incorporar a tres niveles: en una región, en un barrio o en cada sitio individual. A escala de sitio, las municipalidades están comenzando a usar infraestructura verde para controlar las aguas lluvias, absorbiéndola en el suelo o captándola para usarla más adelante. Estas estrategias crean lugares más bellos, aumentan la seguridad peatonal, reducen la velocidad del tráfico, controlan los caudales de agua y generan apoyo popular para crear un sistema de gestión de aguas pluviales más efectivo. (Al igual que los baches, una alcantarilla visiblemente tapada al nivel de la calle probablemente genere más llamadas al municipio que una fuga en una tubería subterránea invisible). Las soluciones a nivel de sitio también pueden crear el impulso para una transformación suburbana de mayor escala, creando al mismo tiempo espacios públicos bulliciosos en antiguos lotes de estacionamiento, pasajes, edificios, áreas apaisajadas, techos o calles. Imagínense, por ejemplo, un mar de vegetación en cascada descendiendo del techo de un garaje de estacionamiento, o una plaza peatonal con macetas, árboles, mesas y sillas en una sección de un antiguo lote de estacionamiento.
A nivel regional y de barrio, los espacios verdes pueden conectar áreas naturales con tierras de cultivo y al mismo tiempo ofrecer funciones ecológicas críticas. Además, estas conexiones pueden dar soporte a caminos y senderos de uso múltiple, corredores de hábitats y otros “dedos verdes” integrados en la región. Los enfoques regionales se concentran en el movimiento de vida silvestre, gente y recursos naturales, como el agua. Las estrategias barriales se enfocan en conexiones con redes regionales más grandes, creando lugares interconectados de reunión pública, espacios abiertos, caminos coordinados de uso múltiple, y una red de infraestructura para bicicletas.
La revitalización del aeropuerto Stapleton en las afueras de Denver, Colorado, incorporó espacios verdes a nivel regional y barrial. Aproximadamente un tercio de sus 2.000 hectáreas se ha destinado a nuevos parques y espacios abiertos para las 12.000 unidades residenciales del proyecto. Cada casa se encuentra a 10 minutos de caminata de un espacio abierto. Los componentes centrales son el Central Park de 32 hectáreas y el corredor Westerly Creek de 34 hectáreas. Se han plantado más de 27.000 árboles, y los 6 millones de toneladas de hormigón que anteriormente formaban parte de las pistas de aterrizaje del aeropuerto se han incorporado ahora a los nuevos parques que se crearon. Este proyecto de revitalización no sólo convirtió el aeropuerto en un próspero entorno peatonal, sino que también genera anualmente 22 millones de dólares en impuestos sobre la propiedad y 13 millones de dólares en ingresos por impuesto a las ventas (Swetlik 2013).
8. Cambiar el uso del suelo
Muchas áreas suburbanas están repletas de grandes almacenes abandonados o subutilizados, y centros comerciales anticuados. Al volver a utilizar estos edificios como bibliotecas, escuelas, viviendas y hasta iglesias, las comunidades pueden reactivar una zona muerta y crear demanda en ese lugar. También pueden prevenir o retrasar el patrón de expansión descontrolada, reduciendo la necesidad de construir nuevas grandes tiendas departamentales en parcelas sin desarrollar. Sin una estrategia de revitalización más amplia, sin embargo, el reúso de grandes tiendas departamentales no modificará el paisaje físico para permitir una actividad peatonal significativa.
Los emprendedores urbanos frecuentemente tienen que consolidar parcelas y negociar con múltiples dueños, especialmente en corredores con múltiples centros comerciales y tiendas minoristas de uso único. En consecuencia, muchos emprendedores prefieren los viejos centros comerciales, que en general tienen una superficie significativa, un solo dueño, caminos existentes, servicio de agua y alcantarillado y viviendas residenciales adyacentes. La megaestructura existente quizás se tenga que demoler y reemplazar por edificios de densidad moderada, una cuadrícula vial tradicional y una mezcla de uso comercial y residencial. Por ejemplo, el proyecto de revitalización de las 40 hectáreas del Belmar Mall en Lakewood, Colorado, reconectó la cuadrícula vial. Estas calles atractivas para el tránsito peatonal ahora tienen 1.300 viviendas nuevas, cien mil metros cuadrados de espacio comercial y 63.000 metros cuadrados de espacios de oficina. Este método ha creado un centro en muchas comunidades suburbanas, o una revitalización similar de gran escala en dichos sitios.
El proceso de transformación de un paisaje suburbano en un barrio floreciente y peatonal toma tiempo y puede requerir inversiones en infraestructura pública. Reconociendo esto, algunas municipalidades piensan realizar un proceso de revitalización por etapas en varias décadas, pero proporcionando fondos en forma inmediata para infraestructura que será aprovechada por las inversiones futuras. Un componente crítico de un desarrollo por etapas exitoso es un proceso de planificación y zonificación compatible por parte del gobierno local. Se pueden diseñar acuerdos de largo plazo para aumentar la densidad o realizar actividades de revitalización en gran escala en un período de tiempo en particular, permitiendo que se vaya construyendo la oferta y demanda en el mercado.
Un ejemplo de un desarrollo por etapas exitoso es Potomac Yards en Alexandria, Virginia. Este antiguo sitio industrial fue descontaminado en 1997 y desarrollado de acuerdo a la zonificación en vigor en ese momento, creando un centro comercial abierto tradicional. Los inquilinos firmaron contratos de alquiler por 15 años, un plazo normal en ese momento y lugar. En los años siguientes, los funcionarios municipales obtuvieron financiamiento para construir una nueva estación del metro en la parte trasera del centro comercial, y se construyeron también varios edificios residenciales de uso mixto y alta densidad. Como resultado, el valor del suelo en Potomac Yards aumentó significativamente. En 2010, el concejo municipal aprobó un plan de revitalización, que comenzará en 2017 y se sincronizará con la apertura de la parada del metro. El centro comercial abierto será demolido para dar lugar a un nuevo barrio peatonal de uso mixto con 650.000 metros cuadrados destinados a oficina, comercio y residencias.
9. Proporcionar un liderazgo catalizador
El rediseño de barrios suburbanos para uso peatonal requiere la coordinación y cooperación entre departamentos municipales que normalmente operan en forma independiente. Los departamentos de transporte administran los sistemas viales, los departamentos de vivienda se encargan de viviendas de interés social, y los departamentos de obras públicas construyen sistemas de alcantarillado. Pero no hay un único departamento que pueda implementar la compleja gama de estrategias y cambios físicos necesarios para transformar una subdivisión residencial de uso único o distrito comercial en un barrio peatonal de uso mixto.
El liderazgo catalizador se basa por partes iguales en mediación, facilitación y liderazgo. Se basa en respetar la metodología tradicional de cada departamento, reconociendo al mismo tiempo que no hay un departamento en particular que tenga todas las respuestas o datos para resolver ciertos problemas. El liderazgo catalizador puede generar la confianza y el respeto necesarios para promover enfoques más colaborativos e innovadores para superar los desafíos presentados por la construcción de espacios suburbanos. Es esencial para orquestar estos esfuerzos, mediar entre partes con distintas agendas, y alcanzar las metas deseadas a tiempo y dentro del presupuesto.
La revitalización exitosa del centro de Silver Spring, Maryland, se benefició de este tipo de liderazgo. El área había sido un centro de comercio minorista dinámico en los años de posguerra. Pero como muchos centros suburbanos, perdió gran parte de su vitalidad cuando aparecieron los centros comerciales cerrados en la década de 1970, y los intentos posteriores de recuperar la base comercial fracasaron. En 1996, el condado decidió revitalizar el área creando una comunidad orientada a los peatones, de uso mixto y con acceso a transporte público. El administrador del condado sabía que la lentitud del proceso de otorgamiento de permisos podría afectar el proyecto, así que creó un programa de reducción burocrática, recogiendo la opinión del personal local responsable de hacer cumplir los códigos de edificación y del sitio (construcción, electricidad, incendio, mecánica, accesibilidad, zonificación, carteles, gestión de sedimentos y aguas pluviales, revisión del plan de subdivisión, y códigos y normas de inspección). Los participantes, reunidos en mesas redondas, identificaron y resolvieron problemas interdepartamentales para los proyectos propuestos en la zona de revitalización. Al reunirse en un mismo lugar, los representantes de todos los departamentos pudieron superar las barreras de diseño, zonificación y códigos de manera más eficiente. Como resultado, Silver Spring ha transformado su paisaje suburbano en una comunidad floreciente, con más de 70.000 metros cuadrados de superficie comercial y de esparcimiento, 46.000 metros cuadrados de espacio de oficinas y casi 2.000 residencias.
10. Anticipar lo que viene
El proceso de rediseño de comunidades suburbanas puede ser largo y difícil, pero hay una serie de puntos de partida posibles, desde la creación de una visión y planes, hasta la realización de inversiones de infraestructura y la construcción del primer proyecto. Al comenzar este proceso, los líderes municipales deberían considerar varios temas:
La evolución de los paisajes suburbanos en los Estados Unidos representa oportunidades enormes para repensar de forma creativa los entornos edificados y naturales del país. El rediseño de estos lugares para peatones puede ayudar a restaurar la actividad en las calles y crear lugares vitales y prósperos para vivir y trabajar.
Sobre la autora
Lynn Richards, próxima presidente y directora ejecutiva del Congreso para el Nuevo Urbanismo, fue fellow Lincoln/Loeb de 2013 en la Escuela de Posgrado de Diseño de la Universidad de Harvard y el Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Previamente, a lo largo de 13 años, ocupó varios puestos de liderazgo en la Agencia de Protección Ambiental de los EE.UU. (EPA), entre ellos, directora en ejercicio y directora de políticas de la Oficina de Comunidades Sostenibles.
Recursos
American Planning Association (APA). 2014. Investing in Place: Two Generations’ View on the Future of Communities: Millennials, Boomers, and New Directions for Planning and Economic Development. APA, May. https://www.planning.org/policy/polls/investing/pdf/pollinvesting report.pdf.
Benfield, Kaid. 2014. People Habitat: 25 Ways to Think about Greener, Healthier Cities. Island Press.
Dunham Jones, Ellen, and June Williamson. 2009. Retrofitting Suburbia: Urban Design Solutions for Redesigning Suburbs. Wiley and Sons.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2011. Cleanup and Mixed-Use Revitalization on the Wasatch Front: The Midvale Slag Superfund Site and Midvale City, Utah. Mayo.
EPA. 2006. Community Spaces, Parking Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions. EPA 231-K-06-001.
Hook, Walter, Stephanie Lotshaw, and Annie Weinstock. 2013. More Development for Your Transit Dollar: An Analysis of 21 North American Transit Corridors. Institute for Transportation and Development Policy.
Jaffe, Eric. 2013. “We Need to Design Parking Garages with a Car-less Future in Mind.” Atlantic Cities, 14 noviembre.
Litman, Todd. 2010. Evaluating Non-Motorized Transport Benefits and Costs. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. www.vtpi.org/nmt-tdm.pdf.
Lukez, Paul. 2007. Suburban Transformations. Princeton Architectural Press.
National Association of Realtors (NAR). 2011. The 2011 Community Preference Survey: What Americans Are Looking for When Deciding Where to Live. NAR, March. http://www.realtor.org/sites/default/files/smart-growth-comm-survey-results-2011.pdf.
Swetlik, Deana. 2012. “The Many Uses Blooming at Denver’s Old Airport: Stapleton.” Urban Land, 11 octubre, 2012.
SHARE
As interest in urban living grows, the cost of residential real estate in many hot markets is skyrocketing. According to the Joint Center for Housing Studies (JCHS 2015), in 2014 rental vacancy rates hit their lowest point in two decades; rents rose in 91 out of 93 metropolitan areas studied; and the consumer price index for contract rents climbed at double the rate of inflation—and 10 percent or more at the top end, in Denver, San Jose, Honolulu, and San Francisco. Despite some interruption from the mortgage crisis, asking prices for homes for sale have continued to rise as well, often beyond the reach of potential home buyers (Olick 2014); in Washington, DC, the median home value nearly tripled from 2000 to 2013 (Oh et al. 2015). As housing activists look for effective tools to prevent displacement of lower-income families from gentrifying neighborhoods and create inclusive communities, many are turning to community land trusts (box 1) as a way to help build the nation’s stock of permanently affordable housing.
————————
Box 1: The CLT Model
Under the CLT model, a community-controlled organization retains ownership of a plot of land and sells or rents the housing on that land to lower-income households. In exchange for below-market prices, purchasers agree to resale restrictions that keep the homes affordable to subsequent buyers while also allowing owners to build some equity. The CLT also prepares home buyers to purchase property, supports them through financial challenges, and manages resales and rental units.
CLTs thus bring sustainable home ownership within the reach of more families, supporting residents who want to commit to their neighborhoods for the long term. In gentrifying areas, they provide an effective way for lower-income families to retain a stake in the neighborhood because they take a single initial subsidy (which could come from a variety of sources, often public programs such as the HOME Investment Partnerships Program or Community Development Block Grants) and attach it to the building, keeping the units affordable over time without new influxes of public money. In weak housing markets, they are beneficial as well (Shelterforce 2012), providing the financial stewardship that ensures fewer foreclosures, better upkeep, and stable occupancy. In 2009, at the height of the foreclosure crisis, Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) loans were 8.2 times more likely to be in the foreclosure process than CLT loans, despite the fact that CLT loans were uniformly made to low-income households (Thaden, Rosenberg 2010), and MBA loans included all income brackets. Of the very few CLT homes that did complete foreclosure, none were lost from the CLT’s portfolio.
————————
Much like community development corporations (CDCs), many CLTs grew from grassroots neighborhood organizations. Traditional community organizing (distinct from broader “resident outreach”) creates a base of residents who are empowered to determine for themselves what they need and mobilize to get it; as a united front, these individuals are better able to counter-balance corporate or governmental opponents and other forms of institutional power. Strategic collaboration and strength in numbers are essential to the successful formation of a CLT. But the skills required to organize politically around local concerns are very different from the skills required to manage real estate. While both sets of skills are required to implement and sustain a CLT, growing these core competencies under the same roof might hamper the neighborhood-based organization’s ability to pursue or achieve its core founding mission.
How have community organizations that created CLTs navigated the challenge of building two seemingly incompatible skill sets? We examined the experience of five established CLTs in locations across the country to see how they addressed this challenge and how their focus evolved as a result. From Boston to Los Angeles, community organizers faced a range of conditions, from high-vacancy neighborhoods with almost no housing market to booming areas where displacement was the top concern. Yet all five organizations had remarkably similar reasons for starting a community land trust: each CLT director spoke of wanting community control of land to prevent residents from either losing a home or being unable to afford one. Even those CLTs that began in weak housing markets were located near downtowns, university districts, or other popular areas, and recognized the potential for displacement as conditions in the neighborhoods improved. All agreed that a clear community vision is essential to the success of a CLT, but some groups take direct responsibility for creating and implementing that vision, while others are devoted to housing work on behalf of a parent organization charged with shepherding the larger vision. Approaches to organizing and housing development varied as well, but all agreed that these two activities can be a difficult mix.
Dudley Neighbors Inc., Boston, MA
The oldest organization in our study, Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative (DSNI), formed in a cold market in the 1980s to fight illegal dumping on broad swaths of vacant land left behind by a wave of arson. The city was proposing a master plan for the area without seeking input from residents, and community members responded by organizing DSNI to assert the community’s right to direct decisions about land use within its boundaries. They won that right and through DSNI decided that a CLT was the best tool to help the organization implement the community’s vision. “A lot of times, groups want to jump into creating a CLT thinking it will magically solve a neighborhood’s problems,” says Harry Smith, director of DSNI’s CLT, Dudley Neighbors Inc. (DNI). “But first we say: ‘Have you written down a vision of development in your community, and can you say how a CLT fits into that?’”
Founded in 1984, DNI is an independent organization, but it maintains close ties to its parent organization. The two groups share staff, and DSNI appoints a majority of the CLT’s board. The CLT is responsible only for providing affordable housing and community control of land, freeing DSNI to make organizing and community planning its main priority. Neither DSNI nor DNI carry out development directly, but instead partner with local affordable housing developers.
Because of its long history and established relationships, DSNI engages in less confrontational organizing than it did in its earliest days. But it doesn’t shy away from it if necessary. In fact, Smith reports that maintaining a CLT can be a unique political strength. When DSNI organizes around the fate of a particular parcel of land, “Having a land trust gives us an extra level of impact,” he says.
Sawmill Community Land Trust, Albuquerque, NM
Located in Albuquerque, New Mexico, Sawmill CLT was born in 1996 when, after a decade of community organizing, low-income residents banded together to fight a nearby factory that polluted their air and threatened their health. They wanted to assert control over future use of the space. After leaders attended a conference to learn more about CLTs, they held a series of community meetings on the topic. Though some residents aired concerns about the lack of land ownership in the CLT model, a community elder reminded them that they didn’t truly have ownership of their property in any case, either because they were renting or were ill-equipped to control what happened on their land. Former executive director Wade Patterson says, “The fact that the work was specifically geared toward controlling housing costs assuaged concerns about gentrification and displacement. The fact that we got a house instead of another factory was something we couldn’t argue with.”
Sawmill CLT was created as a standalone organization dedicated to housing development, stewardship, and property management. It’s one of the largest CLTs in the country, with 34 acres, which includes rental, ownership, and senior housing. Recently, it won an RFP issued by the city of Albuquerque to revitalize an old motel in a new neighborhood in the city, and the CLT is figuring out how to enter the community respectfully from outside.
Albuquerque’s Sawmill-area neighborhood associations, including the Sawmill Advisory Council, which launched the CLT, focus on “community building” through cultural events, says Patterson. The CLT supports neighborhood organizing by offering meeting space in one of its buildings and other support. Patterson says, “Our goal isn’t to lead but to be behind them.”
San Francisco Community Land Trust, San Francisco, CA
SFCLT was launched in 2003, at a time when the city was already one of the hottest real estate markets in the country, and low-income residents were concerned about soaring rents and illegal evictions for condo conversions. Housing organizers were seeking a model that could prevent evictions and give lower-income residents more control over their living situations.
The CLT is a standalone entity, but it maintains a close relationship with the housing organizers who founded it. When its partner groups organize to prevent evictions or condo conversions in an at-risk building (generally small apartment buildings), SFCLT steps in as a preservation purchaser and converts them to co-ops on CLT-owned land. SFCLT has in-house real estate expertise, but does not develop new buildings, and it contracts out any needed rehabilitation. It handles the financial aspects of the acquisition and the conversion, the stewardship of the land, and the training and support that helped residents form a co-op board and carry out co-op governance. “Housing groups refer everyone to us; we’re the only housing organization that can help stabilize a multi-unit apartment building by buying it,” says director Tracy Parent. SFCLT organizes its member base to support the broader issues that its coalition partners push for, but it doesn’t “initiate organizing” on issues, according to Parent.
T.R.U.S.T. South LA, Los Angeles, CA
When T.R.U.S.T. South LA was formed in 2005, its target neighborhoods were filled with vacant lots and deteriorated housing, while surrounding areas were under increasing development pressures. While the founders—Esperanza Community Housing Corporation, Strategic Actions of a Just Economy, and Abode Communities—originally envisioned the CLT as primarily a housing tool, it has taken on a broader role in implementing a community vision. “Originally, we formed as a land acquisition group. Then our members wanted to organize,” says executive director Sandra McNeill. The CLT has, for example, organized against a slumlord who was trying to evict residents from a building he had strategically let deteriorate in order to cash in on expiring section 8 affordability restrictions. It has also organized to raise funding for transportation and green space improvements in its neighborhood and participated in coalitions to support broader citywide policies such as increased funding for affordable housing.
The group now describes itself as “a community-based initiative to stabilize the neighborhoods south of downtown Los Angeles.” T.R.U.S.T. South LA is a standalone organization that considers itself part of the development team on housing projects, partnering with others to purchase, finance, and construct or rehabilitate housing.
Although T.R.U.S.T. South LA does a lot of organizing, nearly all of its policy work is conducted in collaboration with other groups, including its founding partners. “Affordable housing developers generally aren’t risk takers,” says McNeill. “They may be involved in political work to ensure that funding streams are in place for affordable housing, but that’s as far as most of them go.”
Community Justice Land Trust, Philadelphia, PA
Community Justice Land Trust in Philadelphia formed in Northeast Philadelphia in 2010 amid combined cold and hot market challenges. Although the neighborhood suffered from a large number of vacant and abandoned properties, it was surrounded on all sides by booming markets, and those rising prices and development pressures seemed likely to spread. The Women’s Community Revitalization Project (WCRP), along with a coalition of local civic organizations, held dozens of public meetings to help the community members understand what forming a CLT would mean and to explore their concerns about resale restrictions. Attendees voted in favor.
Community Justice CLT is set up as a program of WCRP, which has its own in-house development and organizing expertise, including an entire department devoted to organizing.
But as WCRP’s executive director Nora Lichtash warns, “Sometimes you lose relationships when you’re organizing. . . . Sometimes people don’t like to be pushed to do the right thing.” Indeed, WCRP apparently pressured its local council person enough on certain issues that she declined to give the CLT vacant land it had hoped to secure for its first development. In the end, however, the council person helped the group establish a citywide land bank (Feldstein 2013–14), which furthers some of the same goals as the land trust.
Despite potential tensions like these, Lichtash believes that organizing and CLT functions should stay closely related. “It’s important to remember that organizing and building affordable housing fit together,” she says. “Your funders think you should be doing one or the other, but it’s not good for CLTs to be separated from organizing. You’re building your capacity for present and future work. When you organize, you’re respected because you have people power.”
To Develop or Not to Develop: A Big Decision
Affordable housing development is a complicated and expensive business that no community organization should take lightly if it is thinking about starting a CLT. As DNI’s Smith says, “If you do development work, it will take time away from organizing, which is cumulative. It takes time and a lot of sacrifice to form a truly representative, neighborhood-based organization. If you cut corners, you risk jeopardizing a lot of the power you’ve built up over the years.”
The Boston experience, for example, begins with a cautionary tale. DSNI stepped in when the original developer for the CLT’s first project backed out of the deal. It was “traumatic” for staff and board, says Smith. “It took so much time. It distracted DSNI from its core functions.”
The idea of controlling development resources and accessing developer fees can be seductive to grassroots groups, says WCRP’s Lichtash. But they should proceed with extreme care. “Becoming a developer can muddy the waters,” she says. “You have to focus on every detail in million-dollar deals. It takes you away from educational work.”
“Real estate work is very hard, speculative,” Lichtash continues. “You think you’re getting one thing and instead you get another. I tell people to partner for a long time first. It’s hard to keep both tenants and funding sources happy.”
Patterson of Sawmill agrees and adds that it’s particularly difficult “to meet all the deadlines and reporting requirements on funding [for development]. I’m always shocked by the amount of administrative overhead that’s required.” He also advises that if you can’t make the numbers work, “it’s important to know you can pull out of a project if needed.”
T.R.U.S.T. South LA’s McNeill says, “Development definitely has its own language. It’s complex stuff. Nonprofits that do it have large budgets and tend to have sizable staffs. I respect the skill it takes to pull off these deals. It’s a very different skillset from what we do.”
Another consideration is that affordable housing development is not an easy industry to break into these days. In the current funding environment, many of the subsidies that CLTs have traditionally used to develop and steward their units are being slashed, and mortgages for potential CLT home buyers are harder to find. McNeill says, “We’ve gone through enormous shifts in the housing industry. The reality is that there isn’t an opening now for new organizations to get into the development business. It’s definitely not the time.”
Even the ongoing stewardship of a CLT requires a different kind of relationship with residents than an organizer would have. “Developer fees and rent collection could impact the relationship with residents and the power dynamic,” says Smith of DNI. “You’re responsible to leaseholders and non-leaseholders in your community, so there are tensions,” according to Lichtash of WCRP. And as SFCLT’s Parent comments, “Organizers often paint issues as clear moral choices,” but when you are involved as a property manager, “there are nuances.”
Eyes on the Prize
Once a community group has determined that a CLT is an appropriate tool for keeping housing affordable to local residents, the next questions should be: How will the roles be divided up? Who is taking the lead on implementing the broader vision? Is there an organization already in place that’s committed and able to take that on, or does one need to be created? Are there groups serving the community that already have development expertise and access to funding that could partner with a CLT or even fold one into their work? How can the new CLT partner with and support the community’s organizing work rather than distract from it?
Many newer CLTs are following the lead of groups like DSNI and T.R.U.S.T. South LA by setting up a separate organization to manage the stewardship and land ownership functions, and then drawing on the capacity of existing affordable housing developers through partnerships. While every locality is different, this approach seems like a wise place for groups to start, especially if they want to preserve their energy for the important work they started with: fighting for vibrant, equitable communities.
Miriam Axel-Lute is the editor of Shelterforce, a magazine devoted to the field of community development. She has written extensively on both organizing and community land trusts.
Dana Hawkins-Simons is an award-winning journalist who has published groundbreaking investigations in U.S. News & World Report. She is also the former director of the Opportunity Housing Initiative at the National Housing Institute.
References
Beckwith, Dave, with Cristina Lopez. 1997. “Community Organizing: People Power from the Grassroots.” http://comm-org.wisc.edu/papers97/beckwith.htm
Feldstein, Jill. 2013/14. “Winning a Land Bank We Can Trust.” Shelterforce. Fall/Winter 2013/14. www.shelterforce.org/article/3910/winning_a_land_bank_we_can_trust2/
Horwitz, Staci. 2011. “It’s All About Choice.” Shelterforce. www.shelterforce.org/article/2313/its_all_about_choice/
Joint Center for Housing Studies. 2015. State of the Nation’s Housing 2015. Harvard University. www.jchs.harvard.edu/research/state_nations_housing
Oh, Seunghoon, Josh Silver, Annelise Osterberg, and Jaclyn Tules. 2015. Does Nonprofit Housing Development Preserve Neighborhood Diversity? An Investigation into the Interaction Between Affordable Housing Development and Neighborhood Change. Manna, Inc. www.mannadc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Final_Neighborhood_Impact_Analysis_7_1.pdf
Olick, Diana. 2014. “Housing Still Too Expensive Despite Positive Signs.” CNBC.com, July 10. www.cnbc.com/2014/07/10/housing-still-too-expensive-despite-positive-signs.html
Shelterforce. 2012. “What’s the Point of Shared-Equity Homeownership in Weak Market Areas?” Shelterforce. www.shelterforce.org/images/uploads/theanswer171-2.pdf
Schutz, Aaron and Marie G. Sandy. 2011. “What Isn’t Community Organizing.” In Collective Action for Social Change: An Introduction to Community Organizing, London: Palgrave McMillan. pp. 31–44.
Thaden, Emily and Greg Rosenberg. 2010. “Outperforming the Market: Delinquency and Foreclosure Rates in Community Land Trusts.” Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/dl/1846_1154_LLA10102%20Foreclosure%20Rates.pdf
SHARE
The Sun Belt grew at spectacular rates in the late twentieth century, and among western U.S. cities Phoenix and its metropolitan region led the pack. The Census Bureau reports that between 1990 and 2000 Maricopa County was the fastest growing county in the nation at 44.8 percent, increasing from 2,122,101 to 3,072,149 people. The county is the fourth largest in the nation in terms of total population. During the 1990s, the city of Phoenix topped one million people and became the sixth largest U.S. city. Its spatial expanse has eclipsed that of the city of Los Angeles. According to the Phoenix Planning Department’s data, the region is growing by about 63,000 residents per year and requires about 23,000 new housing units to meet the demand. Statewide, the population is growing by more than 2,000 residents per week, and the number of people in the state is expected to double in the next 20 years.
The weather, relatively affordable housing and abundant jobs attract a diverse array of newcomers, but increased population has numerous social and environmental consequences. Debate rages about the impacts of growth locally and nationally: Is it good? Is it deleterious? Can it be sustained? At what cost? Who benefits? Who suffers?
A group of Arizona State University (ASU) faculty has recognized that these phenomena represent an opportunity for both research and public service in this fast-growing urban environmental laboratory. Furthermore, knowledge gleaned from such inquiries could lead to smarter growth and more livable places in the future. This notion provides the intellectual foundation for a project named Greater Phoenix 2100 (GP 2100), which seeks to provide data and analysis to the region’s decision makers to help them make wise choices about the future.
Greater Phoenix 2100 Workshops
The Lincoln Institute helped ASU launch GP 2100 through workshops in April 2001 that brought together ASU faculty and staff, community leaders, national participants from institutions such as the Los Alamos National Laboratory and the National Research Council, and four distinguished speakers who stimulated debate and discussion. The panelists were ecologist and author Dan Botkin, professor emeritus of the University of California-Santa Barbara; Michael Crow, an authority on science policy and executive vice provost at Columbia University; political scientist Helen Ingram, formerly director of the Arizona Water Resources Research Center and now professor of human ecology at the University of California-Irvine; and Bob Yaro, executive director of the Regional Plan Association.
They observed that for the Phoenix metropolitan region to continue to prosper, three overlapping spheres of influence must be considered: the creation of knowledge capital, the enhancement of social capital, and the preservation of natural capital.
The GP 2100 workshop panelists and other participants suggested that ASU should become the convener for discussions on growth, as well as the data bank for computer-stored geographical information about these intersecting, mutually dependent spheres. As a result, ASU should create various scenarios for the future in a “Sim Phoenix” format and a “Decision Theater” that would be a physical and a virtual place where academic and community leaders could probe the consequences of possible actions.
Databases and Audiences
Still in its early stages, ASU’s GP 2100 seeks to coordinate federal, state and academic information programs relating to the environment of the region. The project will be linked with similar studies in other metropolitan areas and global city regions (Simmonds and Hack 2000). GP 2100 will answer questions that people care about by providing objective, scientifically based information using state-of-the-art forecasting and decision tools and theories. Coupled with the Central Arizona/Phoenix Long-Term Ecological Research Project (CAP LTER) supported by the National Science Foundation, GP 2100 has the potential to launch a network of similar undertakings nationally and internationally.
GP 2100 will develop and present a wide variety of scientific and technical data on the past, present and possible futures of the Phoenix metropolitan region. The project builds on the premise that knowledge can be used to create better lives for future generations. GP 2100 will provide learning and research experiences to six major groups of people.
Goals and Benefits
The goal of GP 2100 is to make the best possible scientific and technical information available in ways that will enable wise, knowledge-based decision-making that can shape the region during the next 100 years. This time frame presents a purposefully longer-term view of the metropolitan region than has previously been developed. While short-term visioning is limited by immediate considerations, a century-long perspective requires the incorporation of mutigenerational concerns and changes in technology. A 100-year time frame also allows for evaluation of impacts of such geologically common events as droughts, major floods and gradual climate changes. In short, GP 2100 will be a strong scientific resource for consideration of the region’s long-term prospects and for creating the kind of future its residents want.
Two types of benefits will flow from the project. The first relates to the future quality of life in the region. An underlying assumption of GP 2100 is that better information will lead to wiser decision-making that will, in turn, result in healthier, more livable communities. Metropolitan Phoenix is expected to double from 3 to 6 million people in the next 20 or 30 years. Meanwhile, the global population will increase from 6 to 9 billion people and will become more urban. Such growth poses many challenges relating to land use, transportation, open space, biodiviersity, urban design, recreation, employment, equity, air quality, water quality and quantity, and the overall quality of life of city regions. The GP 2100 effort will be beneficial to those who are addressing these concerns in Phoenix by providing a prototype of how science-based tools and a regional perspective can better inform long-term decision-making. By viewing the Phoenix region as an urban environmental laboratory, the lessons learned will have implications for the broader scientific and policy communities.
GP 2100 will also be an asset for ASU researchers and students, who will have the opportunity to collaborate in multidisciplinary teams and will have access to state-of-the-art GIS and visualization technologies. New and emerging theories in urban and landscape ecology, decision science, land use and environmental modeling, and biocomplexity will be explored.
Special Features
Several linked products are envisioned to flow from GP 2100. Existing data can be coalesced into a dynamic warehouse of continuously updated regional information. Such a data repository can be presented to the public through an Urban eAtlas, which will be made available in electronic and more conventional forms to provide documentation of existing conditions and enable the construction of future scenarios. The digital version will be available on-line so it may be continuously accessed and updated.
The data archives and Urban eAtlas will contribute to a third major product: Sim Phoenix, an interactive computer game that can help researchers, citizens and decision makers visualize the consequences of “what if” scenarios. Sim Phoenix is a step toward the creation of an even more ambitious visualization project: a Decision Theater where local leaders, citizens, students and researchers can explore future options for the region. The Decision Theater will be a physical space in which scientific data, group dynamics and interactive computer technology are used to develop simulations of the region’s futures and considerations of their consequences. The simulations and their representations will evolve with new computational and representational technologies as well as with new scientific information.
GP 2100 will complement and augment existing long-term monitoring activities being conducted at ASU, such as the CAP LTER project, one of only two such urban LTER sites in the nation. Launching a satellite in cooperation with NASA is one monitoring possibility. This “Phoenix-Sat” would pass over the region twice daily, enabling diurnal measurements of such dynamic parameters as traffic, air quality, soil moisture and construction. It is possible that the Phoenix-Sat could be part of a larger international remote-sensing program for urban resource monitoring. Tools such as the data archives, Urban eAtlas, Sim Phoenix, the Decision Theater and Phoenix-Sat will enable scholars and decision makers alike to probe the major issues that metropolitan areas like Phoenix will face in the coming century. As a result, problems may be foreseen and avoided and opportunities pursued with vigor.
Faculty in the life, physical and social sciences at Arizona State University are currently compiling a comprehensive suite of information about the region. Planners, policy analysts and educators also could identify a series of key response variables and parameters for a Decision Theater. Computer scientists could program this complex information so that it can be displayed in both two- and three-dimensional formats, as well as animated views illustrating changes through time. The data could be automatically updated from dynamic government and university databases, from hundreds of sensors throughout the metropolitan region, and from orbiting satellites.
In this first-of-its-kind Decision Theater, high quality audio and visual presentation systems will include a 180-degree screen, which provides an immersive, synthetic environment along with comfortable ergonomics. This arrangement enables decision makers and researchers to come together to explore, debate and analyze options for the future. The Decision Theater is capable of high-resolution stereoscopic viewing using shuttered glasses. A visitor can have her or his viewing position tracked (”head-tracking”), giving the impression of truly walking within the data and data results, pondering the possible landscapes of the future from different angles. It could be associated with an innovative Planetary Imaging Faculty set up jointly by ASU and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, as well as dance and visual representation projects from ASU’s Institute for Studies in the Arts. While real-time interaction with data and models in the Decision Theater is engrossing, a comparably rich on-line experience is also possible through the use of web-based multimedia, text, data download and upload, and modeling tools. The virtual Decision Theater allows a participant to interact with a Sim Phoenix-like game.
How will the Decision Theater be implemented? Four interactive parameters appear especially crucial for modeling the future: water availability, air quality, open space and land use. ASU and its community and government partners already possess an enormous storehouse of data on these parameters, but the challenge is to combine the data in meaningful ways. To this end, the Greater Phoenix 2100 team, in conjunction with the Arizona Department of Water Resources and the U.S. Geological Survey, is now developing a water availability prototype that would use the hydrologic cycle to model regional water availability using factors of precipitation, supply, evaporation and demand to illustrate water futures both graphically and spatially.
A Model for Other Metropolitan Regions
Generations of citizens and scholars will benefit from Greater Phoenix 2100. The project will result in products that will help community and business leaders make wiser decisions. It will assist local, state, and federal officials in planning and designing programs and policies. The project will aid teachers and students in their understanding of natural and social processes. Greater Phoenix 2100 presents uniquely complex targets for technological, scientific and policy analysis advancements. It will produce and facilitate interaction with massive, typically disparate, datasets. Because its major components are easily transferable to other urban regions, the project can provide a model for other places interested in pursuing similar initiatives. In this century, some two-thirds of the world’s population will live in urban areas. Greater Phoenix 2100 has far-reaching implications concerning the application of knowledge capital to regional and urban decision-making in order to maximize social capital while maintaining the natural capital of the metropolitan region.
Frederick Steiner, an internationally recognized expert on environmental planning, is dean of the School of Architecture at the University of Texas at Austin. He was formerly professor and director of the School of Planning and Landscape Architecture at Arizona State University.
Reference
Simmonds, Roger and Gary Hack, editors. 2000. Global City Regions: Their Emerging Forms. London: Spon Press.
SHARE
Una versión más actualizada de este artículo está disponible como parte del capítulo 4 del libro Perspectivas urbanas: Temas críticos en políticas de suelo de América Latina.
En muchas ciudades brasileñas, los impuestos a la tierra y las edificaciones son muy poco utilizados. Según datos del Instituto Brasileño de Administración Municipal (IBAM), por ejemplo, en la mitad de los municipios de más de 50.000 habitantes el impuesto a la propiedad representa menos del 30% del total de los recursos tributarios. Considerando que para la mayoría de estos municipios los ingresos a cuenta de impuestos locales representan menos del 30% de los recursos totales, los impuestos a la propiedad no sobrepasan al 10% de los recursos financieros de los municipios (incluyendo transferencias intergubernamentales). Tales porcentajes resultan incluso menores en los municipios más pequeños. Otros impuestos basados en la tierra, tales como el impuesto a la transferencia de bienes raíces y el impuesto a las mejoras a la propiedad presentan un patrón de resultados igualmente desalentadores.
Especialmente a partir de la nueva Constitución brasileña de 1998, cuando la responsabilidad principal de planificación del uso de la tierra fue transferida al nivel local, los municipios se han vuelto cada vez más conscientes de que la regulación del uso de la tierra y las inversiones públicas en infraestructura introducen cambios en el valor de la tierra. Muchos empleados oficiales públicos están actualmente tratando de desarrollar estrategias de planificación para capturar parte de los beneficios “gratuitos” resultantes. A la vez, los gobiernos locales están encontrando problemas en la aplicación de instrumentos tradicionales de planificación tales como el Plano Diretor, una medida constitucional que requiere que las ciudades con poblaciones mayores de 20.000 habitantes desarrollen un plan maestro. Estas ciudades se encuentran cada vez más involucradas en el debate sobre la flexibilidad del marco regulativo del uso de la tierra. Consecuentemente, la idea de una zonificación flexible a cambio de contribuciones de los promotores se ha vuelto también popular.
Para investigar los aspectos económicos, financieros y de planificación urbana de estos cambios negociados en el uso de la tierra, el Instituto Lincoln y la Municipalidad de Santo André (Estado de São Paulo) organizaron un programa de tres días sobre “Instrumentos y Técnicas de Financiamiento del Desarrollo Urbano en base a la Tierra” en mayo de 1998. Durante los dos primeros días, empleados municipales de Santo André se reunieron con conferencistas invitados para compartir sus experiencias en instrumentos de zonificación, captura del valor y desarrollo económico local en lugares tan diversos como Nueva York, Ciudad de México y Colombia. Las discusiones abarcaron tres temas generales: la captura del valor y el financiamiento urbano; la planificación urbana y el mercado de la tierra; y las negociaciones y asociaciones público-privadas.
El programa finalizó con un debate público que incluyó a una audiencia regional de aproximadamente 200 planificadores, promotores y representantes de organizaciones no gubernamentales, del sector privado y de las comunidades locales dentro de la región del Gran ABC (siete municipios alrededor de São Paulo, incluyendo a Santo André, que en conjunto constituyen el área industrial más densa de Latinoamérica). Un grupo de discusión sobre la efectividad de las negociaciones en base a la tierra y las asociaciones público-privadas en el contexto brasileño contó con la participación de conferencistas de la Universidad de São Paulo, del sector de bienes raíces y de los gobiernos locales.
Numerosas conclusiones se derivaron del programa. Primero, los cambios negociados del uso de la tierra típicamente se producen en ambientes donde los impuestos a la propiedad no funcionan bien. En Santo André, por ejemplo, las restricciones operativas y legales existentes dificultan el reacondicionamiento del sistema de impuestos a la propiedad (ver Figura 1).
Segundo, los cambios negociados del uso de la tierra en Santo André parecen acompañar un cambio continuo de usos industriales a usos asociados con el moderno sector terciario de servicios. A través del proceso de negociación, se introduce una mayor flexibilidad dentro del existente marco legal, como se ha observado en las recientes negociaciones entre el centro comercial Plaza ABC y Pirelli, la empresa multinacional de fabricación de neumáticos. Tercero, aun cuando las negociaciones del uso de la tierra aparentemente satisfacen expectativas en lo que se refiere a complementar la dinámica de la economía local, no hay una metodología ni un marco bien establecidos que permitan definir reglas claras y estables basadas en un análisis sólido de costo y beneficios. En comparación con experiencias internacionales como la de Nueva York, resulta difícil prever las compensaciones monetarias que se pueden esperar en las ciudades brasileñas y si dichas compensaciones son realmente eficientes (en términos de Pareto) vis-a-vis situaciones en las que el permiso de desarrollo se hubiese negado.
Finalmente, los cambios negociados del uso de la tierra deben ser vistos como un elemento esencial de la estrategia general de desarrollo económico local. En la región del Gran ABC, las asociaciones estratégicas entre inversionistas de los sectores público y privado son cada vez más importantes en vista del proceso constante de reestructuración local y regional que ha tenido dramáticos efectos negativos en los niveles de ingreso y de empleo.
Entre las lecciones que nos ofrece el programa de Santo André está la necesidad de desarrollar mejores medidas para calcular los aumentos del valor de la tierra causados por los cambios de zonificación, a fin de poder desarrollar medios para capturar esos valores a través de sistemas más eficaces de tasación. Además, la experiencia de Nueva York muestra que es mejor recolectar impuestos a tasas más bajas por medio de un sistema universal y estable, que en base a una negociación arbitraria caso por caso, la cual puede prestarse al abuso y a la corrupción.
Jeroen Klink, economista urbano, es consejero del alcalde de Santo André. Anteriormente fue Dissertation Fellow del Instituto Lincoln, y se encuentra completando su tesis de doctorado sobre “Fuentes de Financiamiento Urbano: la Aplicabilidad del Modelo Estándar Económico al Caso Brasileño” en la Escuela de Arquitectura y Urbanismo de la Universidad de São Paulo, Brasil. Luis Carlos Afonso, economista, es Secretario de Finanzas de Santo André. Irineu Bagnariolli Jr., sociólogo urbano, es Secretario de Vivienda y Desarrollo Urbano de Santo André.
Figura 1: Limitaciones a la Revisión del Impuesto a la Propiedad
En 1993, la administración de la ciudad de Santo André aprobó una ley otorgando un descuento del 40% en el impuesto a la propiedad. Dicho descuento iba a ser válido solamente durante ese año. Sin embargo, la reducción ha sido mantenida como resultado de varias cláusulas legales que determinan que el valor del impuesto en el año en curso no puede exceder el valor del año anterior, estableciendo así un límite al impuesto.
Otra restricción al uso más agresivo del impuesto, especialmente a fin de promover una tasación más equitativa, es la interpretación dada por la Corte Suprema de que el impuesto no puede ser progresivo. La única excepción permitida es la aplicación penal por desuso o falta de uso de la propiedad, cláusula que en sí misma depende de la emisión de nuevas leyes federales y que ni siquiera ha sido discutida por el Congreso. (Claudia M. De Cesare, “Usando el Impuesto a la Propiedad para la Captura del Valor: el Caso de Brasil”, Land Lines, enero de 1998).
Durante 1990 y 1991, una administración previa en Santo André trató de otorgar descuentos al impuesto a la propiedad basados en las características físicas, el uso actual y el tamaño de la propiedad, pero la iniciativa fue rechazada posteriormente por dictamen de la Corte a causa de su supuesto carácter progresivo oculto. Así, el límite a los impuestos a la propiedad, a pesar de ser revocado formalmente por una ley posterior, permanece básicamente inalterado, ya que si los impuestos fueran aumentados los sectores más pobres de la población serían los más afectados en forma negativa.
Finalmente, en Santo André y en todas las ciudades brasileñas, el valor del metro cuadrado de tierra está fijado por ley, lo cual impide la capacidad de la administración urbana de aplicar impuestos a la propiedad de bienes raíces de acuerdo con su valor en el mercado.
SHARE
Would you like to experience the results of dedicated city and regional planning achieved with the cooperation and participation of the citizenry? Then you might consider Chattanooga.
Participants in the recent Lincoln Institute conference, “Land Use in the Southeast: Reflections and Directions,” experienced Chattanooga’s renaissance first hand. The conference was the third in a series of programs related to the book, Land Use in America, coauthored by Henry Diamond and Patrick Noonan (Island Press/Lincoln Institute, 1996).
The agenda focused on the challenges facing residents of the Southeast as they work to develop sustainable communities. In his keynote address, the Honorable Zach Wamp, a member of the House of Representatives representing eastern Tennessee, stressed the need to balance the sometimes competing interests of transportation, the environment, research and educational institutions, and the private sector.
Several speakers commented on the national land use scene. Henry Richmond, chairman of the National Growth Management Leadership Project, stated that land use and sustainable development were forgotten issues for many years but are now coming to the forefront again. Why? Because the goals of many powerful interests are being undermined by land use regulations. In addition, more people are interested in alternative patterns of land use that benefit society at large.
Attorney Henry Diamond observed that, despite the centrality of land, land use issues have failed to capture national attention for several reasons. It is difficult to regulate land, and the land pollution/land quality spectrum is hard to measure. Whereas the regulation of air and water falls on the community as a shared resource, the regulation of land falls on individuals. Finally, major environmental groups, until recently, have not given land much attention.
Patrick Noonan, chairman and CEO of the Conservation Fund, noted four emerging national trends:
Norman Christensen, dean of Duke University’s School of the Environment, noted that by the middle of the next century the earth’s population should “level off” at between 10 and 12 billion, nearly twice what it is today. He outlined the basic tenets of ecosystem management: complexity and diversity are crucial; the world has never been the same twice; human use and ecological change represent an endless cycle; connections of all types are important; and, it is never simple.
Juxtaposed with these national views were success stories from the region. Officials from Chattanooga were joined by speakers from Florida, South Carolina, Georgia, Kentucky and North Carolina, who outlined the techniques they are using to gather a constituency for sustainable development. All of them stressed the importance of grassroots community involvement. To be successful in implementing radical changes in land use and density, broad-based agreement among parties is critical. In addition, research and education are needed for well-informed policy making, and certain legislative and regulatory changes, unique to each jurisdiction, must be implemented to permit better, smarter growth.
Norm Christensen’s closing thoughts sum up the conference: “The land we possess is less an inheritance than something we borrow from our grandchildren.”
Kathryn J. Lincoln is chairman of the Lincoln Institute.
SHARE
We are delighted to welcome Dr. H. James Brown as president of the Lincoln Institute, announces Kathryn J. Lincoln, chair of the Institute’s Board of Directors and of the Search Committee. “Jim is an accomplished and innovative academician who has served on the faculty of Harvard University for the past 26 years. He has also directed several research centers that bring together constituencies similar to our own–educators, public officials and private sector representatives concerned about city and regional planning, urban development, housing and land use policies.” Brown begins his tenure on May 1, 1996.
“I am very excited about this opportunity to help focus and expand the Lincoln Institute’s excellent research, education and publication programs in land policy,” Brown adds. “I hold the Institute in the highest regard for its important role in linking academics, local officials and practitioners in the areas of land use, taxation and regulation. I look forward to contributing both my administrative and teaching experience beyond the university setting. Providing decisionmakers in the public and private sectors with up-to-date information on rapidly changing policy concerns is a very important priority for this organization. ”
A native of Indiana, Brown graduated from Ohio Wesleyan University in 1962 with a bachelor’s degree in economics, and subsequently spent a year at the London School of Economics as a research student. He completed his Ph.D. in economics at Indiana University in 1967, and held a post-doctoral fellowship at the university’s Institute for Applied Urban Economics. For the next two years Brown was a research associate in urban economic studies at the National Bureau of Economic Research in New York.
In 1970 Brown was appointed assistant professor and assistant chairman of the city and regional planning department at Harvard University. In 1976 he was promoted to full professor, and in 1981 became chairman of the department. In 1982 Brown was also named director of the MIT-Harvard Joint Center for Urban Studies, which had been established in 1959. The center was reorganized in 1984 as the Joint Center for Housing Studies, a collaborative venture of the Kennedy School of Government and the Graduate School of Design at Harvard. The center is supported by 40 corporate sponsors and other public and private constituencies and is considered the most prestigious research center on housing in the country. Brown initiated the center’s annual report titled The State of the Nation’s Housing, now in its thirteenth year.
Building on his strong ties in the academic and business worlds and the public sector, Brown chaired the 1993 and 1995 sessions of the Housing Leadership Conference, a national forum for discussing and debating major issues affecting the housing industry. Some 100 private, public and nonprofit housing leaders participated in each conference, as well as members of Congress and the Clinton Administration, including Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Henry G. Cisneros.
“I’m especially eager to get involved in the Institute’s education programs,” Brown adds. “I really enjoy teaching, and have developed some new ways of teaching economics that allow the students to work through cases to learn and communicate the concepts as opposed to simply proving or disproving them.” Brown has also taught operations management, total quality management and strategic management courses at the Kennedy School, and three years ago he was voted Teacher of the Year. “I look forward to working with land use practitioners and local policymakers in the Institute’s courses,” he says.
SHARE
Over the past several years, the Lincoln Institute has sponsored executive courses for state planning directors in the Northeast and in the West. In October 2002, more than 25 planning officials from 14 western states met in Portland, Oregon, to compare their experiences, learn from each other’s successes and failures, and receive briefings, lectures and case presentations. A featured panel discussion during that course addressed “The Role of Water in Managing Growth.” This article provides a brief review of alternative policy options to link land use and water supply, and offers some suggestions for further research, education and policy development.
During the summer of 2002, many Colorado communities imposed watering restrictions as historic drought gripped the state. Along Colorado’s Front Range, from Fort Collins to Colorado Springs, officials are now contemplating the possibility of adopting a coordinated program to help homeowners understand when they can, and cannot, water (Smith 2002). At the same time, Governor Bill Owens and other state officials hope to work with the Bush administration to harvest more trees in Colorado’s high-country in hopes of increasing water supply (Stein 2002). The basic idea behind this proposal, based on decades of study of state forests in Colorado, is that by removing around 40 percent of all trees in an area, the runoff from spring snowmelt can be increased significantly (Denver Post 2003). Such a proposal could change the face of Colorado for decades to come.
The situation in Colorado is symptomatic of urban areas throughout the Rocky Mountain West, one of the fastest growing regions in the country, and one of the driest. Finding sufficient water to meet the demands of burgeoning urban areas while also providing water for agricultural, commercial, recreational and environmental uses is one of the region’s most challenging land use issues.
But water is not a problem only in the West. Communities from Florida to Massachusetts experienced some form of water rationing during the summer drought in 2002 (Snyder 2002). Frederick, Maryland, for example, has experienced a water supply crisis due to rapid growth and bad planning. After imposing a ban on new development, city officials approved an ordinance in September 2002 that will limit developers’ access to water once Frederick moves beyond the immediate crisis and lifts the moratorium on construction. As further evidence of the growing need to link growth and land use with water supply, the Environmental Law Institute, the American Planning Association and other organizations cosponsored a conference in February 2003 titled Wet Growth: Should Water Law Control Land Use? It was cosponsored by and held at the Center for Land Resources at Chapman University School of Law in Orange, California.
Policy Options
Water and land are inseparable, yet the need to link growth with water supply in the process of making land use decisions appears to be a relatively recent phenomenon. A preliminary review suggests four prominent policy options to achieve this linkage.
Water Markets
In their 2001 report, Water and Growth in Colorado, researchers at the University of Colorado’s Natural Resources Law Center write, “. . . managing growth through water policy . . . is probably not an option worth considering.” Their conclusion is based, at least in part, on two observations: abundant water supplies in the city of Pueblo have not spurred growth there, and a lack of water has not restricted development in the nation’s fastest-growing region, Douglas County. The authors explain that a more compelling set of issues revolve around the impact of land use and growth on water resources. The increasing demand for municipal water use tends to deplete stream-flows and thereby degrade fisheries, recreational opportunities and other environmental values; increase water pollution; foster inter-state disputes; and increase the price of water. While these impacts are undeniable and create their own set of problems, they distract us from the question of whether, and to what degree, water supply can or should direct growth.
In the West, water is considered a private property right (Getches 1984). It can be separated from the land and may be bought and sold in the free market like any other commodity. In Colorado and other western states, it is common to hear people say, “water flows uphill toward money.” This means that water is reallocated to where it is most highly valued (or to those who can pay the most), as illustrated by the trans-boundary system that diverts water from the western slope of Colorado across the Continental Divide to the metropolitan areas along the eastern slope. Under this legal and institutional system, it is quite common to transfer water rights from agriculture, which accounts for about 75 percent of water use in the West, to ever-expanding urban areas.
Water markets thus facilitate growth by acquiring the water necessary for land use and urban development (Anderson and Leal 2001). But what if a community or region is interested in managing growth to sustain some open space, wildlife corridors, and sufficient water flows for fish, recreational and other environmental values? How can water availability, or more accurately the lack of water, direct growth and land use into more desirable areas, thereby reducing conflicts with other community goals?
Public Trust Doctrine
One way is to establish priorities for water use through the political process. Article II, Section 1, of Hawaii’s constitution states, “All public natural resources are held in trust by the State for the benefit of the people.” Article II, Section 7, says, “The State has an obligation to protect, control, and regulate the use of Hawaii’s water resources for the benefit of its people.” Section 7 goes on to say that the state’s water resources agency shall “establish criteria for water use priorities while assuring appurtenant rights and existing correlative and riparian uses …” Interpreting these constitutional provisions, the Hawaii State Water Code clarifies that the state has both the authority and duty to preserve the rights of present and future generations in the waters of the state, and the state has a duty to take the public trust into account in the planning and allocation of water resources.
Hawaii’s public trust doctrine is not uncommon; most western states have similar language in their constitutions (Sax 1993). Hawaii appears to be unique, however, in the degree to which it allocates water on the basis of the public trust doctrine. The state’s water code declares that water should not only be allocated to domestic, agricultural, commercial and industrial uses, but also to protect traditional and customary Hawaiian rights, maintain ecological balance and scenic beauty, provide for fish and wildlife, and offer opportunities for public recreation. To achieve these purposes, the Commission on Water Resource Management is responsible for developing a water plan that allocates water on the basis of “reasonable beneficial use,” and for regulating water development and use (Derrickson et al. 2002).
In 1997, the Commission issued water use permits for agricultural and other out-of-stream uses on the Waiahole Ditch water system. The decision was appealed to the Hawaii Supreme Court, which overturned the Commission decision and ruled that the public trust doctrine and the state’s water code provide that, at least in this case, in-stream public uses of water receive special consideration over off-stream private uses. This and similar applications of the public trust doctrine suggest that it is possible for appropriate jurisdictions to establish priorities for water use, and then to allow the market to reallocate water rights from one use to another consistent with the priorities established by law and the political process (Sax 1993).
“Prove-it” Policies
Rather than rely on water markets, a public trust doctrine, or some combination of the two, several jurisdictions around the country have crafted policies that specifically require a link between water availability and development. According to the ordinance adopted in Frederick, Maryland, city officials will review every proposed development and decide whether the city can provide the necessary water. Under the ordinance, 45 percent of surplus water will be allocated for new residential developments, 30 percent for commercial and industrial projects, and 25 percent for other uses, including government buildings and hospitals.
Other states have adopted similar policies that require developers to prove that they have adequate water supplies prior to approving development proposals. According to Charles Unseld, the director of Colorado’s Office of Smart Growth, several communities along Colorado’s Front Range are imposing such restrictions, at least on an ad hoc basis. In October 2001, California Governor Gray Davis signed Senate Bill 221, which requires developers of proposals for subdivisions of 500 units or more to prove they have water rights before they can receive final approval. While this requirement can be avoided by building smaller developments, it nevertheless represents an incremental step in directing growth according to the availability of water.
Perhaps the most sweeping policy framework linking water supply to growth is Arizona’s Groundwater Management Act. Groundwater sources supply roughly one-half of the total annual demand for water in Arizona (Jacobs and Holway, undated). Like most western states, agriculture accounts for about 70 percent of water use in Arizona, although this percent is slowly decreasing as municipal demand increases and the agricultural economy declines. In response to a growing concern over groundwater mining (that is, pumping and using groundwater at a rate faster than it can naturally replenish itself), the legislature passed the Groundwater Management Act (GMA) in 1980, and it was signed by then-Governor Bruce Babbitt.
The GMA created four “active management areas” (AMAs) around the state’s most populous areas: Phoenix, Pinal, Prescott and Tucson; a fifth AMA was created in Santa Cruz in 1993. The primary intent of the GMA is to sustain a long-term balance between the amount of groundwater withdrawn in each management area and the amount of natural and artificial recharge. This is accomplished through a combination of mandatory water conservation requirements and incentives to augment existing supplies. To help achieve the goal of “safe yield,” the GMA prevents new subdivisions from being approved in AMAs unless developers can prove that renewable water supplies are available for 100 years.
During a recent review of the GMA by a Governor’s Commission, water managers in Arizona concluded that the “assured water supply” program is responsible for much of the substantial progress that has been made in fast-growing municipalities to move away from groundwater overdraft toward renewable water supplies, including water from the Colorado River and reuse of effluent.
Another potential policy mechanism to link growth and land use to water supply is the use of urban growth boundaries (UGBs). The statutes that authorize UGBs in Oregon do not currently single out water availability as a variable for determining where the boundary should be located. However, Ethan Seltzer, director of the Institute of Portland Metropolitan Studies at Portland State University, has commented that it is not inconceivable to create a UGB within which developers would be required to prove that water is available for proposed growth.
Water and Land Management Strategies
In addition to asserting policies that explicitly link the availability of water supply to proposed development, there are other ways to meet the demand for more water to support development. Using existing water supplies more efficiently through conservation, xeriscaping and other water-saving measures can free up some water. Drought planning, water harvesting and the use of on-site gray-water systems can also help manage supply to meet demand. Groundwater development and the conjunctive use of surface water and groundwater may be appropriate for some communities. Small-scale and off-stream water storage, while potentially expensive and environmentally controversial, also could help some communities satisfy their thirst for growth.
Another option, mentioned earlier, is to increase water supply through timber harvesting and vegetation management. While some people debate the technical merits of this option, nearly everyone must question its political feasibility. During the past decade, conservation and environmental groups have consistently challenged timber harvesting practices on federal lands throughout the West, often tying-up much needed salvage logging and restoration projects for years in the courts.
The Search for a Land and Water Ethic
A recent issue of National Geographic reports, “Among the environmental specters confronting humanity in the 21st century—global warming, the destruction of rain forests, over-fishing of the oceans—a shortage of fresh water is at the top of the list …” (Montaigne 2002). In the face of what the World Bank refers to as the “grim arithmetic of water,” the author concludes that people around the world seem to emphasize two common approaches to this problem: efficient use of available water supplies, and a belief in using local solutions and free market incentives to emphasize conservation.
The relationship among water, growth and land use is a global problem that will be resolved most effectively at the local and regional level. While this article has reviewed several policy options, it is clear that there is much to be learned from other countries. More research, documentation and analysis of the effectiveness of alternative policies and practices are surely needed if the National Geographic story is correct: that limited water supplies are or will be the number-one environmental issue facing communities.
As we search for effective ways to integrate water, growth and land use, it is instructive to keep in mind the “land ethic” articulated by conservationist Aldo Leopold (1949, 224-225): “A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.” The land ethic, according to Leopold, is based on the premise that the individual is a member of a community of interdependent parts. It provides moral direction on relationships between individuals and society and between humans and the biotic community, which includes soil, plants and animals, or collectively, land and water. This principle should inspire and guide us as we develop effective public policies to sustain communities and landscapes.
Matthew McKinney is director of the Montana Consensus Council, which is housed in the Office of the Governor in Helena, Montana. He is also a faculty associate of the Lincoln Institute, where he teaches courses on resolving land use disputes and regional collaboration, and coordinates the annual course for state planning directors in the West.
References
Anderson, Terry L. and Donald R. Leal. 2001. Free market environmentalism, rev. ed. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Denver Post. 2003. Keep forest bill’s focus on fire (February 11).
Derrickson, S.A.K., et al. 2002. Watershed management and policy in Hawai’i: Coming full circle. American Water Resources Association 38(2).
Getches, David H. 1984. Water law in a nutshell. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co.
Jacobs, Katharine L. and James M. Holway. Undated. Managing for sustainability in Arizona: Lessons learned from 20 years of groundwater management. Unpublished manuscript available from the Arizona Department of Water Resources.
Leopold, Aldo. 1949. A Sand County almanac. New York: Oxford University Press.
Montaigne, Fen. 2002. Water pressure. National Geographic (September):9.
Sax, Joseph L.1993. Bringing an ecological perspective to natural resources: Fulfilling the promise of the public trust. In Natural resources law and policy: Trends and directions, Lawrence J. MacDonnell and Sarah F. Bates, eds. 148-161. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Smith, Jerd. 2002. Cities may equalize water rules. Rocky Mountain News (November 8): 11A.
Snyder, David. 2002. A new direction in water law: Frederick ordinance resembles western U.S. approach. Washington Post (September 23): B01.
Stein, Theo. 2002. A clear-cut drought solution? Logging urged to boost runoff, but eco-groups object. Denver Post (November 10): 1.
SHARE
Matthew McKinney was named director of the Public Policy Research Institute at the University of Montana in 2003, after serving for 10 years as the founding director of the Montana Consensus Council. He is also a senior lecturer at the University of Montana’s School of Law, a partner with the Consensus Building Institute in Cambridge, and a faculty associate of the Lincoln Institute. Matt was a research fellow at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, in 2000 and 2002, and a visiting fellow of the Lincoln Institute in 2000. During the past 18 years, he has designed and facilitated more than 50 multiparty public processes, helping leaders and citizens address issues related to federal land management, land use planning, growth management, water policy, fish and wildlife, and public health and human services. He has published numerous journal articles and is coauthor of The Western Confluence: Governing Natural Resources (Island Press, June 2004).
Land Lines: You have a strong background in facilitation and consensus building. How do you apply that to land use planning?
Matt McKinney: I come to planning largely from a process perspective. Land use issues typically involve multiple parties, and the challenge of planning is to integrate diverse, often conflicting, interests. In my current work with the Public Policy Research Institute I operate on the assumption that one of the most effective ways to develop and implement strategies to sustain livable communities and healthy landscapes is to create opportunities for stakeholders to come together with the best available information to address issues of common concern. In short, the planning process is most effective when it is inclusive, informed and deliberative:
This principled approach has been shown through experience to produce decisions that are broadly supported by the public, and it eases implementation because the key stakeholders have already played their part in shaping the proposed action or plan. Compared to lobbying, litigation and other ways of shaping public policy, it can save time and money. Last—and important for planners—this approach offers an effective way to integrate social and political values within the scientific, technical and legal framework of land use planning. It’s a more cooperative and constructive way for planners and public interests to work together.
LL: Can you give some examples of how these principles work in the real world?
MM: In the northern Rocky Mountains, many communities with limited staff, money and other resources are struggling with double-digit growth, strains on local infrastructure and cultural clashes between newcomers and those with traditional western values. But westerners are infamous for resisting government intrusion—a predictable backlash in a region where the federal government holds sway over more than half of the land base. As a result planners often face a steep climb just to gain the public’s ear on land use issues.
These situations are ripe for inclusive, informed and deliberative approaches, and there are many examples across the West. In Helena, Montana, we helped a broad-based citizens group—including open space advocates, neighborhood leaders, realtors and developers—negotiate new procedures for subdivision reviews. Developers wanted to streamline the subdivision application process, and residents of established neighborhoods wanted to ensure that safeguards remained in place to preserve the small-town feel and curb sprawl. In another case, residents of Jefferson County, Montana, started talking about zoning after a cement plant near an elementary school proposed burning hazardous waste as fuel. The “z” word caused some resistance from local business and industry, notably the cement plant and a nearby mining operation, but we brought in a facilitator who helped a working group of local residents, industry representatives, private property rights advocates and county officials develop a zoning plan.
In both cases, negotiations took the form of deliberative dialogue that lasted about a year. Both groups used joint fact-finding to gather information that was credible to all parties at the table. Then they crafted proposals and submitted them to formal decision-making arenas—city council and county commission, respectively. After careful review, both the new subdivision protocols and the zoning plan were adopted essentially unopposed.
LL: What role do planners play in such processes?
MM: We frequently recommend using an impartial, third-party facilitator to help build trust and more effective working relationships among the stakeholders. A facilitator can also keep the group on task and focused on a common goal. In some cases planners can play this role themselves, but more often they act as conveners or sponsors of a multiparty process, or as vested stakeholders and hands-on participants. Either way, planners can participate more effectively if they have a working knowledge of the principles and strategies of collaborative problem solving.
LL: How can planners obtain this kind of training?
MM: Since 1999 the Lincoln Institute and the Consensus Building Institute have cosponsored a two-day introductory course, Mediating Land Use Disputes, for planning practitioners and others interested in land use decisions. It presents practical insights into negotiating and mediating conflicts over land use and community development. Using interactive exercises, games and simulations, participants receive hands-on experience with collaborative problem solving and public participation. They learn how to dovetail these concepts with existing processes for designing and adopting land use plans and evaluating development proposals. In addition, we are reaching out to 100 planners across 10 western states to enroll in the Planning Fundamentals course offered online through LEO, the Lincoln Education Online program.
LL: What other planning-related programs do you teach?
MM: Again with the Lincoln Institute, I have been involved in a relatively new and much-needed program for state planning directors in 13 western states, modeled on a similar program in the Northeast. These seminars provide a forum for leaders within state government to compare their experiences, learn from each others’ successes and failures, and build a common base of practical knowledge that will serve them in their individual efforts and in the region generally. The intent is not to promote any particular approach to planning and growth, but to explore a range of strategies to respond to growth and land use challenges in the West. The level of interest goes well beyond the planning officials themselves, as evidenced by the list of cosponsors: the Council of State Governments-WEST (an association of state legislators), the Western Governors Association, the Western Municipal Conference and Western Planners Resources.
LL: Is regionalism in the West a new emphasis in your work?
MM: Land use issues often transcend political and jurisdictional boundaries. Coping with sprawl, water and air quality, economic development and the effects of globalization demands practical, local solutions that also work within the bigger picture. Research indicates that many land use issues are most efficiently addressed at a regional scale. Instead of stopping at the county line or the border between federal and private land, planners are now thinking in terms of the “problemshed” or the “natural territory” of the problem.
More and more regional initiatives are being designed to address transboundary matters. Some augment existing government institutions, but most are more ad hoc and rely on the principles of collaboration to engage people with diverse interests and viewpoints. When we inventoried such initiatives throughout the West, we were as surprised as anyone by the sheer number and variety of ongoing regional efforts. They range from ad hoc, community-based groups like the Applegate Partnership in the Siskiyou Mountains of southwestern Oregon, which seeks to promote and sustain the ecological health of land within its watershed, to substantial government entities with regulatory authority like the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (McKinney, Fitch and Harmon 2002).
LL: How do you transfer this work to other regions?
MM: Recently I have worked with the Lincoln Institute to conduct clinics on regional collaboration for several interstate efforts in the New Jersey-New York area, including a watershed management plan for the Delaware River Basin Commission.
Another project is a collaborative effort among local, state and federal agencies in the New York-New Jersey Highlands, the 1.5-million-acre region between the Delaware and lower Connecticut rivers. State and federal land managers are assessing changes in land cover and use, identifying significant natural areas for protection, and developing strategies to protect the 12-county region’s open space and natural resources.
In addition, we have designed a two-day course titled Regional Collaboration: Learning to Think and Act Like a Region. It provides a conceptual framework and practical skills to train planners, local elected officials, small business owners, advocates and educators to initiate, design, coordinate and sustain regional initiatives. With the involvement of several national and regional organizations, the Institute cosponsored the first course in spring 2003 in Salt Lake City and offered it again in March 2004 at Lincoln House in Cambridge.
Reference
McKinney, Matthew, Craig Fitch, and Will Harmon. 2002. Regionalism in the West: An inventory and assessment. Public Land and Resources Law Review 23:101–191.
The inventory is also available online at www.crmw.org/Assets/misc/regionalinventory.asp and www.crmw.org/Assets/misc/regarticle.htm
Related Articles
Carbonell, Armando, and Lisa Cloutier. 2003. Planning for growth in western cities. Land Lines 15(3):8–11.
McKinney, Matthew. 2003. Linking growth and land use to water supply. Land Lines 15(2):4–6.
McKinney, Matthew, and Will Harmon. 2002. Land use planning and growth management in the American West. Land Lines 14(1):1–4.
