It’s no secret that the basic elements that shape a neighborhood—the housing stock, building codes, location of transit lines and industry—can impact the health of its residents. But a few years ago, an unusual coalition in Cleveland set out to get beyond that broad point and into the gritty, data-driven specifics.

The Cleveland Healthy Home Data Collaborative (CHHDC) built a unified data system that links housing conditions directly to health outcomes—address by address, block by block. It’s an effort to make the home-and-health connection truly legible to the people who need it most, from residents to policymakers. The tangible results have included an accessible app intended to help renters make individual health-related housing decisions and beefed-up city standards (and enforcement) related to lead paint.

The roots of the coalition trace back to the mid-2010s, when it launched with initial funding from The BUILD Health Challenge, a national program that supports community-driven partnerships to reduce health disparities. The lead partner in the effort was Environmental Health Watch (EHW), Cleveland’s oldest environmental justice organization, which was required by the program to bring on a hospital partner, as well as the city’s health department. “That was already a new way of doing business, by having a nonprofit lead the work,” says Kimberly Foreman, chief executive officer of EHW, who describes the organization as the backbone of the project.

Other coalition members included MetroHealth and University Hospitals and the Cleveland Department of Public Health. But having a community-based organization in the lead role (with funding from BUILD flowing through EHW) meant that the communities potentially most affected by unhealthy housing could give input about what data to collect, how to present it, and who would have access to it.

Coalition members agreed about the overarching problems. Lead poisoning in Cleveland is nearly four times the national average. Childhood asthma rates in low-income neighborhoods are among the highest in the country. The causes include old housing stock, deferred maintenance, absent landlords, and inadequate code enforcement. EHW has been working on healthy homes since the 1980s, Foreman says, trying to draw attention to “comprehensive assessment, addressing asthma triggers, addressing lead hazards.” But for decades the city lacked the tools to connect the dots between a peeling wall in a rental unit and a child showing up in the emergency room months later.

The newly formed data collaborative pulled together geocoded housing data (inspection records, code violations, lead certification status, rental registry data) and linked it to health information from hospital systems and public health departments. Integrating that data to enhance communication among institutions was the first step. (Even now, Foreman says, she meets people at conferences who marvel: “Oh, you actually work with your hospital system?”)

But the resulting public-facing portal “was not user-friendly.” A second BUILD grant followed, and EHW expanded the coalition to include Case Western Reserve University’s Center on Poverty and Community Development and its metrics. “The Poverty Center helped us decipher the data and figure out, working with renters, how to prioritize the information that they needed or wanted to see,” Foreman says. The result was a platform that could benefit renters and policymakers alike. Type any residential address into Cleveland.housing.health and you get a clear property overview: when the structure was built and who owns it, lead risk and structure risk ratings, and any code violations, among other data points.

The broad membership of the coalition has helped give it institutional staying power: When hospitals and public health departments share ownership of a system, it tends to outlast the grant cycle that created it. And in fact, the group’s work eventually helped drive one of the city’s most significant housing policy changes. In 2019, after a wave of press scrutiny and years of community pressure coordinated in part through EHW’s advocacy, Cleveland City Council passed an ordinance requiring rental properties to be certified lead safe. The data system the coalition built was both an argument for that policy and a tool for implementing it.

Cleveland is, in some ways, an extreme case of a challenging health-and-housing connection. But the underlying issues are widespread. And as the CHHDC has attracted national attention, the BUILD Health Challenge and others have sparked similar versions of the cross-sector, data-driven housing-health model for cities from Philadelphia to Oakland. The National League of Cities now runs a Healthy Housing Innovation Cohort specifically to help municipalities build data infrastructure like that which Cleveland spent years constructing from scratch.

Meanwhile, in Cleveland, researchers at Cleveland Clinic and MetroHealth are now building digital twin neighborhoods—sophisticated computational models of entire communities, derived from the electronic health records of more than 250,000 patients, that can simulate what happens to health when a neighborhood’s housing stock undergoes changes, or when a clinic is added or a bus line rerouted. Funded by a $3.14 million National Institutes of Health grant, it’s a descendant of the CHHDC’s foundational insight: Place is a clinical variable, and improving health at scale requires understanding—and intervening in—the environments people actually inhabit.

Closing the health-disparity gap will of course require not just data but resources: a funded Lead Safe Home Fund, sustained code enforcement, landlord accountability, and the political will to treat housing quality as a public health emergency rather than as a private-market outcome.

But the Cleveland coalition proved that technical barriers can be solved. Often the data exists—in hospitals, in city agencies, in health departments—but it lives in silos. The solution is organizational as much as technological: building the trust and the governance structures needed to allow those institutions to share what they know. This can make the seemingly murky challenges undeniably clear and even put a number on what neglect costs, in childhood lead levels, in asthma hospitalizations, in years of life lost before age 70. Such data-rich clarity helps meet a diffuse crisis with a set of specific responses.

That said, Foreman emphasizes that data, and even legislation, are just starting points for action. “We run incentives programs for landlords” to comply with regulations and mitigate lead issues, she points out. “We run a relocation program to help get people temporary space while their home is getting worked on. We run a hotline, we run outreach, we run education.

“Data matters,” Foreman continues, “but then what do you do with it?” Answering that question means thinking about who is collecting which data, how it’s being translated, and who can use it. “People are not units and widgets,” she concludes. “They’re people.”

Rob Walker is a journalist covering design, technology, and other subjects. He is the author of The Art of Noticing and City Tech: 20 Apps, Ideas, and Innovators Changing the Urban Landscape. His newsletter is at robwalker.substack.com.

Lead image: In Cleveland, Ohio, a data collaborative illuminates the connections between housing conditions and health outcomes. Credit: DJ Johnson via Unsplash.

As communities across the country face the combined impacts of the housing affordability crisis, climate change, and biodiversity loss, state and local governments are exploring how to deploy underutilized land they own to meet multiple community needs. The Lincoln Institute’s Community Land for Community Benefits campaign aims to inform, complement, and increase the speed and scale of the work required to identify these lands and decide how to use them.

Conserved natural areas provide public benefits and ecosystem services

Most often, state and local officials are using community land to fill gaps in the affordable housing supply. As these efforts become more common, communities should ensure that conservation and development work together, not against one another.

Conserved lands are natural infrastructure. They’re essential to delivering clean air and water and supporting public health and recreation. They provide water filtration, flood control, groundwater recharge, climate regulation, air quality, coastal protection, habitat protection for pollinators, and other ecosystem services that are imperative to strengthening resilience in a changing climate.

As community leaders work to ensure that state and locally owned lands produce enduring benefits for residents, it will be essential to identify and delineate natural and working lands such as forests, wetlands, grasslands, and agricultural lands for conservation. Prioritizing lands that strengthen ecological connectivity will help secure ecosystem services at a large scale. Using durable mechanisms such as conservation easements will help secure long-term benefits that serve present and future generations.

Conservation and affordable housing development can find common ground

In many places and communities, tensions may arise between affordable housing development and sustainable land and resource management. But as efforts like the Conservation Lands Foundation’s Shared Ground initiative demonstrate, these enterprises do not have to clash if decisions about land use are made wisely. Affordable housing is often more compatible with land conservation than market-rate housing development is. Ensuring that affordable housing is built on already-developed, transit-accessible, underutilized parcels—rather than on converted natural or working lands—increases densification and alleviates pressure on urban, suburban, and rural natural areas and open space. And communities may be more likely to support affordable housing if it is paired with conserved open space to which they have access.

Conservation is just one of many nature-based solutions

In addition to the direct benefits of conserving community land, such as fostering healthy natural ecosystems and creating community well-being through public access to green space, the idea of using community land for nature-based solutions is gaining traction.

Nature-based solutions are actions to preserve or protect natural or modified ecosystems in ways that benefit both humans and biodiversity. In urban and suburban or rural contexts, this refers to green infrastructure deployed in and around the human-built environment, such as rain and pollinator gardens, community gardens, bioswales, green roofs, retention ponds, and tree plantings. Such interventions are frequently designed to reduce the flood impacts of runoff from impervious surfaces—such as roads, parking lots, sidewalks, and rooftops—which is particularly important during storm events. In suburban and rural environments, this list can expand to include riparian buffer zones that protect streams and rivers from agricultural runoff, and wetlands protections that ensure floodplain connectivity and help sustain water supply and regional hydrologic function. In most cases, these forms of nature-based solutions and other targeted interventions create shading and cooling effects, reducing heat-island impacts.

Communities facing extreme weather events, water stress, and other climate shocks are pursuing nature-based solutions with new urgency. These practices are being combined with concepts like climate-resilient zoning, which restricts development in high-risk flood zones or fire corridors. For example, dedicating community land to the development of “flood-able” parks and green spaces—which are intentionally engineered to receive floodwater during a storm event—builds climate resilience while strengthening the region’s biodiversity and ecosystem function. Similarly, in suburban and rural areas in arid climates, approaches such as managed-aquifer recharge—which directs floodwater to specific parcels of land to recharge the groundwater basin—are reducing water stress and increasing drought resilience.

Deploying land through a multiple-benefits frame

In short, the most innovative communities fully leverage their community land by exploring multipurpose re-use concepts and solutions to address an uncertain future. Bringing together housing, conservation, and nature-based solutions in a portfolio approach is the key to ensuring that state and locally owned lands deliver multiple, enduring benefits that enable human communities—and the natural systems on which they depend—to flourish.

Chandni Navalkha is director of conservation and stewardship and Peter Colohan is director of partnerships and program innovation at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Lead image: Urban Garden and stream at Mears Park in Lowertown St. Paul. Credit: JoeChristensen via Getty Images.

Responding to the climate crisis will require more than solar panels, a modest carbon tax, or another flood barrier. A new book from Billy Fleming demonstrates that the climate policy, planning, and design professions have been looking in all the wrong places for models of sustainability and resilience, instead building projects that raise emissions and drive displacement. With 29 richly illustrated projects across six continents, this book shows readers a promising set of alternatives for building more just, decarbonized futures from the neighborhood to the continental scale. 

Building Postcarbon Futures: Land, Justice, and Energy Transitions, published by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, provides a crucial counterpoint to the growing despair around climate action by presenting a series of optimistic solutions that show how various forms of collective ownership, multi-purpose infrastructure, and grassroots power are already tackling the climate crisis at great scale. It is both a celebration of action underway and a clarion call to the planners, designers, policymakers, and activists who are pushing this planet toward a future of collective flourishing.

“Building a just, postcarbon future requires a transformation of our social, political, and economic systems in ways that challenge the status quo,” said Billy Fleming, codirector of the Climate and Community Institute and assistant professor of landscape architecture at Temple University’s Tyler School of Art and Architecture. “This book explores existing works of climate justice and provides a range of tools, methods, and models of practice and policymaking to demonstrate what is possible if we act now at the scale of the crisis.” 

Organized around energy, land, and urbanism, the core of the book is an atlas featuring original cartography that maps and documents examples—such as the Tu Deh-Kah Geothermal Power Plant in British Columbia and the West Arnhem Land Fire Abatement Project in Australia—of existing and effective grassroots work toward climate justice. Often, these projects are at odds with the status quo and incorporate the work of marginalized people and frontline communities.

“This is an incredible contribution, offering creative models of land stewardship and climate justice that will push design practice in radical new directions,” said Jenny Jones, principle of TERREMOTO and 2025 Smithsonian National Design Award recipient.

“This book puts the earth, the land, and the spaces we all share at the center of the climate crisis, precisely where they belong,” said Julian Brave NoiseCat, author of We Survived the Night and Academy Award–nominated director of Sugarcane.

Building Postcarbon Futures also features more than a dozen contributions from leading scholars and practitioners of planning, design, and climate policy. Their field-based research presents additional studies of the past, present, and future—including social housing experiments in Uruguay and Jakarta, land stewardship and ecosystem restoration initiatives in the Pacific Northwest and American South, and submerged histories of energy democracy and collective ownership of the power grid in the rural United States.

More information about the book can be found here.

Kristina McGeehan is the director of communications at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Lead image: A team of workers welds and installs a new solar array for a rice mill in Burkina Faso. Credit:Joerg Boethling

Three Michigan mayors—Sheldon Neeley of Flint, Christopher Taylor of Ann Arbor, and David LaGrand of Grand Rapids—appeared at the American Planning Association’s National Planning Conference in Detroit in April, on a panel moderated by Anthony Flint, author of Mayor’s Desk: 20 Conversations with Local Leaders Solving Global Problems.

Their conversation, which followed similar mayors’ panel sessions at APA’s national conferences in Denver and Minneapolis, highlighted the challenges municipal leaders face on issues including housing affordability, the property tax, and an evolving relationship with the federal government. These highlights from the discussion have been edited for length and clarity.

Anthony Flint: What is it like to run a city at this current time, in this political environment, and what impact has the role of the federal government had, especially as it has changed?

Mayor Sheldon Neeley: One of the things I find is that it’s the intersection of crises. It’s like any intersection, you have … to make sure you don’t run into catastrophic accidents. My engagement has been on the financial crisis, water crisis, civil unrest, and also a global pandemic. I call it prayer, planning, partnership … we looked for our partners to be able to get through that. We needed all parts of government to play a part to serve the various residents across the state of Michigan. Also, I have a great relationship with the state government as a former legislator, and also have one of the greatest state legislators in the state, [who] happens to be my wife.

Mayor Christopher Taylor: With the current climate, we have a combination of certainties and uncertainties as we grapple at the global level. We know that if we are trying to protect our community members, we need to be welcoming…. That’s going to be complicated, at best, frustrated, at worst, by the administration. We also know that some of our primary quality-of-life initiatives with respect to housing and climate action are at odds with the federal policy and with the process of the administration. We have been doing a lot of work on climate action. [The federal policies], at the very best, complicate and slow down the exciting work that we’re doing.… On housing, crucially, with all those cuts in HUD, those are going to hit our residents.

Mayor David LaGrand: The level of chaos that’s been injected at the federal level has been really problematic, because a lot of people want me to come and do something about Donald Trump. I can’t change his mind on tariffs. I can’t change his mind on a lot of things. We’re the closest people to [yell at], so we get a lot of frustration. Maybe we’re about to revert to city-state models rather than a federal one. The federal government’s been around for a couple hundred years. Cities have been around for 9,000 years. They’re very durable. They have lots of structural advantages, and there are reasons why the cities are going to be fine.

Then the question is, [do] we just forget about the federal government and the state government? The long-term question is, post–Great Society, if we made this deal … to put most of our money up to the federal level and it was going to come back in the form of grants and programming … if that bargain has been falsified, then why am I sending my federal taxes off to the federal government anymore?

If we want to do housing, we’re going to have to do it ourselves. We have to figure out what the resources are. If we want to do environmental work, we have to figure out what’s city level. We just have to be honest and break out of [the approach of saying] gee, there’s a grant somewhere we should apply for.

AF: The next question is about local action. I’m going to ask three questions, one for each of you. I’ll start with Mayor Taylor. Can you tell us about the clean energy public utility you’ve started in Ann Arbor and how that fits in with your local climate action plans?

Mayor Christopher Taylor: We have, in our liberal town, no surprise, we’ve had a climate action plan for quite some time. We were able to, through some work at the county level, find a million dollars a year starting in about 2017, which enabled us to staff up our Office of Sustainability and Innovation. In the state of Michigan, we have a franchise with a regulated provider. That franchise for electric is perpetual. That means if we wanted to run our own utility, seizing [its] assets and utilizing them, not only would we have to pay for capital, we’d also have to pay for the profit interest going forward perpetually.

We decided to start the Sustainable Energy Utility, [which] overlays the existing utility. It is an opt-in utility. It enables residents who wish to sign up to get from the city, from the public utility, 100 percent renewable, reliable, sustainable, resilient, and just-at-market, if not a little bit below, energy. We are getting this underway. We have hired some staff. We’re allocating some budget. We’re going to try to hit 100 homes this year. We’re going to try to hit 1,000 homes next year. We’re going to work … on batteries and solar panels, and we’re focusing on one of our lowest-income areas in the city. The residents are signing up for it. It’s something that gives us a lot of drive, a lot of excitement. It’s something I think that lots of jurisdictions could take a look at.

AF: Mayor Neeley, I know that the … water crisis was traumatic and this is in the rearview mirror, but we’d like an update on how the resolution is going. Importantly, this is ultimately about infrastructure and investment in the city. What can you tell other cities about your experience?

Mayor Neeley: When people find out that I’m the mayor of Flint, Michigan, they ask, how’s the water? I reply, the water’s fine. We’re doing very well. We’ve invested more than $20 million into our infrastructure repair programs [plus $100 million in federal matching funds] … to get us to this point. All of you have been watching over the last decade or so. I want to thank you for your prayers and your wishes. We’re still providing water for the poor families inside the city of Flint, while we’re trying to build … trust. It’s a confidence thing that we have to build back.

AF: I want to turn now to affordability and start with you, Mayor LaGrand. You’ve got your own special circumstances in terms of your local economy, which I’d like you to talk about, but what have you found in terms of the strategies for promoting affordable housing? I’m going to follow up with each of you about your particular strategy, and that is something we’re interested in, which is promoting the use of government-owned land for housing.

Mayor LaGrand: First of all, I’ve just got to acknowledge that I think jealousy is an under-respected emotion. I am jealous of the work that Ann Arbor is doing on the electric utility work, [which] we’re watching very carefully. It’s incredibly exciting.

One of the things that I think in the policy space is really important [is] to ground things in economics. The law of supply and demand is a law. You can try ignoring it if you want. Try ignoring gravity and see how well that works for you. Demand is going to give you price pressures. It really boils down to two things. One is the regulatory environment, and the other is how you actually make it. Again, just to geek out for you guys a little bit, one of the weird things about housing is if you look at industries in general, think about a computer, they get more and more efficient, dramatically so, right? We see that all the time. For housing, the construction industry still involves a guy or a woman coming out to a site with a hammer and knocking a bunch of pieces of wood together like it’s 1940. The housing industry hasn’t moved forward very much technologically.

Sheldon and I were deskmates in [the state legislature] in Lansing. There was a good idea of taxing vacant land that Mayor Duggan proposed for Detroit . Those of us with bad developers squatting on land—that’s a problem. I wrote a bill so that cities could have land banks and not just counties. Then when I became mayor, now we have a land bank in Grand Rapids. That’s a way for you to do public investment, and it’s exciting. That gets to your public ownership of land question.

The other thing is [ADUs, or accessory dwelling units]. Let’s say I have 50,000 garages in Grand Rapids. Those garages are all potential one-bedroom or studio apartments, but only if the regulatory environment makes that possible and makes it work. I’ve got bills in Lansing that will drop the cost of construction of an [accessory dwelling unit] about 20 grand a unit because of regulatory things in the state building code. You’ve got to get it fixed at the state level. Then at the city level, you’ve got zoning questions. Is it even allowed? Do you have prebuilt models? How easy is it to get through your zoning department? How easy is it to get financing?

If we increase supply enough, prices will moderate. We saw it happen in Minneapolis. We saw it happen in Boston last year. We see it happen in Austin. The law of supply and demand is a law.

AF: We’re going to have to move into a little bit more lightning-round mode, but I want to ask you about affordability and specifically this idea of making use of government-owned land.

Mayor Taylor: Just a couple of weeks ago [we] passed our comprehensive land use plan, which envisions substantially more housing throughout the city, much more in the downtown, substantially more on transit corridors, and more in established neighborhoods, duplexes, triplexes, ADUs, wherever we can.

There isn’t much vacant land in Ann Arbor. We do have a couple of parking lots downtown that we’re utilizing in different ways. One, we are looking to sell on the open market. We’re going to sell to the highest bidder for as much housing as we can get, [plus] a grocery store on the first floor.

Next, we have a … parking structure that has been a conversation in the city for a number of years. We are transferring the air rights to that parking structure to the next-door library. The library is going to build an awesome library on top …. They’re going to work on having affordable housing, workforce housing, artist housing. Across the street, we’ve got another surface parking lot owned by the City of Ann Arbor. We are going to break ground this season on about 300 units of new permanent housing there. We’re working on it.

AF: Mayor Neeley, have you seen efforts to redevelop underutilized land in the city of Flint?

Mayor Sheldon Neeley: The good news is that if Grand Rapids and Ann Arbor don’t have a home for you … we have land, and we have industrial space, and also residential space. What we’re doing, we’re taking a lot of structures down, and we’re redeveloping that land. It’s affordable. The Real Estate Association says the land value has increased over the last decade by about 332 percent, but it’s still very affordable. Flint, right now, for the first time in 20 years, is actually growing in population, so people are realizing that it’s a good investment to come back there and even start your business.

AF: All around the country, there’s this new property tax revolt just at the time when local governments are counting on that revenue. Just interested in your reflections on that revolt, and then also where you stand on the land value tax.

Mayor David LaGrand: If you want to geek out, the land value tax is called Georgian economics. It’s a great idea. It’s good for everybody incrementally, so I’d like it in general.

Property tax in Michigan is badly broken, but let me tell you middle-class people: It’s broken in your favor. That’s really the conversation we have to have when we [discuss] property tax. It’s money for the local government. It’s revenue. It’s not an inalienable way to tax if you want to do the stuff [that] government does. The question [is] who pays the most.

Mayor Taylor: With respect to property tax, we’ve identified some of the challenges. If you stay in your home, your property taxes tick up with inflation. If you move, they leap up to the assessed value. That is great if you’re in your home. It’s hard if you’re a senior and want to downsize. The way our property tax system operates keeps people in their homes longer when they want to stay there.

Second, and this is a little bit of a particularity with respect to Ann Arbor, University of Michigan, a fairly important economic engine in the city, doesn’t pay any taxes. We do have an opportunity to have a city income tax. The way that it’s structured in Michigan, however, in the city of Ann Arbor, would mean that the imposition of an income tax would, on the one hand, be capped at 1 percent for residents, 10 percent for nonresidents, and crucially, would involve an approximately 13 percent property tax cut for people in the city of Ann Arbor.

Mayor Neeley: How many of you guys are thoroughly confused by this whole tax question right now? Let me help you simplify it. Taxation is a necessary thing in order to provide services for residents inside any particular community. Let me give you an example from the city of Flint. We have more than 290 churches, about 23 vacant school buildings [that have] been vacant for more than a decade. We have two major hospitals. We have three university campuses. All our nonprofit entities are not paying property taxes. We talk about a PILOT payment [payments in lieu of taxes]. We need to make sure everybody is able to get their share [of public services when] just one-third of the communities are paying for all the services that they need.

We use a combination of different revenue streams to be able to have a support base. I do operational audits to see how we can provide more services for less without cutting or raising the price. These are dialogues and conversations that we need to have.

We can get industry back in and using land space for redevelopment, housing, or other businesses. If we have hospitals, we need to be able to have a PILOT payment because if they need help with the fire department, police department, those are tax dollars of the residents that are providing that level of service. All these things have to come together .… We need to take a really good look … around the table and be able to have these really engaged conversations. Truth has never been afraid of an audience, and so we need  to be able to speak the truth, whether you’re Republican, Democrat, white, Black, rich, or poor. We need to have that.

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

Lead image: Grand Rapids Mayor David LaGrand speaks during a session at the American Planning Association’s National Planning Conference in Detroit in April. Seated next to him (partially obscured) is Ann Arbor Mayor Christopher Taylor, with Flint Mayor Sheldon Neeley and Anthony Flint of the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy completing the panel. Credit: American Planning Association.

Mindy O’Neall, 44, was elected the 53rd mayor of Fairbanks, Alaska, in 2025, flipping the seat from Republican to Democrat for the first time in a decade and becoming the fourth female municipal chief executive in the city’s history.

The Iowa native drove a stick-shift pickup truck to Alaska to look for adventure 23 years ago—landing first in Anchorage, where she worked as an aide in the state legislature, and then in Fairbanks, home to roughly 30,000 people including the Fort Wainwright military base. She worked at the Fairbanks Economic Development Corporation and the Interior Gas Utility, served as a labor business representative, and founded Blue Canoe Media, a boutique communications and consulting firm.

At the University of Alaska Fairbanks, O’Neall earned a master’s in communication, researching governance and climate impacts in rural Alaska. Prior to her election as mayor, she served on the Fairbanks North Star Borough Assembly and was executive director of the Cold Climate Housing Research Center, and also serves on boards of the Alaska State Homebuilders Association and Alaska Municipal League. She campaigned on the issues of downtown revitalization, affordable housing, and public safety. She lives in downtown Fairbanks with her dog, Tito, who she pointed out is the true official dog of Alaska, the mutt.

This interview is also available as a Land Matters podcast.

Anthony Flint: For the uninitiated, what kind of place is Fairbanks? And why did you want to be mayor?

Mindy O’Neall: I would say we’re the land of extremes. We are extremely cold in the winter. Some people may be surprised to learn that we can get up to 90 to 100 degrees in the summer. We have exotic animals, grizzly bears and polar bears, and we have extreme industry, like mining and gas and oil development. At the heart of it is the people … who have grit and determination and oftentimes this mindset of abundance … [and a] mindset of scarcity as well. We’re at the end of the line. We have three to four days of food security at any given time.

I’ve been in Alaska for over 23 years. I’m originally from Iowa, and I came up here just like a lot of other folks, looking for adventure. If you’ve ever been to the Midwest, they say, why would you ever want to leave the heartland? And I said, don’t worry, I’ll be back in a year. I just want to go check it out. And, after a year, it was painfully obvious that there was so much more to discover to Alaska that I just had to stay.

One of the things that’s interesting about Alaska is we have seven boroughs, that are kind of like counties in the lower 48. And then we have cities within those boroughs, and so Fairbanks has a borough that has a governing body, which is the assembly, and a mayor, and then within the borough, there are two cities…. We always like to joke that for a place that’s so against government and overregulation, we have a lot of government.

I started my public service during COVID…. We had a mayor that was on paper doing a fine job. But he was very discriminatory to the Alaska Native population here, and after some comments and blow-ups on social media … I just believe that public service is a privilege, and somebody who is in office has to have the respect of every population that is within their community … [a] key piece of public service is showing your community respect, even if you don’t understand them, even if you don’t agree with them. I think that we have lost that on a lot of levels of government these days.

I do think that one of the benefits of being in this position is being a female. This is the first time Fairbanks has had a female mayor in about two decades, and I’m the fourth one since 1903 … a young female in my 40s, leading this community and being a role model for girls in our community to see that there’s somebody like them … in an environment that is sometimes very hostile and sometimes very male-driven.

AF: Everybody’s wrestling with affordability these days, and one big part of that is housing. What are the policies that can help, in your region, whether homebuying or renting?

MO: We suffer from a housing stock that’s from the ’70s. Alaska really got its last big boom during the oil pipeline of the ’70s, and what happened was there was such an explosion of [people] coming up to the state that they built things the way that they knew how to build things, which was without a lot of insulation, built out of whatever that they had. So we suffer from very inefficient housing.

[We need to focus on] building generational wealth outside of homeownership. Building homes and housing has been the game or the business of large, wealthy developers. And in our community, we just can’t really afford that. We don’t have enough folks for a large developer to make money here.… How can we lower the amount of investment [that is necessary for housing]?

AF: The Lincoln Institute has been helping municipalities identify government-owned land that can be used for affordable housing. Do you see opportunities in that approach?

MO: Absolutely, I do. A few facts for you here. Sixty percent of our land in Alaska is federal, and 25 percent is owned by the state of Alaska. 10 percent is owned by Native corporations, and one percent is private. So we have a lot of government land that’s available. Now, about 80 million of those acres are managed for conservation. But that’s still quite a bit of land left for us to use.

We have a parking structure that has been mothballed for probably five years. The university that used it ended up not needing it, and so they literally welded the doors shut, and this building has been sitting there, kind of deteriorating ever since. There was some funding that became available … for land acquisition. We’ve put out an RFP for a developer to then build two or three stories on top of that parking garage, therefore activating the space, using the garage for parking, covered parking, which is very important in Fairbanks, but also getting units into the downtown core. So, that’s one example, and there’s a few others that we have, but I’m really eager to see how that plays out.

AF: What are the unique challenges of living with climate change in Alaska, and what, at the state and local level, can be done about it?

MO: They often call the Arctic the canary in the coal mine, because we start to see the issues of climate change far beyond and far before the lower 48 or other parts of the world. Something’s been happening in our environment for quite some time. We have more wind in Fairbanks, which means that we have more risk for summer fires. In the winter, we’ve had more snow than usual, and it’s also been colder than usual, which means that our ground will not thaw quickly—meaning that when the temperature gets hot in the air, it’s all going to melt into water, but there’s going to be nowhere for it to go because the ground hasn’t thawed yet. And so now we miss out on that water, and we get lots of floods. And then we don’t have moisture in the ground, and so it’s more susceptible to wildfires in the summer.

I don’t think there’s really much we can do about this now. It’s happening. We’re in a cycle of climatic disruption. But we can plan for it. We can plan for extreme events—what we’re going to do when the power goes out and it’s negative 30 degrees.

The other thing is, with planning comes money, and Alaska is a place where we do not collect sales taxes on a statewide basis. Some municipalities do, we do not, as the municipality of Fairbanks. And income taxes. So we pay property taxes, and that’s all we pay. As we address these more and more dramatic events, it’s costing us more and more to repair the roads, costing more and more to protect the utilities that are above and below ground. We’re seeing less and less investment from the federal government for events like that. So as Alaskans, it’s time for us to really think hard about how we want to protect … our assets that we have. And what level of commitment comes from our own pocketbooks.

AF: Leading into that, how have you navigated being a mayor at a time when the federal government is reducing funding, and withdrawing from being a partner on so many issues?

MO: We continue to ask our public employees to do more with less. At the same time, the public expects services to be modern. So, that means we have to invest in technology.

It’s a tough spot. I have all of these ideas and plans for being mayor, and then you come into the office.… The way we want to provide services and make things more efficient … with less and less funding, from the state and from the federal government, we’re going to have to look at ways that we contribute to ourselves. And that comes back to the values that we hold as a community.

It’s tough. It’s definitely something I’m working on—how we do more with less, how we explain the value of good governance, [and] putting our own skin in the game.

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

Lead image: The Midnight Sun Festival in downtown Fairbanks, Alaska. Credit: Jacob Boomsma via iStock/Getty Images.

Poco después de comenzar su mandato en 2022, el alcalde de Atlanta, Andre Dickens, hizo el tipo de promesa que los votantes no suelen olvidar: se comprometió a abrir paso a 20.000 nuevas viviendas dentro de los límites de la ciudad para 2030, en el contexto de un rápido aumento de los alquileres y los precios de las viviendas.

Con la presión encima, una de las primeras medidas que tomó Dickens fue formar un grupo de trabajo en materia de vivienda para investigar parcelas y propiedades pertenecientes la ciudad. El alcalde lo consideró la ruta más rápida para poner manos a la obra, con el beneficio adicional de que sería más barato construir en estas parcelas, ya que el suelo, que casi siempre es el elemento más caro del proceso de construcción, ya estaba incluido.

El equipo del alcalde también estableció un centro de ayuda para la vivienda, simplificó los permisos, puso a disposición de los emprendedores inmobiliarios diferentes tipos de financiamiento y creó un programa de prevención de desalojos para ayudar a detener la ola de falta de hogares. Sin embargo, los más de 50 sitios y 217 hectáreas que se identificaron, que van desde escuelas cerradas hasta tierras y propiedades de MARTA, el sistema de transporte público de la ciudad, permitieron que la ciudad aprovechara la ventaja especial que proporciona la propiedad pública. “Los esfuerzos de desarrollo de capacidades están dando sus frutos en la forma de un vehículo sofisticado y colaborativo para desarrollar viviendas para familias de ingresos mixtos, ancladas en la comunidad, en suelo de propiedad pública”, comentó Dickens.

La estrategia de Atlanta es parte de un movimiento nacional para hacer un mejor uso del suelo propiedad del gobierno. Y la cantidad de suelo que se incluye (terrenos infrautilizados, como baldíos, lotes de estacionamiento abandonadas o edificios fuera de servicio, propiedad de entidades que van desde distritos escolares hasta autoridades de vivienda) no es insignificante. Según el Centro de Soluciones Geoespaciales (CGS, por su sigla en inglés), en todo el país, sería factible construir en más de 93.077 hectáreas de suelo de propiedad municipal con acceso al transporte público. Eso es más que la superficie total de la ciudad de Nueva York.

El análisis de tierras locales, estatales y federales del CGS encontró un total de 111.694 hectáreas de suelo de propiedad gubernamental donde podría construirse en áreas urbanas con acceso al transporte público e infraestructura existente. Este suelo podría albergar casi 7 millones de viviendas nuevas a una densidad modesta, según el CGS, que forma parte del Instituto Lincoln de Políticas de Suelo. Un destacado comentarista de asuntos urbanos calificó el potencial de estas tierras como una solución “escondida a plena vista”.

Para alentar a las comunidades de los EUA a identificar suelo de propiedad pública que podría utilizarse para mejoras de vivienda o medioambiente, el Instituto Lincoln lanzó una iniciativa llamada Community Land for Community Benefits (“Suelo de la comunidad para beneficio de la comunidad”).  “Las tierras públicas desempeñan un rol clave a la hora de abordar la capacidad de pago de la vivienda, pero los gobiernos locales necesitan apoyo para permitir la transformación”, indicó George W. McCarthy, presidente y director ejecutivo del Instituto Lincoln. “La campaña Community Land ayudará a los responsables de formular políticas y a sus socios a identificar y aprovechar el suelo de propiedad pública”.

Se calcula que se deben construir entre seis y ocho millones de viviendas nuevas para superar las restricciones en la oferta que contribuyen al aumento de los costos habitacionales, según análisis de fuentes como Freddie Mac, Zillow, Goldman Sachs y McKinsey. La ventaja de desarrollar o redesarrollar suelo de propiedad pública es que el gobierno puede dictar los términos de uso y garantizar que cualquier vivienda que se construya sea permanentemente asequible. Alquilar el suelo o entregarlo a un desarrollador sin fines de lucro también puede tener el efecto de mantener bajos los costos generales. “La capacidad de pago del suelo es el mayor obstáculo para la vivienda asequible”, explica McCarthy. “Si un emprendedor inmobiliario tiene que comprar tierras a precio de mercado, eso elimina, de forma casi automática, la posibilidad de construir viviendas asequibles. El costo del suelo será demasiado alto para que esto funcione”.

A medida que los gobiernos hacen un inventario de los terrenos de propiedad pública, surge una serie de otras opciones para la construcción de nuevas viviendas, en suelo con distintos regímenes de tenencia y propiedad: terrenos comerciales con mal rendimiento, como un centro comercial en quiebra; estacionamientos privados infrautilizados; terrenos que son propiedad de empresas ferroviarias de carga o de pasajeros; corrales de ganado; y terrenos que son propiedad de comunidades tribales o instituciones religiosas, que, por diversas razones, buscan vender sus activos inmobiliarios en la actualidad. (Obtenga más información sobre el movimiento para construir viviendas en tierras de propiedad religiosa).

A menudo, las instituciones cívicas como universidades, hospitales y fundaciones comunitarias también son propietarias de grandes extensiones de tierra y, además, tienen una misión orientada a la comunidad. Un esfuerzo coordinado para mapear estas hectáreas, a través de jurisdicciones e instituciones cívicas concurrentes, puede orientar las iniciativas destinadas a abordar la asequibilidad de la vivienda y la resiliencia ante el cambio climático, mientras revela oportunidades potenciales para obtener parcelas más grandes y contiguas a partir de parcelas fragmentadas.

A continuación, se incluye un desglose de la tierra de propiedad gubernamental con acceso a transporte público por categoría (federal, estatal y local), que comienza con suelo bajo el control de los municipios, que es, con amplia diferencia, el segmento más grande de la propiedad pública.

LOCAL: más de 95.000 hectáreas

Varias ciudades, grandes y pequeñas, se unen a Atlanta para valuar sus activos inmobiliarios, determinar cómo podrían usarse y avanzar con los proyectos. En el sector de Morgan Park, en Chicago, 11 baldíos de propiedad de la ciudad se están reurbanizando para viviendas, como parte de la Iniciativa de viviendas intermedias faltantes de la ciudad. Una base de datos de baldíos de propiedad de la ciudad revela que hay 7.000 más.

De manera similar, en Detroit, donde la alcaldesa Mary Sheffield firmó una orden ejecutiva para destinar todos los ingresos por la venta de propiedades comerciales de la ciudad al fondo fiduciario de desarrollo y preservación de viviendas asequibles, se está examinando el estado de 100.000 parcelas vacías, la mayoría de las cuales son propiedad de la ciudad, según la organización sin fines de lucro Detroit Future City. El suelo vacante es candidato, como mínimo, para mejoras naturales como jardines comunitarios, si no se usa para vivienda, comentan desde la organización.

Sin embargo, los terrenos baldíos representan los espacios más inmediatos en el ejercicio de identificar suelo municipal adecuado. Emma Mulvaney-Stanak, la alcaldesa de Burlington, Vermont, lanzó un plan para usar parques, estacionamientos y otras parcelas públicas mal aprovechadas para la construcción de viviendas. Entre los sitios del proyecto, se incluye una zona comercial de tres cuadras deteriorada en el centro de la ciudad, con un auditorio en desuso; y un extenso estacionamiento de propiedad de la ciudad, adyacente a una incubadora de empresas emergentes de tecnología que ahora ocupa una fábrica que solía usarse para fabricar hornos y otros equipos de cocina.

Cuando el suelo se percibe como un activo de la comunidad, pueden surgir tensiones y conflictos, incluso si la propiedad está olvidada hace mucho tiempo o las condiciones se han deteriorado. Como las tierras de propiedad pública pueden ser un imán para conflictos de intereses, en especial si involucran cualquier tipo de espacio recreativo o abierto, la ciudad adaptó el proceso de adquisición, comentó Charles Dillard, director de Planificación de Burlington. “Queremos darle la vuelta al proceso de solicitud de propuestas”, agregó, para obtener primero la opinión de la comunidad e identificar un esquema de desarrollo y diseño que se ajuste a ello.

“No suele haber consenso sobre qué se debe construir, si es que se debe construir algo”, indicó Dillard, y señaló que, en general, los conflictos surgen en torno a “cuestiones de capacidad de pago y beneficio público: qué se está construyendo y para quién… Entonces, en última instancia, se trata de democratizar el desarrollo y reafirmar la función del sector público como líder en la creación de la perspectiva de la vivienda y la ciudad en evolución”.

En Atlanta, los funcionarios de la ciudad construyen una narrativa que resalta el contexto más amplio del suelo de propiedad de la ciudad: cómo todo desarrollo de vivienda se adapta, en última instancia, a un barrio bien articulado. Según la oficina del alcalde, el enfoque es “enmarcar la producción de viviendas en una estrategia holística de revitalización del barrio. Cuando hablamos de nuevas viviendas, también hablamos de tiendas de comestibles, parques, senderos, guarderías, escuelas [y] retención de residentes históricos”. El objetivo idealista es garantizar que todos los residentes de Atlanta “tengan un lugar donde vivir, pero que todos tengan la capacidad de pago para vivir en un barrio completo, saludable y próspero”.

Sin embargo, la ciudad también tiene en cuenta la producción de resultados rápidos. Las tierras municipales se han convertido en el lugar perfecto para la iniciativa de vivienda rápida del alcalde, al entregar construcciones modulares y construidas en fábrica. Un estacionamiento a nivel del suelo para vehículos de la ciudad mal aprovechado se transformó en The Melody, 40 unidades de vivienda de apoyo permanente junto a la estación Garnett de MARTA. A fines del año pasado, la ciudad celebró la apertura de Waterworks Village, 100 unidades de viviendas de apoyo construidas en tres pisos de viviendas modulares en suelo transferido del Departamento de Gestión de Cuencas de la Ciudad.

Otra ventaja de la mayor cantidad de suelo bajo control municipal es que permite a las ciudades y pueblos elegir, a medida que evalúan parcelas cuyo desarrollo implicaría diversos grados de dificultad. El análisis del Centro de Soluciones Geoespaciales puede ser de particular utilidad para calcular las concesiones que se deben hacer, ya que las investigaciones exhaustivas muestran diferentes niveles de complejidad al disponer de propiedades gubernamentales. Un taller de obras públicas desmantelado podría estar en un sitio con menos vecinos que se opongan a la reurbanización, pero podría requerir un alto nivel de remediación medioambiental.

“Estamos realizando un estudio diligente de cada parcela de propiedad de la ciudad para determinar no solo las que están más al alcance, sino también las propiedades más complejas que, en última instancia, pueden aportar de manera más significativas a la creación de viviendas, el desarrollo comunitario y la transformación catalítica”, indicó Dillard, el planificador de la ciudad de Burlington.

Los condados también se unen a la iniciativa. La “Guía para desarrollar viviendas en suelo propiedad del condado” de Smart Growth America tiene como objetivo ayudar a los gobiernos de los condados, que suelen tener menos capacidad, a identificar parcelas adecuadas, evaluar las limitaciones de zonificación y modelar la viabilidad financiera y la estructura de propiedad. El condado de San Mateo, justo al sur de San Francisco, recientemente arrendó una parcela por USD 1 al año para que un desarrollador de viviendas asequibles pudiera construir 160 unidades de viviendas asequibles para adultos mayores.

ESTATAL: más de 13.300 hectáreas

Los estados están adoptando un rol de coordinación al ayudar a las ciudades y pueblos a identificar el suelo de su propiedad. Pero los estados también son propietarios de tierras extensas, y los legisladores reclaman una imagen más nítida de dónde podría radicar la promesa de nuevas viviendas. Prácticamente todos los estados tienen, desde hace mucho tiempo, un proceso para disponer de la propiedad estatal, ya sea un depósito de armas obsoleto o un hospital psiquiátrico cerrado, pero ese ejercicio es notoriamente prolongado y se desarrolla caso por caso. Dada la urgencia de la crisis habitacional, los responsables de elaborar políticas de hoy buscan una perspectiva general más estratégica y plazos más rápidos.

Esta primavera, el gobernador de Colorado, Jared Polis, firmó la Ley de Facilitación de Oportunidades de Vivienda (HOME, por su sigla en inglés), que les permite a los distritos escolares, universidades, autoridades de vivienda, distritos de transporte público y organizaciones sin fines de lucro calificadas construir viviendas en propiedades de un máximo de dos hectáreas, al margen de las reglas de zonificación locales. La iniciativa sigue a una medida de 2019 que exige que cada agencia e institución estatal de educación superior presente una lista de todo el suelo no desarrollado que sea propiedad de la agencia o institución o esté bajo su control, y que podría desarrollarse para viviendas asequibles para hogares de ingresos bajos y moderados, bajo regímenes de venta o alquiler. El Departamento de Asuntos Locales (DOLA, por su sigla en inglés) del estado se ha asociado con el Centro de Soluciones Geoespaciales para realizar un inventario de todas las tierras identificadas por las agencias e instituciones, detectar superposiciones y asignar la propiedad con precisión. El objetivo es permitir una mejor coordinación en el futuro.

Un esfuerzo similar en Vermont dio 140 propiedades, que van desde 0,2 a 202 hectáreas, en diversos lugares. El gobernador de California, Gavin Newsom, lanzó el Programa de Sitios Sobrantes para identificar propiedades estatales mal aprovechadas y acelerar el proceso de desarrollo de sitios adecuados para la vivienda. Los constructores tienen acceso a un nuevo portal web que brinda una explicación clara de cuáles son las oportunidades. Los funcionarios dicen que las propiedades que están en el inventario, que van desde tierras cercanas a un hospital estatal hasta parcelas vacías que pertenecen a la agencia estatal de transporte, Caltrans, podrían ser sitios apropiados para la creación de 2.000 viviendas nuevas.

Según un plan anunciado por el gobernador de Maryland, Wes Moore, unas 54 hectáreas de suelo de propiedad estatal cerca de las estaciones de transporte público se activarán con potencialmente 5.000 hogares. En Massachusetts, la gobernadora Maura Healey estableció el programa de Tierras Estatales para Viviendas, que ya identificó 182 hectáreas de tierras de propiedad estatal e incluye un mapa interactivo para crear una imagen más clara de las ubicaciones aptas y su contexto.

Las campañas para transformar suelo de propiedad estatal se encuentran, de manera constante, con los mismos obstáculos que los municipios. Los funcionarios de Massachusetts creían que tenían una propuesta infalible para desarrollar 180 departamentos en un estacionamiento infrautilizado de dos hectáreas en el campus de MassBay Community College en el suburbio de Wellesley, al oeste de Boston. Pero los residentes se opusieron al plan y expresaron inquietudes sobre las consecuencias en las 16 hectáreas adyacentes de suelo de conservación, a pesar de que el estado expresó con claridad su intención de construir solo en el estacionamiento y no en el bosque. Es probable que la reurbanización se suspenda si se presenta la demanda que se anunció.

FEDERAL: más de 2.100 hectáreas

La idea de construir viviendas en tierras de propiedad del gobierno federal es una de las pocas políticas de la gestión de Biden que se mantuvieron hasta la presidencia de Trump.

El Grupo de Trabajo Conjunto sobre Suelo Federal para la Vivienda, una asociación del Departamento del Interior y el Departamento de Vivienda y Desarrollo Urbano, tiene como objetivo identificar suelo federal que podría ser adecuado para la construcción residencial y agilizar el proceso de transferencia para que el desarrollo ocurra más rápido.

El gobierno federal controla la asombrosa cantidad de 263 millones de hectáreas de tierras públicas, pero la mayor parte de esa superficie son parques nacionales, reservas y áreas silvestres que no serían aptas para el desarrollo de viviendas. Los candidatos más probables para la reurbanización serían edificios federales y tierras en entornos más urbanos: se calcula que 8.000 propiedades están vacías, abandonadas, obsoletas o infrautilizadas, según el Congreso. La Administración de Servicios Generales enumera, de manera rutinaria, las propiedades que ya no se usan, ya sea un juzgado cerrado o un espacio para oficinas administrativas de agencias federales que ya no se necesita.

Un precedente para la reutilización de la propiedad federal es el desmantelamiento de bases militares, muchas de las cuales se convirtieron en viviendas y desarrollos de uso mixto. Unas 350 instalaciones, desde astilleros hasta instalaciones de formación y cuarteles, pasaron a estar disponibles en el proceso de realineación y cierre de bases, que se lleva a cabo desde hace casi 40 años. Solo en Massachusetts, dos bases militares importantes se están convirtiendo en desarrollos residenciales: Fort Devens y la estación aeronaval South Weymouth, que prometen casi 300 y 6.000 hogares, respectivamente.

Sin embargo, ha surgido un acalorado debate sobre la diferencia entre identificar parcelas específicas sobre suelo federal, aptas para viviendas asequibles y simplemente poner a disposición tierras públicas para un desarrollo sin sentido. Las propuestas recientes del senador Mike Lee (R-Utah) y otros para vender miles de hectáreas de lo que hoy es espacio abierto en Utah, Nevada, Arizona y otros estados del oeste suscitaron la preocupación de que podrían surgir loteos de alto costo en áreas protegidas, y esto dañaría hábitats clave y drenaría suministros de agua muy limitados mientras poco se hace para abordar la crisis de capacidad de pago. Esas preocupaciones se plantearon en el contexto del impulso de la gestión para poner a disposición más suelo federal para la extracción de recursos.

Si bien el debate sobre el suelo federal continúa, la verdadera oportunidad yace con los gobiernos estatales y locales, que poseen la mayor parte de los bienes raíces públicos privilegiados en todo el país. Por cada hectárea de suelo federal urbanizable, los gobiernos estatales y locales controlan más de 21 hectáreas. Los líderes estatales y locales ya están comenzando a actuar, pero necesitan datos y pruebas para garantizar que se urbanicen las parcelas de terreno adecuadas, a la velocidad y escala correctas, en los lugares correctos, teniendo en cuenta las limitaciones de suelo y agua que afectan tanto a la habitabilidad como a la conservación.

Anthony Flint es miembro sénior del Instituto Lincoln de Políticas de Suelo, conduce el ciclo de pódcasts Land Matters y es editor colaborador de Land Lines.

Imagen principal: Líderes de la ciudad de Atlanta identificaron a 104 Trinity Avenue, que se encuentra enfrente del ayuntamiento, como un sitio de desarrollo residencial. Un edificio de ingresos mixtos de 10 pisos y 218 unidades se está construyendo en este suelo, que había sido arrendado por 99 años con un requisito de asequibilidad. Crédito: Google Earth.