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
Harvey M. Jacobs is on the faculty of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, where he holds a joint appointment as professor in the Department of Urban and Regional Planning and the Institute for Environmental Studies and serves as director of the Land Tenure Center. His research and teaching investigate public policy, theory and philosophy for land use and environmental management. During the last decade he has focused his domestic work on the impact of the private property rights movement. He wrote the book Who Owns America? Social Conflict over Property Rights and the Lincoln Institute policy focus report State Property Rights Laws: The Impacts of Those Laws on My Land, and his work has been published in academic and professional journals in the U.S. and Western Europe. Jacobs also has investigated international issues of land use policy formation by national ministries and new local governments in Eastern Europe and southern Africa, with a specific focus on peri-urban (urban fringe) land management and the definition of private property rights. He is particularly interested in how societies define property and the policy structures they develop to manage the public-private property relationship.
Jacobs is a faculty associate of the Lincoln Institute, where he teaches courses for policy makers and practitioners in land use planning and management. He developed a Lincoln course titled “Land Use in America,” originally designed for staff of the Environmental Protection Agency and now available through open enrollment, which he has taught several times in Cambridge. As part of his current education and research project with the Institute, he will lead a seminar in Cambridge in May on the future of private property rights in America, and he is working on another book to be titled Private Property in the 21st Century. This essay outlines his views on the uncertain future of the American ideal of private property rights.
Property Rights and Environmental Planning
Social conflict over property rights is at the center of all U.S. land and environmental planning and policy. One key source of this conflict is the differing interpretations of the so-called Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment in the Constitution’s Bill of Rights: “. . . nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
Those who support the integrity of private property rights and stand against land use and environmental regulation by state and local governments can be understood as participants in one of the most significant U.S. land use and environmental movements of recent times. This movement is referred to by a variety of labels, including the private property rights movement, the land rights movement, the wise use movement and, by the environmental community, the anti-environmental movement. This movement’s leaders have succeeded in keeping their agenda before the U.S. Congress since the early 1990s, though as yet no action has resulted from their efforts. More significantly, they have succeeded in having bills reflecting their agenda introduced in all 50 states, and they have secured the passage of significant legislation in over half of the states. In addition, they have promoted significant parallel activity in over 300 counties. Perhaps most important, they have reshaped public debate on how the media communicates to the American public about issues of land and environmental management, and the balancing of the public good with individual property rights.
The potential power of the property rights movement became even more important after the 2000 elections. While governor of Texas, George W. Bush exhibited strong sympathies to the arguments of the property rights movement and supported state-based legislation in accordance with the movement’s goals. Among his most prominent initial appointments as president were the selection of a secretary of the interior and a solicitor general with explicit ties to the property rights movement and commitments to the property rights issue. These developments, together with renewed activity at the state level, indicate that the property rights movement seems to be alive and well in America. The passage of Measure 7 in the state of Oregon in the fall of 2000 is of particular interest, since this measure is one of the most stringent state property rights laws in what is considered one of the most progressive states in its land use and environmental management policies. The measure, passed by initiative, requires landowners to be compensated if the value of their property is reduced by a state or local law or regulation. It is under state constitutional challenge by land use and environmental groups, and its implementation is being held back until this challenge is settled by the Oregon courts.
Historical Context
Underlying the policy agenda of the property rights movement and the conflict with the land use and environmental movements is a fundamental debate about U.S. history, the cultural myths that inform our understanding of ourselves as a nation, and the intended meanings of selected provisions of the Bill of Rights. From the perspective of the property rights movement, strong individual private property rights are an integral component of our democratic society. Drawing from the writings of the nation’s founders such as John Adams, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, these proponents argue that liberty, equality and citizenship in a democracy, in fact democracy itself, can not be secured and sustained without a robust set of property rights essentially unassailable by the power of the state. From this perspective, land use and environmental laws become a threat to the very nature of democratic way of life. Richard Epstein, one of the leading legal scholars articulating this view, has suggested that “the [entire] system of land use planning is a form of socialism in microcosm” (Epstein 1992, 202).
In opposition, the land use and environmental movements also draw from the writings of the founders, including Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, to argue that property rights are created by the public sector to serve social ends, and that citizens’ rights in property have to bend and flex with society’s changing needs over time. Land use and environmental proponents tend to make arguments about rights and responsibilities in property, rather than to see individual rights as preexisting or standing before the rights of society, as expressed through the actions of government.
The historical challenge for this debate is the that private property has been subject to substantial local regulation even since colonial times, and it has been fundamentally reshaped at several times in American history, to reflect changing social values and changing technology. For example, in the 1860s the property ownership rights of slave-owning plantation farmers in the South and in the 1960s the commercial trespass rights of lunch-counter owners were significantly reshuffled to reflect changing social values about race relations. In the early part of the twentieth century it was necessary to reconceptualize the property rights bundle as a function of the invention of the airplane and the seeming nonsense of allowing individual owners to claim trespass for air travel above their property.
Changing Conditions
Social reformulation of private property to reflect changing conditions continues. During the 1990s resistance by male-only membership clubs and male-only colleges to the admission of women was prominent in the media and the courts. Like the prior slavery and civil rights situations, here, too, individuals lost their rights in property, absent compensation, to reflect changing social values.
Thus, we know that private property is not a static concept or entity. In America it has changed since its creation during colonial times, and there is every reason to believe it will continue changing in the future. In fact, for over fifty years some ecologists and land ethicists—most prominently and enduringly Aldo Leopold (1949)—have called for a fundamental reinvention of property, based on new scientific knowledge that is less individual-rights oriented and more oriented toward social and ecological responsibilities.
It is reasonable to say that both sides to this debate have legitimate concerns and perspectives on the issue. Some property rights reforms through land use and environmental planning and policy, when taken too far, do seem to violate fundamental American understandings about the social contract that underlies national life. On the other hand, unassailable bundles of private property rights seem to leave society in a place that does not allow for change through the integration of new technologies, new social values, or new concepts of ourselves and the land on which we live.
Social conflict over property rights is at the center of all U.S. land and environmental planning and policy. However, much of the current scholarly inquiry and legislative and judicial debate that occurs now is formalized posturing, with little real communication around an issue that is one of the most central to our democratic society. Too often, the well-known players trot out their already settled analyses and opinions and wave them at one another. Little real progress occurs, either in intellectual understanding of these matters or in policy innovation.
The goal of my current work is to get key actors to put aside their rancor and agree to talk with one another instead of at one another. Is it possible to move beyond the broad rhetoric in this debate to a determination of clear, specific areas of agreement and disagreement about the place and role of the property rights bundle and the concept of property rights in our American democratic-legal schema? The challenge is twofold: accepting that private property is fundamental to the American character and the design of American democracy, and acknowledging that private property has changed significantly through the centuries and thus will continue to change. The issue is not if private property will evolve, but how it will evolve.
As we seek to address this issue, many questions present themselves. How much will new ecological knowledge and social values transform our sense of what is mine to use (and misuse and abuse) as I please? Is the evolutionary transformation of private property a slippery slope that eventually undermines the viability of contemporary democratic forms of governance? Are the ideals and principles of the founding fathers about the relationship of land ownership to liberty and democracy irrelevant in a world of urban wage earners, in contrast to the world of farmers, foresters and ranchers for which they were formulated? These are among the challenges we face in trying to untangle a puzzle that is the key to the future of American (and increasingly global) land use and environmental planning.
References
Epstein, Richard. 1992. Property as a Fundamental Civil Right, California Western Law Review 29(1):187-207.
Jacobs, Harvey M. 1998. Who Owns America? Social Conflict over Property Rights. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
——. 1999. Fighting Over Land: America’s Legacy . . . America’s Future? Journal of the American Planning Association 65(2):141-149.
——. 1999. State Property Rights Laws: The Impacts of Those Laws on My Land. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Leopold, Aldo. 1968 [1949]. A Sand County Almanac. London and New York: Oxford University Press.
SHARE
An apparent paradox exists in developing countries between a more progressive definition of property rights and current trends toward privatization. On one hand, most proposals and programs of urban management have required the adoption of a socially oriented approach to property rights, which guarantees broader scope for state intervention in controlling the process of land use and development. This is particularly the case with land regularization programs. On the other hand, the widespread adoption of liberalization policies and privatization schemes has reinforced a traditional, individualistic approach to property rights, thus undermining progressive attempts to discipline the use and development of urban property. Are these trends mutually exclusive or can they be reconciled to some extent?
Two related workshops for policymakers, urban managers and academics were held in Johannesburg, South Africa, in late July to address this paradox. The Sixth “Law and Urban Space” Workshop was cosponsored by the International Research Group on Law and Urban Space (IRGLUS) and the University of the Witwatersrand’s Centre for Applied Legal Studies (CALS). The Lincoln Institute supported that workshop and also sponsored a seminar on “Security of Land Tenure in South Africa, Sub-Saharan Countries, Brazil and India.”
The Conceptual Framework for Law and Urban Space
IRGLUS, a Working Group of the Research Committee on Sociology of Law of the International Sociological Association (ISA), seeks to discuss critically the legal dimension of the urbanization process, thus promoting a long-needed dialogue between legal studies and urban environmental studies. Most urban studies have reduced law-including legal provisions, judicial decisions and the overall legal culture-to its instrumental dimension. Law is dismissed by some as if it were just a political instrument of social discrimination and political exclusion. It is taken for granted by others as if it were merely a technical, unproblematic instrument that can provide immediate solutions to escalating urban and environmental problems.
Among urban scholars and professionals alike, there is little understanding of the reasons for the growing illegal practices identified in urban areas, particularly those concerning the use and development of land. Existing data suggests that if both access to land and construction patterns are taken into account between 40 and 70 percent of the population in the major cities in developing countries are somehow disobeying the prevailing legal provisions. And this figure is not confined to low-income land users.
Few studies have asked why this phenomenon of urban illegality has happened, why it matters and what can be done about it. Most observers fail to see the apparent divide between the so-called legal and illegal cities as an intricate web in which there are intimate though contradictory relationships between the official and the unofficial rules, and between the formal and the informal urban land markets.
The combination of the lack of an efficient official housing policy in most developing countries and the actions of largely uncontrolled market forces does not provide adequate housing solutions for the vast majority of the urban population. Far from being restricted to the urban poor, urban illegality needs to be addressed with urgency, given its grave social, political, economic and environmental consequences to the overall urban structure and society.
However, if urban illegality is but a reflection of the powerful combination of land markets and political systems, it is also the result of the often elitist and exclusionary nature of the legal system prevailing in many developing countries. Both the adoption of legal instruments, which do not reflect the existing social realities affecting access to urban land and housing, and the lack of proper legal regulation have had a most perverse role in aggravating, if not determining, the process of socio-spatial segregation.
Definitions of Property Rights
One the most significant problems affecting urban management in this context is that, despite the existence of rhetorical provisions, urban environmental policies frequently lack legal support in the basic provisions of the legal system in force, especially those of a constitutional nature. The central issue to be addressed in this regard is property rights, specifically urban real property. Indeed, in many countries the progressive, socially oriented assumptions of urban policies, implying as they do a broad scope for state action, are frequently at odds with the constitutional definition of property rights.
Several presentations in the IRGLUS/CALS Workshop discussed how the traditional approach to individual property rights prevailing in many developing countries, typical of classical liberalism, has long favored economic exchange values to the total detriment of the principle of the social function of property. Many significant attempts at promoting land use planning and control, including the legal protection of the environment and historical-cultural heritage, have been undermined by a dominant judicial interpretation that significantly reduces the scope for state intervention in the domain of individual property rights. Attempts to promote land regularization have also been frequently opposed by both landowners and conservative courts, even in situations where the land occupation has been consolidated for a long time.
Whereas the excessive, speculative hoarding of privately owned urban land has been tacitly encouraged, the effective implementation of a long-claimed social housing policy has been rendered more difficult due to the need to compensate the owners of vacant land at full market prices. In many countries, the individual property rights system inherited as a result of colonial rule often fails to take into account traditional customary values in the definition of property rights. Since these countries have largely failed to reform the foundations of legal-political liberalism, the discussion of so-called neo-liberalism is a false question in this context.
The Workshop participants placed special emphasis on the legal-political conditions for the recognition of security of tenure. It was noted that agents as diverse as social movements, NGOs and international finance organizations have increasingly made use of different though complementary humanitarian, ethical, sociopolitical and, more recently, economic arguments to justify the need to adopt public policies on this matter. Legal arguments also need to be adopted, including long-standing provisions of international law and the fundamental principles of the rule of law concerning housing and human rights, so that a new, socially oriented and environmentally friendly approach to property rights is recognized.
Much of the discussion focused on whether security of tenure can only and/or necessarily be achieved through the recognition of individual property rights. In fact, the analysis of several experiences suggested that the mere attribution of property rights does not entail, per se, the achievement of the main goal of most regularization programs-that is, the full integration of illegal areas and communities into the broader urban structure and society. The general consensus was that a wide range of legal-political options should be considered, from the transfer of individual ownership to some forms of leasehold and/or rent control to more innovative forms, still unexplored, of collective ownership or occupation with varying degrees of state control.
It was argued that the recognition of urban land tenure rights has to take place within the broader, integrated and multi-sectoral scope of city (and land use) planning, and not as an isolated policy, to prevent distortions in the land market and thus minimize the risk of evicting the traditional occupants. Examples from case studies in Brazil, India and South Africa have shown that, whatever the solution adopted in a particular case, it will only work properly if it is the result of a democratic and transparent decision-making process that effectively incorporates the affected communities.
Above all, it was accepted that the redefinition of property rights, and therefore the recognition of security of tenure, needs to be promoted within a broader context in which urban reform and law reform are reconciled. Law reform is a direct function of urban governance. It requires new strategies of urban management based upon new relations between the state (especially at the local level) and society; renewed intergovernmental relations; and the adoption of new forms of partnership between the public and the private sectors within a clearly defined legal-political framework.
Law reform fundamentally requires the renovation of the overall decision-making process to combine traditional mechanisms of representative democracy and new forms of direct participation. Indeed, many municipalities in several countries have recently introduced new mechanisms to allow the participation of urban dwellers in several stages of the decision-making process affecting urban management. Examples are at the executive level through the creation of committees, commissions, etc., or the legislative level through popular referendums or by recognizing individual and/or collective initiatives in the law-making process, as well as the formulation of popular amendments to proposed bills. A most interesting and promising experience is that of the “participatory budgeting” adopted in several Brazilian cities, in which community-based organizations participate in the formulation of the local investment budgets.
Finally, the need to promote a comprehensive legal reform and judicial review can no longer be neglected, especially in order to promote the recognition of collective rights, to broaden collective access to courts and to guarantee law enforcement. India and Brazil, for instance, have already incorporated the notion of collective rights in their legal systems to some extent, thus enabling the judicial defense of so-called “diffuse interests” in environmental and urban matters by both individuals and NGOs.
In other words, urban reform and the recognition of security of tenure are not to be attained merely through law, but through a political process that supports the recognition of the long-claimed “right to the city” not only as a political notion, but as a legal one, too. There is a fundamental role to be played in this process by lawyers, judges and prosecutors for the government. However, the collective action of NGOs, social movements, national and international organizations, and individuals within and without the state apparatus is of utmost importance to guarantee both the enactment of socially oriented laws and, more importantly, their enforcement.
If these are truly democratic times, the age of rights has to be also the age of the enforcement of rights, and especially of collective rights. It is only through a participatory process that law can become an important political arena to promote spatial integration, social justice and sustainable development.
Edesio Fernandes is a lawyer and a research fellow at the Institute of Commonwealth Studies of the University of London. He is coordinator of IRGLUS-International Research Group on Law and Urban Space and coeditor (with Ann Varley) of Illegal Cities: Law and Urban Change in Developing Countries (Zed Books, London and New York, 1998).
SHARE
Changes in the global economy, telecommunications and transportation systems are causing cities throughout the world to look at large-scale development projects as a way to restructure land uses and stimulate the local economy. For example, large, well-located areas previously occupied by railroad facilities and related transportation and industrial uses have been left abandoned in many mid-sized cities as more goods are now shipped in containers from a small number of major ports and terminals.
Statutory restrictions on state-owned enterprises have limited options to release these underutilized lands to the private market or to develop them as public projects. With increased privatization and the removal of restrictions, these properties would appear to be ideal locations for successful public/private development partnerships. However, while such monumental urban developments may seem like a panacea, they also raise many concerns about implementation and unanticipated impacts on other neighborhoods of the city, as well as competition with other cities.
Cordoba is representative of cities engaged in strategic planning to restructure local land uses under conditions of a changing macroeconomic and institutional environment. One of the key questions for these cities is to what extent can a major new development, in this case a teleport, effectively stimulate economic diversity and revitalize a neglected area.
Conditions in Cordoba
The City of Cordoba, with a population of approximately 1.3 million people, is strategically located in the geographic center of Argentina and has well-established linkages to the capital of Buenos Aires and to major cities in Chile, Brazil and Uruguay. Cordoba has long been an industrial center focusing on the production of cars, planes, trains and machinery, as well as consumer goods such as food, shoes, clothing and leather products. More recently, the city has expanded its service sector for both local and regional needs.
As Argentina has experienced economic stabilization and restructuring of its economy, Cordoba has gained greater potential to become a thriving center of Mercosur, the regional business district of south central South America. However, one of the city’s most vexing obstacles remains its competition with Buenos Aires.
Like many Latin American cities, Cordoba is also experiencing increased decentralization, movement toward a polycentric urban structure, and related socio-economic problems. Several years ago the city embarked on a strategic planning process that involved a broad cross-section of constituencies and resulted in a 1996 plan that identified some immediate economic development needs and other matters requiring further analysis and implementation.
As part of an ongoing collaboration between city officials and the Lincoln Institute, a seminar held in Cordoba in April 1997 examined the regulation and promotion of the land market. (1) One high-priority idea that emerged from those discussions related to the development of a teleport on underutilized central-city land. A committee formed to address the planning and implementation of such a facility included municipal officials, private sector business interests and members of the local university community.
The teleport envisioned for Cordoba is a mixed-use development comprising office space, convention facilities and hotels along with other ancillary land uses. The provision of state-of-the-art office facilities is considered a key objective to meet the city’s needs as both a regional center and a national location for some firms. These facilities will have elaborate telecommunications infrastructure and will be developed with a combination of public and private sector investment. One of the first projects is to be a hotel developed by the municipality within an historic structure.
The proposed location for the teleport is a 40-hectare site in the center of the city adjacent to the Suquia River. The site includes old railway lines and has good access to major roads linking the Mercosur region. The land is currently in both public and private ownership, and it is anticipated that some land transfers will be required to undertake the project.
Observations and Recommendations
To help the committee finalize its plans for the teleport, the city of Cordoba and the Lincoln Institute organized a second seminar in April 1998 to discuss concerns about implementation of the project. Comparative case studies of large-scale public/private developments in Toronto, Canada, and Sao Paulo, Brazil, provided useful perspectives on the problems and challenges faced by those cities and offered lessons for examining the design and likely prospects for the proposed teleport.
A key consideration is the teleport’s large scale relative to the existing local market, which suggests, at the very least, that the project needs to be phased in to ensure orderly development. Related to the project’s size are its impacts on other land in the city, including sites that have the potential for similar types of development. The relative attractiveness of the chosen site may adversely affect development of non-residential land uses in other designated growth areas of the city. At the same time, it is important to understand the depth and strength of the market for the specific uses intended for the proposed teleport site.
A related concern is the project’s potential negative impacts on existing and expanding residential neighborhoods in the area. On the other hand, the success of the teleport development could benefit the neighborhood if the residents are integrated into the planning and implementation process.
Among the lessons to be learned from other cities’ experience is the value of having a manageable set of objectives, and some seminar participants feared that the Cordoba committee was being overly ambitious. A second lesson regards the need for extreme care in selecting the location for a major new development. While the target location for the teleport was not considered deficient in any specific respect, it had not been selected as the result of a systematic analysis. Rather, this is a case where the city is trying to take advantage of an opportunity to develop a plan for an available site that urgently calls for reuse.
A third admonition came from the private sector, which has special needs in terms of access, infrastructure and costs. Some qualified market research can shed light on a host of issues including the extent to which Cordoba could hope to compete with Buenos Aires as a local or regional headquarters for domestic or international firms. Clearly the intended private sector beneficiaries must be involved directly in the conceptual development and planning of the project.
Several weeks after the seminar, the city commissioned a study to aid the implementation strategy for the teleport based on these concerns and recommendations. The study will also investigate potential instruments to effect land value capture to provide infrastructure financing and mechanisms to structure the kinds of public/private partnerships that appear to be necessary for the success of the teleport project.
A final general observation is that officials in Cordoba, or any city considering large-scale urban development, need to move rapidly beyond the study phase and establish training and other support systems for local leaders and practitioners to enhance their capacity to manage the project. Skills and experience are needed to assess the functioning of land markets, develop requisite technical capabilities, negotiate with the private sector, and oversee financial management, utility regulation, property taxation, land regulations and their complex interactions. The challenge in any such undertaking is to balance sufficient planning and research with the need to take advantage of development opportunities as they arise and to learn from the process as it evolves.
David Amborski is professor in the School of Urban and Regional Planning at Ryerson Polytechnic University in Toronto. Douglas Keare, a senior fellow of the Lincoln Institute, has experience with strategic planning for large cities in developing countries.
1. See “Strategic Planning in Cordoba,” Douglas Keare and Ricardo Vanella, Land Lines, September 1997.
Figure 1: Questions for Large-scale Developments
These topics and questions guided the seminar discussions in Cordoba, and they may be useful to other cities considering large-scale development projects on underutilized urban lands.
Understanding the Land Market: How will the local land market respond to large-scale public interventions such as the proposed teleport? What is the demand capacity for state-of-the-art office buildings in the region? What are the potential mechanisms for intervening in the land market to enhance the chances of success for this type of project?
The Urban Impacts of Large Projects on Underutilized Land: What are the impacts of this type of large-scale project on adjacent lands and competitive locations within the metropolitan area? How can infrastructure use be optimized? What alternatives could be explored to change the existing zoning structure?
Instruments of Promoting and Financing Private Investments in Urban Regeneration Projects: What financial instruments can be used in this type of development in conjunction with private sector participation? What instruments for private investments have been most successful? How can these be used with public/private partnerships? What benefits, disadvantages or complications might result from these partnerships?
Mechanisms of Redistribution and Land Value Capture: How can incremental land value be identified and estimated? How can land value capture schemes be used up front to finance the infrastructure for this project? What alternative instruments may be used for this purpose? What institutional reforms or partnerships might be necessary to implement these schemes and to serve as incentives for further development?
SHARE
Una versión más actualizada de este artículo está disponible como parte del capítulo 5 del libro Perspectivas urbanas: Temas críticos en políticas de suelo de América Latina.
México está comenzando a crear un entorno propicio para utilizar las plusvalías para fines del desarrollo. Las recientes reformas constitucionales y jurídicas han permitido un proceso más claro para la adjudicación y comercialización de la tierra. Los mercados de bienes raíces están suplantando gradualmente los rígidos arreglos para la tenencia de la tierra que hicieron surgir los mercados informales caracterizados por acuerdos confusos, a menudo arbitrarios, y por los altos costos de las transacciones. El sector privado se está enfocando hacia las áreas de viviendas de bajos ingresos y los arreglos entre el sector público y privado que buscan un desarrollo urbano equilibrado y sostenible.
El Estado de México ha lanzado un programa integral, llamado PRORIENTE, para promover la interacción entre el gobierno, las empresas y la comunidad con el fin de administrar y financiar conjuntamente el desarrollo urbano en la región oriental del estado. PRORIENTE tiene como visión la creación de “nuevas ciudades” alrededor de la megalópolis de Ciudad de México, que se caractericen por un crecimiento equilibrado entre la densificación demográfica, las actividades generadoras de ingresos y la protección del medio ambiente. La creación de empleos en los mismos asentamientos nuevos y en sus alrededores es un objetivo social y económico primordial del programa.
Dado el patrón intrincado de intereses involucrados, PRORIENTE ha adoptado un enfoque intersectorial e interjurisdiccional. De hecho, PRORIENTE requiere que el Estado de México tome la iniciativa para coordinar las políticas e instrumentos fiscales y de tierras entre el gobierno federal, el gobierno de oposición del Distrito Federal recién elegido y los numerosos municipios que en su mayoría están en control de los partidos de oposición.
PRORIENTE enfrenta enormes desafíos:
En vista de estos obstáculos y desafíos, los dirigentes de PRORIENTE han adoptado un enfoque participativo y negociador cuyos resultados empiezan a ser visibles. Las empresas han integrado conglomerados a gran escala capaces de cubrir las enormes necesidades de capital y tecnología de gestión que tiene la región. El gobierno federal, el Distrito Federal, los municipios y las comunidades son bienvenidos en la mesa de negociación para participar en un proceso continuo que nutre un programa en expansión y no una política o meta institucional específica.
El Instituto Lincoln reconoce que este proyecto constituye una excelente oportunidad para estudiar la compleja función de la tierra como factor estratégico para el desarrollo urbano en toda América Latina. En abril pasado, el Instituto coordinó un seminario sobre mercados urbanos en la ciudad de Toluca y sigue ejerciendo su función como caja de resonancia para los legisladores y oficiales ejecutores de políticas del Estado de México y demás actores públicos y privados que participan en PRORIENTE.
Además, un equipo del Instituto Lincoln coopera actualmente con otras instituciones y profesionales para intercambiar experiencias internacionales en lo que refiere al proceso de creación de políticas y el aspecto operativo del programa PRORIENTE. Se presta atención especial a la sustentabilidad y posibilidad de duplicación de las estrategias que facilitan la transición desde sistemas restrictivos de tenencia de la tierra, gestiones con deficientes impuestos a la propiedad y recursos fiscales sumamente centralizados, hacia mercados inmobiliarios competitivos e iniciativas locales para el uso de la tierra que fomenten el desarrollo. El Instituto utilizará esta experiencia en México para diseñar cursos en otros países que se encuentran en situaciones semejantes.
Fernando Rojas, docente invitado del Instituto Lincoln, es académico en el campo jurídico y analista de políticas públicas en Colombia. Anteriormente ha sido docente invitado en el Centro David Rockefeller para Estudios Latinoamericanos de la Universidad de Harvard. Alfonso Iracheta es secretario técnico de PRORIENTE y director de planeación del Estado de México.
SHARE
Driven by an awareness of population expansion and the difficulties that follow growth, Oregon’s Departments of Transportation and of Land Conservation and Development created the “Smart Development” program. The state retained Leland Consulting Group and Livable Oregon to define the goals of Smart Development, to identify obstacles to its execution and to enjoin the development community in discussions about how to implement its goals.
Smart Development is land use that:
In examining over 60 projects across the country that attempt comprehensive solutions to problems of urban growth, the consultant team looked at examples of “new urbanism,” as well as infill development, subdivisions, affordable housing, adaptive re-use and neighborhood revitalization. While common factors exist among all projects, none of the ones that are successful for their developers satisfy all Smart Development goals at once. The good news is that careful attention to local market conditions and demographics can result in successful projects that do satisfy many of these goals.
Why Smart Development Raises Financing Questions
Projects that satisfy some goals are unlikely to satisfy others because the goals may have different land use solutions which—when built in current markets—are in conflict. Proponents of neotraditional, transit-oriented, small-lot, pedestrian-oriented, mixed-use and grid-platted development have bundled these styles as a single concept. Developers and lenders do not understand the markets, values and risks for these hybrid products.
When we surveyed lenders about the factors that affect their decision to finance Smart Development projects, they explained unequivocally that financing of innovation required clear limits on the risk the lender could accept. While factors such as preleasing and on-site management were considered important, lenders strongly preferred working with a developer who had a track record, financial capacity and experience in the product type.
Lenders also expressed doubts about the willingness of the secondary market to lend on innovative projects. The problem is not innovation in physical design itself, but lenders’ anxieties about FannieMae’s “pass-through” requirement: the bank is financially responsible for the project through foreclosure of the asset. FannieMae support does not insulate the bank from the risk of default. Since banks do not want to own real estate, innovative project types that cannot show strong track records cause anxiety that is not allayed by securitization.
Overcoming the Obstacles
There are three technical obstacles to financing Smart Development:
A fourth obstacle is financial, relating to the first phase provision of new infrastructure.
Appraisal and Comparables: Standard appraisals usually focus on the housing product without accounting for the economic value produced by higher quality infrastructure, adjacent services, pedestrian amenities, and access to transit. By comparing only housing units, appraisals allot them the value that they would have in adjoining subdivisions that contain none of the amenities. Yet, new projects that we reviewed were often higher in price than the surrounding market. The quality of new designs may justify pricing, but appraisals based on the local area did not support the same percentage of purchase price as for nearby units. Smart Development projects also required proportionately higher cash down-payments, making the units harder to buy (and harder for the developer to sell).
It must be emphasized that Smart Development features are positive attributes that have long-term effects on value. Appraisal is regularly performed involving regression equations to model the economic value of positive externalities and could be applied to this area to produce new standards for evaluation of Smart Development. This process needs research but is well within the professional purview of the appraisal community.
New Market Studies: Smart Development, with its sophisticated land use and concepts such as inclusion of retail into subdivision development, attracts different demographic groups than standard development. Income levels per capita are higher, household sizes are smaller, and the use of transit and other services per person is often greater.
To overcome feasibility and appraisal obstacles, it is useful to consider Smart Development not as a single market concept but as a series of land use solutions that incorporate traditional real estate products in innovative ways. The market for the products can then be assessed in the same way as existing similar land uses that have attracted the demographic groups noted above—older neighborhoods with the sort of land use proposed in these projects. Through this method it is possible to avoid the pitfalls of “trend” studies that are unable to assess the market for new products.
Presentation of Smart Development to Lenders: The business plan for new products describes how products were arrived at in response to market niches and supporting demographics and sales potential. Every aspect of the business is revealed: project principals and roles; financial structure; applied start-up capital; reserves for operational deficits; and projections of revenues, cash flows and profits. The plan illustrates potential risks and suggests mitigations for risk should conditions not meet expectations.
Presentation of real estate development is typically done through market trend studies and architectural drawings. Neither of these modes addresses the issues raised in a business plan. It may be worthwhile for proactive lenders to consider offering assistance with business planning and presentation of innovative projects to alleviate the anxieties of capital investors and loan boards.
First Phase Financial Feasibility: In many western U.S. cities, grid street plans were built by the city and then builders provided the houses. After World War II, American cities stopped creating streets and the developers began providing the local infrastructure. The major public infrastructure dollars were funneled through federal agencies into regional infrastructure improvements (freeways) which sped private development into fringe areas.
It is now understood that highways and major arterials do not eliminate congestion but rather act as a subsidy for congestion-producing development. New requirements for grid streets, pedestrian amenities, sidewalks and parking strips with trees can make development either unaffordable to median buyers or financially infeasible, and there are no local support mechanisms equal to the magnitude of highway funding.
If the goals of Smart Development are serious social goals, then some level of first phase credit enhancement in exchange for fulfillment of social goals is appropriate. Such credit enhancement would serve to produce land use with the long-term benefits of lowered social cost through reduction of congestion and auto use and a better quality of life.
_____________________________
Edward H. Starkie, principal, and Bonnie Gee Yosick, associate, conduct economic analysis and research on downtown redevelopment for Leland Consulting Group, 325 Northwest 22nd Street, Portland, OR 97210; 503/222-1600.
SHARE
As part of the American Planning Association (APA) 2003 national conference held in Denver in March, the Lincoln Institute assembled a group of planning directors from large and small western cities to discuss a set of topics they had previously identified as being important, including infill housing, maintaining the core vs. sprawling at the edge, paying for infrastructure, and transportation and land use. To explore these issues and exchange case histories, the planners met for a weekend retreat organized by Peter Pollock, Boulder’s planning director, before presenting their findings at an APA session titled “Urban Challenges and Opportunities in the Rocky Mountain West.” This report highlights key discussion points raised during both the retreat and the APA panel.
The West remains one of the fastest growing regions in the country. Not surprisingly, the liveliest discussions among western city planners center on issues of infill housing and the need to protect and maintain the viability of the urban core in the face of continued regional growth. As Chris Knight of Las Vegas noted, “protecting the core is important to the health of the entire region.” Louis Zunguze of Salt Lake City emphasized that “the core area has a real responsibility for the pace of sprawl,” adding that there is a practical need “to keep the area attractive from many perspectives.”
Neighborhood Responses to Infill Development
Part of that challenge has to do with neighborhood resistance to change and increased density. In Billings, Montana, for example (metro population approximately 100,000; county population 140,000), sprawl is becoming a significant issue, according to Ramona Mattix. Yet, despite substantial capital support for downtown revitalization and favorable zoning densities, the city faces considerable resistance from its residents, many of whom are attached to their traditional wide-open spaces.
Bill Healy of Colorado Springs (population 368,000) spoke of his earlier experience as a planner in Salem, Oregon (population 137,000), when he addressed the problem of how to “sell density” in older neighborhoods. As in Billings, the greatest opposition to infill housing in Salem, which involved rezoning established neighborhoods to accommodate multifamily housing, came from existing residents who would grow increasingly vocal if growth was slated to occur in their “back yard.” Healy explained, “The way we sold density [in Salem] was to couple it with better design standards.” People there found density much more acceptable if new development was designed compatibly with existing neighborhoods. A further benefit was that the city obtained new design standards. “Public acceptance of infill is like a sine curve,” Healy explained. “In urban areas there is great acceptance. But as you get out to the first-ring suburbs, there is a real fear of density. Way out where populations are sparce it’s not an issue.” In Colorado Springs, Healy noted, there is little economic incentive for infill. “Half our land area is vacant, so that is a disincentive for infill development. It’s an issue from a planning standpoint.”
Not all western city planners cited neighborhood opposition to infill development as a major obstacle to accommodating growth, however. Ellen Ittleson, for example, discussed Denver’s (population 555,000) recent success in “planning around resistance” in the city’s most recent plan, Blueprint Denver. While preparing the plan, the city looked at growth projections over the next 20 years and devised a way to accommodate the addition of 132,000 predicted new residents and 109,000 new jobs to the city and county. The metro area is expected to receive an additional 760,000 new residents over the same period. “Once we accepted the growth,” remarked Ittleson, “the real task became figuring out where to put it, because where the market or zoning would have put it was not acceptable.”
The Blueprint Denver plan identifies two types of infill areas. “Areas of change” are those parts of the city that would benefit from increased population densities, such as areas of economic need where land use change and transportation initiatives could go hand-in-hand with realizing mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented and transit-oriented development. The only strictly residential area of change is Cherry Creek, which is being transformed from a single-family neighborhood to one with single-family and attached housing. “Areas of stability” are represented primarily by traditional residential neighborhoods, but also include small commercial and even industrial districts where the effort will focus on how to protect the character of these areas rather than adding new households or jobs.
“There has been great consensus on where growth should be and where it should not be,” Ittleson remarked. Yet, there remains considerable controversy “at the edge, that is, how to transition from areas of change to areas of stability,” she continued. Another major obstacle facing the city’s housing initiative is land assembly. “We have the Denver Urban Renewal Authority, but it’s a politically supercharged thing to use. It’s expensive and politically complicated,” she added. Another difficulty is Denver’s “archaic legislation,” which offers far less acceptance of inclusionary zoning than in the East.
Salt Lake City (population 182,000; metro population 1 million) also has demonstrated considerable acceptance of the need for more infill and density downtown. Renowned for its abundant natural amenities, the city has a thriving tourist industry and has become a magnet for growth. As a result, land costs are very high to accommodate the new population, and there are serious discussions between the mayor, the city council and the development community on how to make the city more viable in the face of this challenge. Louis Zunguze remarked that the city is keenly aware that “what happens around us has a lot to do with what we do in the core.”
As part of its efforts to contain the pace of sprawl and attract new development to the downtown, Salt Lake City is putting together a major housing initiative and has studied downtown sites suitable for infill. With the ambitious goal of creating 40,000 new housing units in and around the downtown area, amounting to a three-fold increase in density, a considerable challenge will be to “strike a balance” with more traditional neighborhoods. Strategies include block consolidations for small subdivisions and amending the zoning ordinance to allow for more height in certain appropriate areas, “so more density can be accommodated gradually.”
Salt Lake City has considerable assets working in its favor, notably the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (the Mormon Church), whose world headquarters is located downtown. “The Church is a significant entity from both a social and financial standpoint,” Zunguze noted. In addition to complementing the city on key housing and economic initiatives, the Church works hard to induce corporations to relocate downtown near the Church’s own headquarters. The Church partners with new development and redevelopment in other ways as well. For example, it has built a new conference center and recently bought the Crossroads Mall located downtown (that is still taxable) and other projects as additions to Church facilities.
Cheyenne (population 53,000; county population 81,000) is the largest community in Wyoming but the smallest city represented on the APA panel and it does not have issues with infill housing. “We’re a landlocked, small community,” notes Mike Abel. “Residential areas are close by, so residential development downtown is not a huge issue right now. We’re more interested in community development issues . . . our infill focus is on commercial redevelopment.”
Regional Planning
According to John Hester, Reno (population 200,000; metro population 550,000) relies heavily on regional planning. The city has a state-mandated regional plan, updated every five years and designed to account for growth and development over a 20-year period. The recently revised plan promotes the objective of directing development to existing areas and infrastructure. It also introduces a new conceptual framework for identifying and prioritizing those districts and transit corridors most suitable for infill and development. On a broad scale the plan presents the idea of Municipal Service Areas designed to capture what has already been built and approved. Urban and suburban land uses are allowed only in these service areas. Then, within these areas, the plan identifies activity centers and auto-dependent transit corridors most suitable for high-intensity land use and development. One specific target for the city, noted Hester, “is to capture 35 percent of all regional metro housing over the next 20 years within the McCarran Ring, a four-mile radius from downtown.”
For David Richert, the cities of Phoenix (population 1.4 million; metro population 3 million) and Reno appear to share similar planning approaches toward managed growth. The Phoenix plan identifies six growth areas as overall targets for development and infill. To alleviate traffic congestion within and among the designated growth areas, the plan also recommends redirecting growth to certain strategic perimeter areas. “They become edge cities within a village system,” he explained. “There are one hundred years worth of growth in the Phoenix plan. We’re putting in infrastructure where we think growth is going to occur.” Richert noted, however, that it was important to keep in mind that “getting the infill requires getting the people who want it, too. . . . Among our goals is to get a fair share of everything that happens in the valley and to set a good example.”
Las Vegas (population 500,000; metro population 1.5 million) has been the nation’s fastest growing region for more than 60 years. But, according to Chris Knight, “the city is still young, with an outward focus and large expanses of vacant land. We tear things down if we don’t like them. If it’s bad, we just blow it up and move elsewhere. Redevelopment is difficult because some of the more prominent redevelopment tools such as eminent domain are taboo.” Downtown Las Vegas is perceived to be in trouble, and its revitalization is at the top of the mayor’s agenda. “One obstacle is that the private owners of downtown properties need to buy in on fixing the problem,” Knight explained. Another problem he noted is that “a number of downtown property owners believe they own the site of ‘the next big casino,’ so land prices are very inflated.”
The mayor of Las Vegas has been a champion of regional planning and recognizes that protecting the core is vital to the health of the region. “The mayor wants to leave the legacy of a new downtown,” Knight added. Part of that legacy would include the introduction of new medical research facilities and 40,000 units of housing to the downtown area. “Big retailers are already coming in,” added Knight, and the city is “looking for tall buildings.” The city is also beginning to investigate transportation-related development to support the existing monorail system, “but our zoning standards may be archaic and will be in the way. We have to figure out how to remove them,” he explains.
Infrastructure and Land Management
Maintaining control of a city’s services and proper fiscal strategies may help in managing growth. Salt Lake City is well endowed with transportation facilities: light rail, bus (local and Greyhound) and train (Amtrak) services, and an airport that is within ten miles of downtown. Moreover, the streets in Salt Lake are so wide that it’s easy to install new rail lines down the center for new transit services. The city also has three large malls within the downtown area, which help keep the city viable. In addition, there is considerable willingness on the part of developers “to look at the barriers in the way of the kind of the development we want downtown (i.e., mixed-use along transit),” Louis Zunguze noted. In Salt Lake, “the city development and finance communities are beginning to come to the table together to discuss what type of housing should be developed and how to finance it. . . .The banks are willing to look at new ways to finance mixed-use developments,” he noted. While work still needs to be done in terms of putting the most viable financing tools together, Zunguze cited land use regulations as the city’s major obstacle to its infill efforts. The city is faced with “contradictions of wanting to do things but the process being very slow. . . . Developers seem to have no problem assembling land, but projects are seriously challenged by the review and permitting processes,” he explained.
Reno has less than half the population of Las Vegas, but as the second largest city in the nation’s fastest growing state, growth management is a high priority. John Hester cited two other factors, in addition to strong regional planning, that have been instrumental in shaping the city’s response to growth. First is the need to work within the limitations imposed by the city’s physical constraints: Reno is landlocked and must also contend with limited water supplies. Second is the city’s concern for fiscal equity and accountability. Taxpayers subsidize growth, and the city, in consultation with outside fiscal consultants, has made concerted efforts to ensure that only those who receive municipal services pay for them, and that taxpayers in one area are not subsidizing the provision of municipal services elsewhere. “A lot of what we try to do is use the fiscal system to make people realize they can’t keep building out,” says Hester. He also noted that the city has a unique tax structure that enables depreciation.
David Richert considers the situation in Phoenix to be very similar to that in Reno only on a bigger scale. “We have our land constraints—the Indian reservations . . . and the state trust lands. Only 13 percent of the State of Arizona is in private hands,” he explained. However, the city itself has no constraints on water. “Phoenix is in the business. It sells water to other communities,” he noted. But controlling the allocation of water “provides a measure of growth control in other areas. In Arizona, you need a 100-year water supply for everything you do.”
Phoenix is also trying to achieve “a balance of transportation,” with efforts to enhance existing transportation rather than building new. Greenspace planning is also becoming increasingly important within the Phoenix region. As an example, Richert cited the recent introduction of special zoning for drainage washes and meanders. The city also passed a bill to collect taxes to pay for park acquisition. “It won’t be enough,” he added, “because once you start buying land you create a market. Land values go up and you can’t buy as much.”
Cheyenne is a city poised for change. As the “northern anchor” of the Colorado Rocky’s Front Range, Cheyenne is only 90 miles from urban Denver. Because of its strategic location on north-south and east-west highways and railroad lines, the city is looking to capitalize on its potential as a major regional transportation hub. “Regionally, we have a lot going for us as a transportation center. Businesses are looking at Cheyenne because of its proximity to other major centers,” Abel explained. Moreover, for businesses Wyoming has a very attractive tax structure, and Cheyenne is also proving popular for commercial development because it is “ready to build.” The city has many greenways, and the strong pedestrian orientation within the community is appealing to new development and infill initiatives. Already, Abel stated, “once-vacant city blocks are beginning to change, and there’s a new parking structure downtown.” Growth is not without obstacles, however. Specifically, water will be the limiting factor in the city’s growth cycle. Like many western cities, noted Abel, “we’re dependent on our water resources and future enhancements. Without sufficient snowpack to balance out the high mountain reservoirs during a drought situation such as we have now, Cheyenne could be out of water in less than three years.”
Despite this sobering prospect, the city remains more than optimistic about its future. Recently, a local property owner offered the city a massive 17,000-acre ranch that appears to have several water sources, and with them significant development capability. The city has taken the option to purchase the ranch for its water rights, but the city would acquire both the land and its water. “With this purchase, we could double the size of Cheyenne overnight,” exclaimed Abel, adding that “it will force the city to look differently at land use in the area for commercial and urban development. It’s an opportunity to develop the next generation of Cheyenne.” David Richert commented, “17,000 acres is huge. . . . You’ll need a lot of expertise from the private sector. But you’re doing a very progressive thing; your government has a chance to control development.”
Armando Carbonell is a senior fellow and cochairman of the Lincoln Institute’s Department of Planning and Development, and Lisa Cloutier is a research assistant in the department.
photo:
Participants in the Lincoln Institute-sponsored retreat for planning directors of western cities: Top row, from left: Mike Abel, Cheyenne; Bill Healy, Colorado Springs; Chris Knight, Las Vegas; John Hester, Reno. Middle row: Louis Zunguze, Salt Lake City; Ramona Mattix, Billings; Ellen Ittleson, Denver. Bottom row, from left: Armando Carbonell, Lincoln Institute; David Richert, Phoenix; Peter Pollock, Boulder. Photo credit: Lisa Cloutier
SHARE
A conservation easement is private land, held by a private nonprofit corporation (typically a land trust) or a government agency. Though conservation easements are perceived as a win-win land protection strategy, there are several downfalls in their design—requiring this fairly new real estate law to come under increased scrutiny.
Conservation easements leave the land in private ownership and often achieve the goals of land protection without regulation or adversity, and usually without any government oversight. There is often concern that the terms of the conservation easement will be honored and that the conservation easement holder will have the capacity and resolve to monitor, enforce and defend the restrictions of the conservation easement in perpetuity, as conservation easements promise.
Because conservation easements are privately held property, most states have no public registry for conservation easements, no particular legal structure and no public review, transparency or accountability concerning their design, monitoring, enforcement, defense or stewardship.
This article identifies issues with the current practices for conservation easements and seeks solutions for the future of the conservation easement. Should their be standards enforced by federal or state governments? Should more responsibility be placed on the land owners? How would new regulations affect the use of the land? If conservation easements are to serve future generations as is their promise, they will have to resolve the issues they face.
Advance page to read full article
No recent happening in land conservation rivals the deployment from coast to coast of conservation easements. Beyond tax and other public subsidies, one of the driving forces favoring this phenomenon is that conservation easements are perceived as a win-win strategy in land protection, by which willing landowners work with private land trusts or government agencies to provide lasting protection for portions of the American landscape. Conservation easements leave land in private ownership, while allowing the easement holder (the land trust or agency) to enforce voluntary, contracted-for, often donated but increasingly paid-for restrictions on future uses of the easement-encumbered property. Conservation easements are often welcomed as achieving the goals of land protection without regulation or adversity, and usually without any government oversight.
At the same time, the rapid increase in the use of conservation easements raises the concern that they may present something of a time bomb that requires preventive action. Most of the laws and conventions concerning conservation easements were created at a time when no one could have foreseen their explosive growth and complexity. These laws and conventions require well-considered approaches to reform, lest we ultimately risk losing the public benefits that we thought conservation easements would secure in the future.
Definitions
A “conservation easement” (in some states referred to as a conservation restriction or similar term) is a set of permanently enforceable rights in real property, held by a private nonprofit corporation (typically a land trust) or a government agency. These rights impose a negative servitude (in other words, a set of promises not to do certain things) on the encumbered land, and they are permanently enforceable by the easement holder. Conservation easements are a relatively recent invention of real estate law and are enabled by statute in virtually every state.
A “land trust” is a loosely defined concept that usually includes at least two basic elements. First, it is a private, nonprofit charitable corporation incorporated under the laws of a state and qualified as tax-exempt and entitled to receive tax-deductible donations under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Second, depending on state law, a land trust’s mission, but not necessarily its exclusive or even primary one, is the conservation of land.
The Public Stake in Conservation Easements
Why should the public, and therefore its government at all levels, care about how conservation easements are created and managed? One reason is that virtually every conservation easement is associated with a significant public subsidy. Although most easements are donated by private landowners to private land trusts, they almost always result in public subsidies in the form of income tax deductions to the easement donors. In many cases a further subsidy comes in the form of reduced real property and estate taxes in the future. Increasingly, conservation easements are being purchased with public money, sometimes on a grand scale involving millions of dollars.
The public should care about how its money is being spent, whether it is being spent for something of long-term public benefit, and whether it is being spent efficiently; that is, the public should be interested in whether it is getting a fair public bang for its buck.
Beyond the public’s financial investment, its interest in conservation easements as a form of charitable trust transcends the interests of the private parties to the transaction. Further, some conservation easements guarantee public access to the property, such as for hiking or scenic enjoyment, giving the public an added stake in the long-term security of the easement. In the case of conservation easements granted by developers as a quid pro quo for regulatory permits, these easements may also comprise a public investment because they are part of the consideration in exchange for the right to proceed with a project that may cause environmental harm. Finally and not least importantly, the public has an abiding concern in the orderly future of legal understandings and the stability of interests in real estate.
In sum, when a conservation easement is created there is a legitimate public interest and concern that the terms of the easement will be honored and that the easement holder will have the capacity and resolve to monitor, enforce and defend the restrictions of the easement in perpetuity, as conservation easements promise. Indeed, the very purpose of state and federal laws that support and subsidize the creation of conservation easements is that the public interest is intended to permanently benefit from them.
Trends and Problems
Rapid growth. The attractiveness of conservation easements is demonstrated by the explosive growth of land trusts established to accept easements. Land trusts have become a big business in America, both for their vast holdings of conservation easements and other properties and for their increasing memberships and finances. Even so, many land trusts have come into existence only during the past 15 years and operate at a local level. While land trust creation continues to increase rapidly, an important policy question is whether the ever-expanding number of small land trusts throughout the nation is something that is good for our (and their) future.
The Land Trust Alliance (LTA), an organization that serves many land trusts nationwide, reported in its national census that between 1998 and 2003 the number of local and regional land trusts increased 26 percent from 1,213 to 1,526; the number of conservation easements held by these land trusts grew from 7,400 to nearly 18,000; and the area covered by these easements expanded from nearly 1.4 million acres to more than 5 million acres (Land Trust Alliance 2004; see Figures 1 and 2). In addition, there are a number of national organizations, such as The Nature Conservancy and the American Farmland Trust, that hold additional thousands of conservation easements. Untold thousands of easements also are held by federal, state and local governments.
Often land trusts and government agencies alike focus on, publicize and celebrate the accumulating numbers of conservation easements in their portfolios, as well as the numbers of acres that they cover, without equivalent regard for the quality of the easements or of the lands they protect. Since conservation easements bring with them long-term and costly responsibilities for the holder in monitoring, stewardship, enforcement and defense, this focus on numbers can be short-term thinking that leads to long-term problems.
Lack of uniformity. The terms of conservation easements are infinitely variable. Calling something a conservation easement tells one nothing about what protections it affords or even what legal boilerplate it includes. Many conservation easement advocates extol the virtues of this flexibility, since it allows the landowner and easement holder to tailor each easement to their mutual interests.
However, this increasing variability of conservation easements inevitably will result in more problems over time for both easement holders and future successions of landowners in understanding, undertaking, monitoring, defending and upholding all of the legal rights and responsibilities of each easement. Heightening this effect is the fact that many conservation easements are increasingly negotiated, nuanced and complex agreements, leaving even legal experts challenged in easement preparation, interpretation, oversight and enforcement.
Valuation issues. The valuation problem for conservation easements arises in two forms: the opportunity for excessive claims of income, estate and property tax deductions or reductions; and uncertainty as to the societal and cost-benefit calculus of each easement. The valuation of donated conservation easements has become a major cause for alarm by the Internal Revenue Service, which says that it will be applying an increasingly watchful eye on the deductions taken for these donations. However, part of the problem may be that the IRS has not been precise enough in stating how conservation easement appraisals should be undertaken.
Even if the IRS adopts a more rigorous approach to easement appraisal in the future, it will never be in a good position to determine whether each easement, for which a charitable deduction is taken, is worthy in terms of conferring a public benefit commensurate with the public subsidy. That task must be undertaken by others, starting with the land trust or other easement holder and embracing some degree of broader public participation.
Lack of legal standards. While conservation easements are intended to be permanent servitudes on privately held property, most states have no public registry for conservation easements, no particular legal structure and no public review, transparency or accountability with respect to their design, monitoring, enforcement, defense or stewardship. Accordingly, there may be a growing disconnect, or perhaps it is a correlation, between the massive deployment of these new interests in real estate, their nearly infinite variability and the multitude of new-born land trusts that hold them on the one hand, and the largely undisciplined laws and conventions that govern them on the other.
In sum, potential legal and other reforms should be considered to respond to many diverse issues related to conservation easements.
This state of affairs, already evident in many thousands of conservation easements, cannot serve future generations well. Under the present laws and conventions, how can we expect holders of these easements and succeeding generations of landowners to understand, no less attend to, the often subtle differences in their terms and to comply with, uphold, defend and enforce conservation easements forever?
Although the nearly exponential trends in the deployment of conservation easements may be heartening to many in the land conservation community, they also pose equivalent challenges that require critical examination and consideration of reform. The evident solution is to create standards for conservation easements and their holders that are more uniform, explicit, publicly transparent and rigorous. Doing so would be in the long-term best interests of those in the conservation easement community and the public at large.
Potential Solutions
Among the general approaches to reform are changes to federal tax laws; greater state oversight of conservation easements and their holders; increased self-regulation by the land trust community; consolidation and networking of land trusts; and greater supervision of conservation easements and their holders by funding sources. The purpose of advancing these reform ideas is to create more predictability and stability in the design and long-term management of conservation easements, so there can be a greater degree of assurance that these new inventions of real estate law will deliver on the promises that they make to future generations.
The most universal approach to reform would be to create more rigorous IRS standards for conservation easements, their appraisals and their holders, so there is greater assurance that their public subsidy will result in conservation easements that are permanently monitored and enforced. A second and complementary approach would be for the National Conference of Commissioners, which gave birth to the Uniform Conservation Easement Act in 1981, to reconvene and consider the issues that went unresolved in its earlier work. A third approach would be for each state to consider amendments to its conservation easement enabling act that respond to these issues. Finally, the Land Trust Alliance is already making efforts to inform and encourage its members to take affirmative but voluntary action to resolve many of these concerns.
Even while considering needed change, these reforms should not impose unreasonable transaction costs on conservation easements. The goal is to select reforms that are efficient in making a difference. At the same time, it is important to consider the tremendous and increasing public subsidies of conservation easements, their opportunity costs and potential effects on government regulatory and land acquisition programs. This scrutiny is not a condemnation of conservation easements, but rather is aimed at articulating issues and possible reforms that can make easements deliver their promises.
Conclusions
This should be an uneasy time for those in the conservation easement community. Because of alleged abuses widely reported by the media, both Congress and the IRS are investigating easement practices by their donors and holders. Congressional proposals are emerging to substantially reduce tax incentives for donations of conservation easements. The time is right to explore potentially useful reforms of all kinds in order to avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
The principal source of many issues with conservation easements is the laws and conventions that govern these interests in real estate, which were created at a time when no one could have anticipated the explosive growth of easements and land trusts. While national organizations like the Land Trust Alliance have shown outstanding leadership in devising and promoting standards, practices and other assistance for land trusts, these standards are purely voluntary, and land trusts have no legal obligation to follow them. Moreover, in some cases the worst problems with respect to long-term management of conservation easements involve understaffed or inattentive government holders.
How dire is the future of conservation easements? Just as conservation easements are intended to endure, each of the problems reported here will have its day, and some already have. When evaluating the effectiveness of conservation easements under the prevailing legal structure, perhaps the best answer is that the jury will be out for 100 years, but one should be sufficiently concerned about a possibly adverse verdict to consider these issues and ways to resolve them.
If conservation easements are to serve future generations as is their promise, they will have to live up to three essential principles.
With these principles in mind, there are many approaches to resolving the issues presented by conservation easements. However, to fashion the solutions one must first acknowledge the problems. If ever we are to take action to assure the future of conservation easements, the time to do so may never be better, nor easier, than now.
Jeff Pidot is a visiting fellow at the Lincoln Institute, on leave from his work as chief of the Natural Resources Division of the Maine Attorney General’s Office, a position he has held since 1990. He has been an active participant in the land trust movement in Maine and has a wealth of experience with conservation easements in both his professional and volunteer work. While at the Lincoln Institute, he is researching and writing about the challenges of conservation easements and reforms that may be considered to meet these challenges.
His working paper, Reinventing Conservation Easements: A Critical Examination and Ideas for Reform, is available on the Institute’s website.
Reference
Land Trust Alliance. 2004. National Land Trust Census. November 18 http://www.lta.org/census/index.shtml
SHARE
Faculty Profile of Fernanda Furtado
SHARE
Eduardo Reese, arquitecto que se especializa en planeamiento urbano y regional, es el subadministrador del Instituto de la Vivienda de la Provincia de Buenos Aires, Argentina. En cargos profesionales anteriores, fue asesor técnico para los planes maestros de más de 20 ciudades en argentina; Secretario de Políticas Socioeconómicas del Ministerio de Desarrollo Humano y Laboral de la Provincia de Buenos Aires; asesor al Consejo de Planeamiento Urbano de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires; y Secretario de Planeamiento en la ciudad de Avellaneda.
Reese es docente en el Instituto del Conurbano de la Universidad Nacional del General Sarmiento en Buenos Aires. Actualmente es profesor de gestión urbana en el programa de grado en urbanismo en dicha universidad. También enseña desarrollo urbano en programas de maestría de la Faculta de Arquitectura, Urbanismo y Diseño de la Universidad de La Plata, así como en universidades de Mar del Plata y Córdoba. Además, dirige el plan maestro de la cuenca Matanza-Riachuelo en Buenos Aires.
Land Lines: ¿Cómo se involucró usted en el Programa para América Latina del Instituto Lincoln?
Eduardo Reese: Mi relación con el Programa se remonta a 1997, cuando estábamos elaborando el plan de la ciudad de Córdoba, que incluyó la formulación de diferentes proyectos urbanos de gran escala. En ese momento el Instituto colaboró activamente para ampliar el debate de los impactos de estos proyectos sobre el mercado de suelo y, consecuentemente, en la configuración de la ciudad. Posteriormente, me fui integrando en diversas actividades del Instituto, y hace cuatro años asumí la coordinación de los cursos anuales de Gestión del Suelo en Grandes Proyectos Urbanos, a partir del fallecimiento de Mario Lungo, quien había dirigido ese programa desde su inicio.
En el 2004, el Programa y el Instituto del Conurbano de la Universidad Nacional de General Sarmiento, realizamos en conjunto el curso Mercados de Suelo: Teoría e instrumentos para la gestión de políticas, el cual fue la primera actividad del Programa para América Latina y el Caribe que implicó un programa de formación de siete meses para 50 alumnos argentinos. Esa experiencia educativa ayudó a formar una masa crítica de técnicos y profesionales con una visión innovadora y diferente respecto de la gestión de las políticas de suelo. El impacto de ese curso se ha reflejado en decisiones de políticas urbanas en diferentes municipalidades (tales como San Fernando y Morón en el Gran Buenos Aires); en la constitución en Argentina del Movimiento de Reforma Urbana en 2005; y en cambios académicos en el mismo Instituto del Conurbano.
Land Lines: ¿Qué rol puede jugar un proyecto urbano en la calidad de vida de una ciudad en el contexto latinoamericano?
Eduardo Reese: Las grandes operaciones o proyectos urbanísticos sobre sectores definidos de la ciudad (tanto en áreas centrales como en las periferias) han sido grandes protagonistas del urbanismo contemporáneo en el último cuarto de siglo. En América Latina se cuenta hoy con un amplio muestreo de experiencias y proyectos, aunque todavía se requiere una reflexión teórica más rigurosa. Algunos ejemplos importantes son los proyectos del Portal del Bicentenario en Santiago de Chile; los proyectos urbanos integrales en Medellín, Colombia; las operaciones urbanas en diferentes ciudades de Brasil; y el proyecto de reestructuración en el sector Oeste de San Fernando, Argentina.
Sin embargo, es importante aclarar que las grandes operaciones urbanísticas son un instrumento de intervención en la ciudad que ya tienen muchos años no sólo en los países centrales, sino también en nuestras sociedades. En Buenos Aires, por ejemplo, la apertura de la Avenida de Mayo y de las diagonales, proyectada hacia 1880 y llevada a cabo en las décadas siguientes, implicó importantes impactos, tanto en lo físico-espacial como en lo social, económico y, fundamentalmente, en el campo simbólico. Este enfoque de múltiples impactos permite, sin duda, asimilar la operación de Avenida de Mayo a un gran proyecto urbano contemporáneo, pero también generó un gran debate sobre quién debía financiar la operación y quién se apropiaría de las rentas de suelo generadas. En última instancia, la Corte Suprema falló que la municipalidad no podía financiar las obras con la plusvalía generada, porque las rentas eran enteramente de los terratenientes. Durante muchos años, este caso fue un precedente en relación a la intervención estatal en el proceso de valorización de suelo generado por un gran proyecto público.
Land Lines: Usted tiene una mirada muy crítica del reconocido proyecto de regeneración urbana Puerto Madero, en Buenos Aires. ¿Qué haría de manera diferente en otras grandes áreas de redesarrollo?
Eduardo Reese: Puerto Madero es un caso emblemático de proyectos urbanos que promueven un modelo de planeamiento urbano segregado y que hoy en día se “exporta” a otras ciudades y países como instrumento básico para poder “competir” por las inversiones internacionales. En este proyecto el Estado adoptó una posición de sumisión frente al mercado y permitió la construcción de un barrio exclusivo para sectores de altísimos ingresos. Es un ejemplo notorio de una política pública diseñada explícitamente para privilegiar a los sectores más ricos sin recuperación de las enormes valorizaciones del suelo que fueron producto de esta misma política pública.
Más aún, a fin de garantizar a los inversionistas la sobrevalorización de las propiedades que compraron, el emprendimiento tiene una serie de características que la “recortan” (física y socialmente) del resto de la ciudad, creando con ello rentas aún mayores debido a la segregación. Puerto Madero no tiene un muro explícito, como los condominios cerrados, pero tiene múltiples acciones y mensajes implícitos, explícitos y simbólicos que señalan claramente que ese lugar está fuera del alcance para la mayoría de la sociedad:
En definitiva, Puerto Madero es la clara demostración de urbanismo y política pública de distribución regresiva: un “ghetto” libre de problemas para ricos.
Land Lines: En la medida en que las municipalidades compiten por inversiones externas, ¿es posible reconciliar esto con objetivos alternativos tales como prioridades ambientales y sociales?
Eduardo Reese: El problema de nuestras ciudades no es la falta de planeamiento, sino el actual orden excluyente de las políticas y del urbanismo. No puede haber una ley para la ciudad formal y un conjunto de excepciones para el resto. Es necesario crear un nuevo orden urbanístico y jurídico en América Latina respecto al derecho a la ciudad, la distribución equitativa de los beneficios de la urbanización, y la función social de la tenencia de suelo.
Land Lines: ¿De qué manera la municipalidad de San Fernando, en el Área Metropolitana de Buenos Aires, ofrece una alternativa a este enfoque?
Eduardo Reese: San Fernando es un municipio ubicado en la zona norte del Gran Buenos Aires, a 30 km de la ciudad de Buenos Aires, con una superficie continental de 23 km² y una población de 156.000 habitantes. Tiene un frente litoral al Río Luján de 5 km de extensión sobre su desembocadura en el Río de la Plata donde se concentra una gran cantidad de actividades productivas vinculadas con la náutica. Este sector del municipio tiene una ubicación privilegiada, con altos valores inmobiliarios y está dotado de la totalidad de los servicios urbanos.
El plan urbano y el modelo de gestión del suelo se comenzaron a elaborar en el 2003 a través de un convenio entre el municipio y el Instituto del Conurbano de la Universidad Nacional de General Sarmiento. En el año 2005, un seminario de capacitación del Instituto Lincoln ayudó a ampliar las ideas tradicionales sobre manejo de suelo que abundaban en los grupos profesionales locales y llevó a una serie de decisiones importantes:
La política urbana en San Fernando se enfocó en una serie de estrategias de acción que incluyeron (1) asegurar el acceso a nuevos espacios públicos sobre el río para fines recreativos, deportivos y comerciales, especialmente para ser aprovechados por los sectores pobres; y (2) la regularización comprehensiva del sector oeste de la municipalidad, donde se concentra los mayores niveles de pobreza.
Para implementar estas estrategias, fue necesario aumentar los recursos fiscales para inversión pública de dos maneras: a través de la apropiación de la rentabilidad del uso del suelo o tierra municipal sobre el río a través de la creación del consorcio Parque Náutico de San Fernando, S.A. (PNSFSA); y con la participación de la municipalidad en la plusvalía a partir de una reforma tributaria municipal. (PNSFSA es una empresa creada por la municipalidad de San Fernando para administrar las tierras del dominio municipal en la costa ribereña del sector este de la ciudad, conocida como Marina Park).
La experiencia de San Fernando se basa en un conjunto de herramientas de gestión orientadas a la redistribución de rentas urbanas para construir una ciudad más equitativa. El suelo se considera como un activo clave dentro de una estrategia más amplia de desarrollo local y, por lo tanto, la gestión depende de una combinación de instrumentos de planeamiento, administrativos, económicos, fiscales y legales orientados a fortalecer el papel del sector público. El eje central de las políticas es la búsqueda de equidad en la distribución de los costos y beneficios de la urbanización, dentro del contexto desafiante de la creciente presión sobre el suelo en toda el área metropolitana de Buenos Aires.
Land Lines: ¿Qué cambios habría que realizar en el sistema educativo para la capacitación de los planificadores urbanos?
Eduardo Reese: Primero, es necesario incorporar una mayor comprensión del funcionamiento de los mercados de suelo en el contexto actual de las ciudades de los países en desarrollo. Segundo, hace falta un análisis más crítico de los instrumentos teóricos, metodológicos y técnicos para llevar a cabo el diagnóstico e intervención en asuntos de suelo urbano. El curso sobre mercados de suelo de 2004 que mencioné antes buscó desarrollar este tipo de materiales para permitir que los estudiantes cubrieran las diferentes escalas y dimensiones del problema.
Land Lines: ¿Qué tensiones existen entre intereses públicos y privados en el planeamiento urbano?
Eduardo Reese: Esta es una pregunta crucial porque toda la historia de la gestión territorial en nuestras ciudades ha tenido un hilo conductor: el derecho de la propiedad privada del suelo juntamente con la estructura de la propiedad han entrado siempre en conflicto con la actividad urbanística que es una responsabilidad pública. En ese sentido siempre habrá una tensión entre intereses públicos y privados en la construcción de la ciudad.
A mi juicio, los proyectos urbanos en América Latina tienen la responsabilidad de contribuir a la creación de nuevos espacios de uso y goce público, a la inclusión social, a la generación de empleo, a la equidad en el acceso a los servicios para todos, a la sostenibilidad ambiental y a la redistribución de las rentas urbanas generadas por el proyecto. Los cuatro casos mencionados antes de Chile, Colombia, Brasil y Argentina muestran que estos beneficios son posibles en muchos países.
Sin embargo, y lamentablemente, en una gran cantidad de casos en América Latina los proyectos urbanos se han justificado como necesarios para atraer inversiones y/o consumidores y asegurar o reforzar las ventajas competitivas dinámicas de la ciudad. Estos insospechados objetivos positivos a veces se usan como un mecanismo para legitimizar intervenciones que profundizan la segregación socioespacial de las ciudades. Estos efectos adversos del mercado no son fatales para las ciudades, sino que son el resultado de elecciones políticas perversas.
