A large share of national energy consumption takes place in cities—in the United States about three-quarters of energy use is in or related to urban areas. Accordingly, cities offer significant opportunities for energy savings from increased efficiency, but important issues remain: Will market forces produce efficiency gains when appropriate, or will market failures such as imperfect information, unavailable financing, or misunderstood risks impede market solutions? How much do people value energy savings, and how sensitive are they to changes in energy prices? The Lincoln Institute hosted a conference on energy efficiency and cities in October 2012 to address these and related issues, and a few highlights follow.

Valuing Energy Efficiency

Consumers should be willing to pay more for built space that uses less energy. Evidence indicates that users of commercial space value energy efficiency and are willing to pay more for it, and many studies indicate that LEED-certified office and commercial space sells or rents at a premium over traditional space. There is much less evidence of such preferences for residences, in part because it is difficult for most homebuyers to determine the energy efficiency of a dwelling, especially a new one with no operating record.

Some residential developments are now being classified using procedures similar to LEED certification or to the Energy Star ratings such as those used for major appliances. Dwellings in California that have the highest energy efficiency ratings sell at a premium of about 9 percent above units with average energy efficiency. Similar price premiums have been observed in the Netherlands for houses certified at the highest efficiency level using a European certification procedure. Some of these premiums may reflect the improved comfort levels that these buildings provide in addition to energy savings. It also seems likely that the energy efficiency premium observed in California is up to three times greater than the incremental cost of the higher efficiency of these dwellings.

Determining Cost

The cost of integrating energy efficiency into new buildings is less than the cost of improving the efficiency of older buildings. A home built since 2000 uses about 25 percent less energy per square foot than one built in the 1960s or earlier. The technical potential for improved energy efficiency in older homes seems evident, but homeowners face two challenges: to determine which improvements have the highest payoff per dollar spent, and to obtain a contractor and financing for the work.

While many diagnostic tools are available to assess existing dwellings, their accuracy varies widely and depends critically on detailed inputs about both the dwelling’s attributes and the household’s living style. Obtaining a contractor and financing can involve high transaction costs for households in effort, time, and money. Many utility companies are offering both technical and financial support for energy retrofitting, but progress has been slow.

Changing Energy Consumption

It may be easier to change residential living styles than to retrofit old buildings, and many utilities are experimenting with schemes to modify household behavior. The most common program involves “nudging” households toward more efficient habits by providing periodic home energy reports that compare their recent energy use with that of their neighbors. Analysis indicates that these reports have both a short-term impact on household energy consumption and a longer-term cumulative impact that continues after the reports end. The energy savings from these programs are small, ranging from a half to one kilowatt hour per day for a household, but the program’s low cost makes the results as cost-effective as many other policies.

Recognizing John Quigley

This conference was designed with John Quigley, economics professor at the University of California at Berkeley, who passed away before the conference took place. In addition to the original papers on energy and cities, papers on urban economics were presented by some of his former students, colleagues, and coauthors. All of the papers will be submitted for a forthcoming special edition of Regional Science and Urban Economics, which will recognize his contributions over a long and distinguished career.

Es para mí un honor suceder a Gregory K. Ingram como quinto presidente del Lincoln Institute of Land Policy (ver página 28) y participar junto con ustedes en mi número inaugural de Land Lines. Será un gran desafío para mí poder estar a la altura de la capacidad de liderazgo de Greg y los años extraordinariamente productivos desde que él se hizo cargo del Instituto en 2005. Espero poder combinar mis habilidades y experiencia con las formidables herramientas y el talentoso personal del Instituto para continuar con nuestra misión singular: conectar a académicos, funcionarios públicos y líderes empresariales para combinar la teoría y la práctica de las políticas de suelo con el fin de abordar una gran variedad de desafíos sociales, económicos y medioambientales.

Hay fuerzas tectónicas —naturales, artificiales o ambas— que están dando nueva forma a nuestro planeta. A medida que confrontamos el cambio climático, la aceleración de la urbanización en Asia y África, el envejecimiento de las poblaciones de Europa y América del Norte, la suburbanización de la pobreza en los Estados Unidos y la insolvencia económica de las ciudades estadounidenses, las decisiones sobre el uso del suelo que tomemos hoy dictarán la calidad de vida de cientos de millones de personas en los próximos cien años. Hay una demanda crítica de planes y políticas integrales que regulen de manera equitativa el uso del suelo, sistemas políticos y sociales que garanticen la sostenibilidad, y análisis económicos sólidos con los que abordar estos desafíos, y esta demanda seguirá siendo alta durante las próximas décadas.

En este número de Land Lines, autores estrechamente relacionados con el Instituto Lincoln exploran estos temas. La fellow Lincoln/Loeb de 2013, Lynn Richards, próxima presidente del Congreso para el Nuevo Urbanismo, expone 10 pasos ingeniosos que las comunidades de los Estados Unidos han tomado para hacer sus suburbios más accesibles a los peatones, con viviendas económicas para compensar la suburbanización de la pobreza y emprendimientos más densos de uso mixto y transporte público para reducir el uso del automóvil y ayudar a retrasar el cambio climático. La arquitecta y fellow Lincoln/Loeb de 2014, Helen Lochhead, analiza los proyectos ganadores de Rebuild by Design (Reconstrucción por Diseño), el concurso internacional que promovió innovaciones de diseño para integrar resiliencia, sostenibilidad y habitabilidad en las regiones afectadas por la supertormenta Sandy. El Director de Relaciones Públicas Anthony Flint informa sobre el séptimo Foro periodístico anual del Instituto Lincoln sobre el suelo y el entorno edificado, que exploró opciones para realizar inversiones más inteligentes y equitativas en infraestructura en las ciudades del siglo XXI. Finalmente, en el Perfil académico, el analista de investigación senior del Instituto Lincoln, Adam Langley, comenta la base de datos de ciudades fiscalmente estandarizadas (FiSC) del Instituto, una nueva herramienta que servirá de base para nuevos análisis importantes que guiarán las respuestas locales a los desafíos fiscales de los Estados Unidos.

Y ahora un poco sobre mí. En los últimos 14 años trabajé en la Fundación Ford, donde ocupé un puesto singular en el sistema filantrópico global que me permitió apoyar, demostrar y ensayar nuevas maneras de resolver importantes problemas sociales. Algunos de los logros que más me enorgullecen son haber creado la Campaña Nacional de Propiedades Vacantes y Abandonadas, para ayudar a construir e incrementar la bolsa de viviendas de patrimonio compartido de la nación, por medio de colaboraciones con la Red Nacional de Fideicomisos de Suelo Comunitario y otras organizaciones asociadas. Ayudé a diseñar y posteriormente lideré Metropolitan Opportunity (Oportunidad Metropolitana), la próxima generación de programación comunitaria y de desarrollo económico de la Fundación, que se propone reducir el aislamiento espacial de las poblaciones necesitadas en regiones metropolitanas integrando la planificación del uso del suelo, el desarrollo de viviendas económicas y la inversión en infraestructura para ofrecer un mejor servicio a todos sus residentes.

Antes de trabajar en la Fundación Ford, había acumulado una gran experiencia en investigación sobre vivienda, economía y análisis de políticas públicas. Tuve la oportunidad de trabajar con académicos de todo el mundo en temas tan diversos como el nacimiento del movimiento medioambiental en Rusia, el papel de los desequilibrios de intercambio comercial y la deuda en los ciclos macroeconómicos y el impacto de la propiedad de la vivienda en las vidas de familias de bajos ingresos. He sido maestro y mentor de miles de estudiantes y he seguido sus logros con gran orgullo. Presenté investigaciones, abogué por cambios políticos y colaboré con éxito con investigadores, activistas y funcionarios públicos en cuatro continentes. Y ahora estoy entusiasmado y me siento honrado por unirme a ustedes en esta aventura con el Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Los viejos residentes de Detroit recuerdan las décadas de 1950 y 1960 como una era dorada de la planificación urbana. Bajo Charles Blessing, el carismático jefe de planificación de la ciudad entre 1953 y 1977, Detroit llevó a cabo una serie de intentos ambiciosos para rediseñar su paisaje urbano. Dejando de lado un siglo de conventillos y estructuras comerciales pequeñas, se creó el emprendimiento residencial de Lafayette Park, diseñado por Mies van der Rohe, adosado al este del centro, un parque para industrias ligeras, al oeste del centro y manzana tras manzana de viviendas de baja altura para residentes de ingresos moderados, en el norte. Edward Hustoles, un veterano planificador jubilado de aquellos años, recuerda que Blessing era tan reconocido como visionario en Detroit que bosquejaba sus planes sobre el mantel mientras almorzaba en un buen restaurante; si el mesero se quejaba, Blessing enrollaba el mantel y le decía que lo agregara a su cuenta.

Pero los tiempos cambian. Blessing se jubiló en la década de 1970, y para entonces Detroit estaba sumiéndose en su larga y agonizante pendiente hacia la ruina del cordón industrial. El doble flagelo de la desindustrialización y el crecimiento suburbano desordenado, que lastimó a tantas ciudades del corazón de los Estados Unidos, afectó a Detroit de manera particularmente intensa. Muchas fábricas, tan modernas cuando se construyeron a comienzos del siglo XX, parecían obsoletas en las décadas de 1950 y 1960, y en su mayoría fueron abandonadas a fines de la década de 1980. La nueva cultura suburbana del automóvil, facilitada por la construcción de la red federal de carreteras y otras medidas, alentó a cientos de miles de residentes a abandonar la ciudad para asentarse en Birmingham, Troy y otras comunidades periféricas. El éxodo se aceleró por las tensas relaciones raciales, que se hicieron particularmente tóxicas después de los disturbios civiles de 1967. Sin habitantes, el vasto inventario de pequeñas viviendas de madera para trabajadores se fue deteriorando; los incendios provocados, la droga, el hurto de metales, el deterioro y otros males corroyeron barrios enteros, forzando a la ciudad a demoler manzana tras manzana de casas en las décadas de 1990 y 2000, una tendencia acelerada por la crisis inmobiliaria de 2007–2008, que creó un círculo vicioso de mora en el pago de impuestos sobre la propiedad y ejecuciones hipotecarias, diezmando lo que quedaba del mercado inmobiliario de Detroit. Hoy, las mejores estimaciones sugieren que por lo menos 62 de los 360 km2 de Detroit están vacíos, y otros 15 a 23 km2 tienen viviendas desocupadas que se tienen que demoler. Agréguense los parques municipales que la ciudad ya no mantiene y los derechos de paso abandonados, como las viejas líneas de ferrocarril, y un 25 por ciento de Detroit (un área mayor que Manhattan) está vacante.

Para la década de 1990, la planificación urbana se había quedado obsoleta como foco y guía. Una serie de alcaldes trataron de engancharse en cualquier proyecto vistoso que surgiera: el tan difamado Renaissance Center en la década de 1970, o la apertura de casinos a finales de los noventa. El departamento de planificación municipal de Detroit encontró una nueva función administrando subvenciones federales en bloque para el desarrollo comunitario y, en años recientes, el departamento ha tenido más contadores que planificadores. Pero en 2010, el entonces alcalde David Bing lanzó una iniciativa estratégica para abordar el problema generalizado de suelos vacantes y la carga que ejercía sobre los servicios y presupuestos municipales. Dicho esfuerzo culminó en 2013 con la publicación de Detroit Future City, un marco de referencia integral de 354 páginas para fortalecer y volver a expandir los barrios deteriorados de Detroit y dar un nuevo destino a sus lotes y edificios vacíos en las décadas futuras. Detroit Future City, con sus estrategias de “reverdecimiento” extendido –incluyendo “paisajes productivos” que reutilizarían suelos vacantes mediante reforestación, lagunas de retención de agua de lluvia, instalación de paneles solares y producción de alimentos– recibió elogios como una nueva manera visionaria de pensar sobre las viejas ciudades industriales y de incluir a ciudadanos comunes y corrientes en la conversación sobre su futuro. “En los anales de participación cívica y planificación comunitaria, Detroit Future City es probablemente el ejercicio de planificación y extensión comunitaria más amplio que he visto”, dijo George W. McCarthy, presidente y Director Ejecutivo del Instituto Lincoln de Políticas de Suelo.

Orígenes y esencia

En 2010, tres años antes de que Detroit declarara la bancarrota municipal más grande de la historia de los EE.UU., la población se había reducido a 700.000 habitantes, de su pico de 1,85 millones en 1950. El alcalde de entonces, David Bing, se vio obligado a reajustar los servicios municipales a la reducción de la base imponible y del paisaje urbano. Su sugerencia inicial a los medios, de que iba a mudar a los pocos habitantes que quedaban fuera de los barrios “fantasma” más abandonados de Detroit, generó comparaciones despiadadas con los proyectos de renovación urbana del pasado e incluso abucheos acusatorios de “limpieza étnica”; su idea fue rápidamente guardada en un cajón. Ese mismo año, el alcalde y sus principales funcionarios organizaron una serie de reuniones comunitarias llamadas Detroit Works para iniciar un diálogo con la ciudadanía sobre la necesidad de repensar cómo debería operar la ciudad en el futuro. Pero los residentes tenían otras ideas. Las reuniones enseguida derivaron en sesiones caóticas de quejas, en las que cientos de residentes demandaban mejor alumbrado en las calles, protección policial y otros servicios municipales con urgencia.

McCarthy, que en ese entonces trabajaba en la Fundación Ford y respaldaba los esfuerzos de revitalización de Detroit, dijo que los líderes deberían haber pensado antes de actuar. “Cuando se incorpora a ciudadanos normales al proceso de planificación, lo consideran como si fuera una reunión pública y la manera de hacerse notar es gritar más fuerte”, dijo. “Si uno es sincero sobre la participación ciudadana, tiene que tomarse el tiempo para capacitar a los ciudadanos para ser planificadores. Hay que dedicar una cantidad importes de tiempo y atención para que la gente pueda comprender que la planificación consiste en tomar decisiones difíciles en un entorno constreñido”.

Con financiamiento de la Fundación Kresge y otras fuentes, la ciudad se reagrupó y contrató a equipos de consultores, algunos respetados a nivel nacional, como la Directora de Proyecto Toni L. Griffin, profesora y directora del Centro J. Max Bond de Diseño para la Ciudad Justa en la Facultad Spitzer de Arquitectura de City College en Nueva York. Con el liderazgo de Griffin, comenzaron a delinear el documento que se convertiría en Detroit Future City.

El grupo tuvo cuidado en evitar la palabra “plan” cuando se lo presentaron al público. A diferencia de un plan de ordenamiento convencional, que básicamente crea un mapa de qué usos se permitirá en los distintos lugares antes de que el sector privado llegue para desarrollarlos, Detroit Future City es un marco de referencia estratégico para pensar en los distintos tipos de barrio y cómo podría evolucionar cada uno, dadas las tendencias existentes.

“No queríamos dejar a la ciudad imágenes estáticas ilustrativas de cómo podría ser”, dice Griffin. “Ya había montones de ellas. Queríamos dejar a la ciudad una herramienta para que la gente pudiera manejar el cambio, porque, como ya se sabe, Detroit todavía tiene mucho por definir en términos de gobierno, estructuras fiscales, servicios municipales, pérdida de población y la composición siempre cambiante de suelos vacantes”.

El marco de referencia tenía que permitir a los dirigentes tomar decisiones mientras se producía el cambio a lo largo del tiempo. “Ofrece distintas estructuras para tomar decisiones que permiten, por ejemplo, decir: si esta es la condición actual, estos son los distintos tipos de opciones que se pueden considerar para pasar de A a B”, dice Griffin. Para simplificar: Si un barrio está mostrando un nivel significativo y creciente de vacancia, pero sigue teniendo un inventario utilizable de viviendas y comercios, el suelo vacante en esa zona se podría convertir en área de producción de alimentos o en un campo de paneles solares para alimentar a las empresas locales. Pero un barrio con poca vacancia y niveles mucho más altos de densidad podría planificar emprendimientos internos para sus pocos lotes vacantes. En vez de sugerir que la esquina de Woodward Avenue y 7 Mile Road debería tener un centro comercial, el marco de referencia ofrece una serie de ejemplos de lo que podría ocurrir dadas ciertas tipologías de barrios.

El lema fue: “Cada barrio tiene un futuro, pero no necesariamente el mismo futuro”.

Las estrategias de reverdecimiento de Detroit Future City fueron particularmente importantes y llamaron la mayor atención debido a la gran cantidad de suelos vacantes en los que la opción de desarrollo inmobiliario no era realista, y probablemente no lo fuera por muchos años más; quizá un tercio de la ciudad reclama un nuevo propósito y uso. Los puntos con más lotes vacantes del mapa se podrían hacer productivos con la instalación de campos de paneles solares productores de energía, reforestación, agricultura o “infraestructura azul”, como lagunas de retención de agua de lluvia, biocanales de drenaje y canales que proporcionan agua para riego agrícola y que desvían el agua de lluvia y la nieve derretida del sistema de alcantarillado combinado de Detroit, ya de por sí sobrecargado. Casi todos estos usos serían presuntamente esfuerzos privados, pero requerían de permisos municipales y quizá otro tipo de asistencia, como cambios de zonificación o sociedades con varios grupos filantrópicos o sin fines de lucro. “Hay que contar con una estrategia de reverdecimiento para poder usar el suelo de manera que, como mínimo, no presente una carga para las áreas pobladas existentes y, como máximo, aumente la calidad de vida, la productividad económica y la calidad medioambiental de la población de Detroit”, dice Alan Mallach, un consultor de Detroit Future City, fellow no residente del Brookings Institution, y autor de Regenerating America’s Legacy Cities (Cómo regenerar las ciudades tradicionales de los EE.UU.), publicado por el Instituto Lincoln.

Pero el plan contempla también densidades de población significativamente mayores en aquellas zonas de Detroit que ya se están regenerando, como el área extendida del centro, donde profesionales jóvenes han provocado un resurgimiento residencial recientemente, y donde empresas pioneras como Quicken Loans, que se mudó al centro en 2010, han llenado torres de oficinas previamente vacantes. Ello sugiere que los hospitales y corredores industriales existentes en Detroit podrían y deberían ver concentradas en ellos nuevas inversiones para aumentar las oportunidades de capacitación laboral y nuevos emprendimientos residenciales y minoristas en esos nodos. Los distritos de empleo claves se podrían interconectar con nuevas opciones de transporte público, como la línea de tranvía M-1 que se está construyendo a lo largo de Woodward Avenue, la calle principal de la ciudad, con financiamiento público-privado. La construcción de esta línea de 5 kilómetros de largo a un costo de US$140 millones comenzó a mediados de 2014, y conectará el centro desde Jefferson Avenue hasta el área de New Center, otro centro de actividad, a lo largo del distrito de Midtown, que se está revitalizando rápidamente. Se espera que la línea comience a operar a fines de 2016. Si los votantes aprueban un nuevo amillaramiento del impuesto sobre la propiedad que se presentará a su consideración presuntamente en 2016, la línea M-1 podría ser suplementada por un sistema regional de tránsito rápido por autobús que se construiría en los próximos años.

Mallach describe Detroit Future City “como un análisis realista de lo que está ocurriendo, para sugerir cómo gastar el dinero, dónde realizar las inversiones, a qué dar prioridad, etc.”.

“Detroit Future City ofrece un menú”, agrega. “No dice: este sitio deberá convertirse en una granja urbana; sólo sugiere opciones”.

Participación ciudadana

Las decisiones sobre qué ocurriría y dónde quedarían a criterio del proceso político, con la participación de los vecinos, dirigentes municipales y otras partes interesadas. De esa manera, la opinión pública sería crucial para el éxito del programa.

En 2012, el equipo de Detroit Future City contrató a Dan Pitera, profesor de la Facultad de Arquitectura de la Universidad de Detroit Mercy (UDM), para diseñar una nueva y mejor estrategia de participación que recogiera y orientara el deseo de cambio de los residentes. Los esfuerzos abarcaron desde sesiones de charla informales en torno a una “mesa itinerante” diseñada por los estudiantes de arquitectura de UDM, que se ubicó en varios lugares de la ciudad, hasta una serie de reuniones en centros comunitarios, donde 100.000 residentes participaron en debates sobre la rehabilitación urbana.

Durante la etapa de planificación de 2012 y principios de 2013, se abrió una nueva oficina al público en el distrito de Eastern Market para que los residentes pudieran conocer al personal, ver planes, responder a encuestas, etc. El personal de la oficina incluía a miembros del Centro de Diseño Colaborativo de UDM, dirigido por Pitera, y de la organización sin fines de lucro Recursos Legales Comunitarios. El grupo de Pitera también creó una aplicación de teléfono móvil para fomentar la participación comunitaria. Y el equipo creó 25 carteles de colores para identificar los distintos temas, como suelos vacantes o jardines comunitarios, y los distribuyó a millares por toda la ciudad.

En una reunión de sábado por la mañana en 2012 en la Misión de Rescate de Detroit, unos 50 residentes tuvieron una vista previa de lo que pasaría con distintos barrios, dependiendo de las condiciones existentes y los deseos de los residentes. Algunos de los asistentes expresaron una opinión positiva. “El diálogo es justo lo que necesitamos para volver a considerar los problemas reales”, dijo Phillis Judkins, de 65 años de edad, proveniente del distrito de North End. Y Larry Roberts, de 70 años de edad, quien vive en el barrio Indian Village de Detroit, dijo que las reuniones públicas de 2012 fueron más productivas que las reuniones masivas más bien caóticas de Detroit Works en el otoño de 2010. “Hoy parece que hay gente con ideas que nos pueden hacer progresar”, dijo.

Por supuesto, todavía había un poco de escepticismo sobre cuántas de estas buenas ideas se convertirían en políticas reales en una ciudad con un presupuesto tan restringido, y cuántas se concretarían alguna vez. “Si el gobierno municipal adopta este plan y nos comunica lo que va a hacer, creo que las cosas van a salir bien”, dijo Roberts.

————————

La controversia de la agricultura urbana

Un uso controvertido del suelo que la oficina ha fomentado proviene de una tendencia ya conocida en Detroit: la agricultura urbana. En los últimos 15 años, Detroit ha presenciado el nacimiento de más de 1.000 pequeños jardines comunitarios, incluidos entre ellos proyectos reconocidos a nivel nacional como Earthworks y D-Town Farm, cada uno de los cuales abarca unas pocas hectáreas. Pero en la actualidad la mayor parte de la actividad agrícola la realizan voluntarios, y la producción la consumen los vecinos, se dona a bancos de alimentos o, en algunos casos, se vende en mercados de agricultores locales. En años recientes Detroit se ha visto sumido en un intenso debate sobre la posibilidad de ampliar esta actividad a escala de agricultura comercial. Algunos proyectos, como Hantz Farms y RecoveryPark, han elaborado planes ambiciosos para convertir cientos de hectáreas para la producción de alimentos. Pero por el momento cada uno de estos esfuerzos tiene una escala relativamente pequeña mientras el debate sobre la oportunidad de la agricultura comercial continúa.

De todas maneras, el equipo de DFC sigue comprometido a producir muchos más alimentos dentro de la ciudad, tanto en terrenos vacantes como en fábricas abandonadas, donde se podrían realizar cultivos hidropónicos. El equipo de DFC, por ejemplo, está trabajando con RecoveryPark para diseñar un sistema de retención hídrica para regar los cultivos.

Como mínimo, la agricultura urbana podría ayudar a algunos emprendedores de alimentación locales a hacer crecer sus empresas, generar puestos de empleo y ampliar la base imponible, aunque sea en una escala modesta. La producción de alimentos también ayuda a generar un propósito comunitario alrededor de una actividad, eleva la conciencia sobre la nutrición y crea un nuevo uso productivo para lotes vacantes y fábricas en ruinas. “Detroit tiene la oportunidad de ser la primera ciudad del mundo con alimento asegurado”, dijo Kinkead.

Pero los funcionarios municipales no han aprobado aún estos proyectos agrícolas comerciales en gran escala, por temor a que los problemas secundarios, como polvo, ruido y olores, se les vayan fuera de control. Otros cuestionan si los bajos márgenes de las economías agrícolas (que dependen del trabajo pesado realizado en su mayoría por migrantes que ganan el salario mínimo) pudieran producir ingresos y trabajos suficientes como para justificar esta estrategia. McCarthy sigue siendo uno de los escépticos. “Creía que no era una buena idea cultivar productos alimenticios”, dijo. “La ecuación económica no lo justifica; los costos son prohibitivos, ya que no hace falta ir demasiado lejos para llegar a suelos agrícolas excelentes fuera de Detroit a un décimo del precio”. Así que el debate continúa, mientras el equipo de implementación de DFC sigue trabajando para producir más alimentos en los suelos vacantes de Detroit.

————————

En el ejercicio del actual alcalde, Mike Duggan, quien se hizo cargo del gobierno en 2014, se ha abierto una serie de oficinas en los barrios para comunicarse con los ciudadanos más de cerca que las administraciones anteriores, y recoger sus inquietudes. El nivel de participación comunitaria a la fecha ha puesto en evidencia que los habitantes de Detroit no se han dado por vencidos, incluso en los barrios más perjudicados.

La hora de la verdad

Felizmente, la preocupación de que Detroit Future City languidezca en algún cajón acumulando polvo, como tantos otros documentos lo hicieron antes en Detroit, parece infundada. Con el respaldo financiero y el liderazgo de Kresge, se estableció la Oficina de Implementación de Detroit Future City (DFC) como una organización sin fines de lucro encargada de implementar las visiones y sugerencias del plan. Dan Kinkead, un arquitecto que ayudó a escribir Detroit Future City, fue nombrado director de proyectos. El grupo tiene una sede permanente en el distrito New Center de Detroit y una plantilla de 12 miembros, incluyendo el personal disponible a través de varios programas de becarios se ha puesto en marcha en la ciudad. Kenneth Cockrel, un expresidente del Concejo Municipal de Detroit que ejerció brevemente como alcalde interino después de que el entonces alcalde Kwame Kilpatrick dimitiera por un escándalo en 2008, fue contratado a finales de 2013 para ser el director de la oficina de implementación.

A comienzos de 2015, la oficina de implementación había puesto en marcha múltiples proyectos piloto en alianza con otras organizaciones. Estos incluyen:

Campos solares. En colaboración con Focus: HOPE, organización sin fines de lucro para la capacitación laboral de la ciudad, y una pequeña empresa emergente, el equipo de DFC tiene pensado cubrir alrededor de 6 hectáreas de suelos vacantes con paneles solares. Kinkead estima que el campo podría producir cinco megavatios de energía, suficiente para alimentar varios cientos de casas. Los planificadores esperan comenzar el proyecto este año o el que viene, pero no se sabe bien a cuántas personas va a dar empleo.

Lagunas de retención de agua de lluvia. En el lado este de Detroit, el personal de DFC está considerando crear una serie de lagunas de retención de agua de lluvia en un barrio residencial, para evitar que drene en el sistema de alcantarillado. El barrio, conocido como Jefferson Village, había sido destinado a viviendas unifamiliares 15 años antes, pero ese proyecto quedó paralizado por falta de financiamiento, dejando docenas de lotes vacantes y muy poca demanda por ellos. Pero, con el financiamiento de la Fundación Erb local y con el asesoramiento del Departamento de Aguas y Alcantarillado de Detroit, el equipo de DFC ha identificado varias docenas de lotes vacantes para las lagunas de retención. Prevén que los propietarios cercanos podrían recibir una reducción en sus facturas de agua, puesto que el departamento ya no tendría que construir y mantener la infraestructura de grandes tuberías necesaria para recolectar el agua de lluvia que se mezcla con las aguas residuales. Si el esfuerzo resulta exitoso, se ampliará al resto de la ciudad.

Amortiguadores de carbono en los bordes de las carreteras. Una de las recomendaciones de DFC, la plantación de árboles como amortiguadores de carbono junto a las calles y carreteras principales, dio lugar, junto con la organización sin fines de lucro Greening of Detroit, a la mayor campaña de plantación de árboles de la ciudad a finales de 2014 en el lado oeste de Detroit, cerca de la carretera Southfield, uno de los conectores principales de norte a sur. Alrededor de 300 árboles fueron plantados por voluntarios en un solo día a lo largo de varias cuadras. Cuando maduren, estos árboles absorberán por lo menos algunas de las emisiones de carbono de la carretera.

Trish Hubbell, vocera de Greening of Detroit, dijo que la alianza con el equipo de implementación de DFC para este tipo de iniciativas eleva la visibilidad de cada proyecto, lo cual a su vez contribuye a la recaudación de fondos. Y el equipo de DFC aporta una gran cantidad de conocimientos sobre temas de uso del suelo en cada uno de estos empeños.

“Su valor más importante es que tienen un marco de referencia, de manera que pueden ayudar a determinar dónde se tienen que hacer las cosas”, dijo Hubbell. “El marco de referencia agrega valor a todas las oportunidades que se presenten”.

Construcción de consenso

En vez de ignorar Detroit Future City como un producto de una administración previa, el alcalde Duggan ha apoyado públicamente esta iniciativa como guía propia. Su asesor principal para temas laborales y económicos se refiere a su ejemplar ya desgastado de Detroit Future City como su “Biblia” para reorganizar la ciudad.

Jean Redfield, Directora Ejecutiva de Next-Energy, una organización sin fines de lucro de Detroit que trabaja por un futuro de energía sostenible para la ciudad, tiene otro ejemplar de Detroit Future City sobre su escritorio. “Lo uso mucho para encontrar el lenguaje específico necesario para hablar de opciones específicas”, dijo. “Uso algunos de los mapas y estadísticas con regularidad”. Y el equipo de NextEnergy colabora con el equipo de implementación de DFC para planificar una variedad de proyectos de infraestructura verdes y azules. “Nuestros caminos se cruzan con frecuencia”, declaró. “Allá donde surja una pregunta o un problema sobre el Departamento de Energía o la ciudad de Detroit relacionado con el uso del suelo, la infraestructura de energía, el alumbrado de calles o proyectos solares, frecuentemente trabajamos codo a codo con ellos”.

Como mencionamos, el equipo de implementación actúa más como asesor principal de otras agencias, como Greening of Detroit o el Departamento de Aguas y Alcantarillado de Detroit, que como protagonista. El Director de Implementación de DFC, Kenneth Cockrel, denomina al equipo una “agencia de planificación no gubernamental”. Explica: “Brindamos información para poder tomar decisiones, pero no tomamos las decisiones nosotros mismos. En última instancia, las recomendaciones del marco de referencia serán implementadas por el alcalde y el Concejo Municipal, si es que deciden ejecutarlas. Ellos son los que las pondrán en práctica”.

Cockrel también compara la implementación de Detroit Future City “con lo que ocurre cuando un libro se convierte en una película. No se filma el libro palabra por palabra y página por página. Algunas cosas se dejan de lado, y otras aparecen en la película. Me imagino que en última instancia esta será la estrategia utilizada por la administración Duggan”.

Como cualquier organización nueva, el equipo de DFC sigue afinando su papel a la búsqueda de dónde puede contribuir más. Kinkead concuerda que su papel se puede describir mejor con una paráfrasis del viejo lema corporativo de BASF: El equipo de DFC no implementa muchos proyectos innovadores en Detroit; simplemente hace que esos proyectos sean mejores.

“Vivimos en un mundo escurridizo”, dice Kinkead. “Es un tipo de juego distinto, pero nuestra misión se basa en brindar ayuda a los demás”.

A comienzos de 2015, quedó claro que muchas de las ideas innovadoras del corazón de Detroit Future City, como las estrategias de reverdecimiento, la producción de energía, los árboles como amortiguadores de carbono, los nuevos emprendimientos dedicados a distritos que ya son densos, que parecían ideas traídas por los pelos en 2010, cuando el entonces alcalde Bing lanzó su campaña Detroit Works, se han convertido en ideas normales.

“Ya no son sólo los ecologistas o activistas del cambio climático los que hablan sobre bosques de carbono; son los residentes y directores ejecutivos de las corporaciones de desarrollo comunitario”, dice Griffin. “Los líderes empresariales y los filántropos ahora reconocen su importancia. Un resultado importante de este trabajo es que hay un espectro más amplio de la ciudadanía que habla de estos temas, aunque no sean necesariamente una cuestión fundamental para sus actividades cotidianas.

Quizá sea igualmente importante la conciencia generalizada de que Detroit tiene que proporcionar servicios municipales de manera distinta, dada la realidad de los problemas económicos y la pérdida de población de la ciudad. La ciudad emergió con éxito de la bancarrota a finales de 2014, pero en el mejor de los casos esto le ha dado a Detroit un respiro para comenzar a crecer de nuevo. Si este crecimiento vuelve a producirse, la ciudad tiene que conducirlo de manera más inteligente que como lo hizo en los periodos de expansión del pasado, cuando el desarrollo se produjo en forma desordenada en toda la ciudad.

El camino por delante

Una de las razones por las que la ciudad y sus habitantes estaban listos para un documento como Detroit Future City fue la comprensión profunda de que los problemas de Detroit se debieron a la desindustrialización y el crecimiento suburbano desordenado. “Los residentes comenzaron a comprender que en realidad estaban subsidiando el crecimiento desordenado y la desinversión. Comenzaron a pensar en maneras de cambiar estos sistemas para que fueran más eficientes”, dijo Griffin.

Mientras este artículo se estaba preparando para su publicación, Detroit dio otro paso gigante para revitalizar sus actividades de planificación, que se encontraban en hibernación desde hace tiempo. El alcalde Duggan anunció que había contratado a Maurice Cox, el sumamente considerado director de Tulane City Center, un centro de recursos de diseño comunitario para Nueva Orleáns, y vicedecano de Community Engagement (Participación comunitaria) en la Facultad de Arquitectura de la Universidad de Tulane, como nuevo director de planificación de Detroit. En Nueva Orleáns, Cox facilita una amplia gama de alianzas entre la Universidad de Tulane, la Autoridad de Revitalización de Nueva Orleáns y la Ciudad de Nueva Orleáns. En Detroit, entre otras actividades, ayudará a convertir algunos de los marcos de referencia generales de Detroit Future City en recomendaciones de planificación específicas.

Si la planificación innovadora está otra vez de moda, como parece ser, es más descentralizada, menos enfocada en grandes proyectos y más en sintonía con las condiciones reales, que podrían demandar soluciones distintas en cada barrio. Y la cantidad de voces que se escuchan en los debates de planificación es mayor que nunca. Quizá la contribución final y más importante de Detroit Future City ha sido la de incorporar a los barrios y ciudadanos al mismo nivel que a los planificadores profesionales de gran prestigio para decidir la dirección futura de la ciudad.

En efecto, Detroit Future City ha inaugurado una nueva era de planificación, y no se parecerá casi o nada a la de la era de Blessing. “La planificación ciertamente ha resurgido, pero es fundamentalmente distinta de lo que fue hace 50 años”, dice Kinkead. “En las décadas de 1950 y 1960, los objetivos de planificación amplios de la ciudad eran frecuentemente la manifestación de una elite municipal gubernamental”.

“Para que la ciudad avance, hacen falta todos”, dice Kinkead. “No se trata sólo de Detroit Future City. No se trata sólo del gobierno. No se trata sólo del sector empresarial. Se trata de todos ellos trabajando juntos”.

John Gallagher cubre temas de desarrollo urbano para el Detroit Free Press. Sus libros Reimagining Detroit: Opportunities for Redefining an American City (Imaginando un Detroit nuevo: Oportunidades para redefinir una ciudad norteamericana) y Revolution Detroit: Strategies for Urban Reinvention (Revolución en Detroit: Estrategias para una reinvención urbana) se pueden obtener de Wayne State University Press.

Referencias

Detroit Future City. 2012. Detroit Future City: 2012 Detroit Strategic Framework Plan. Detroit, MI: Inland Press.

Mallach, Alan and Lavea Brachman. 2013. Regenerating America’s Legacy Cities. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Skidmore, Mark. 2014. “Will a Greenbelt Help to Shrink Detroit’s Wasteland?” Land Lines 26 (4): 8–17.

This article reviews the Western State Planning Leadership Retreat, in which state planners from 13 western states have participated. The retreats provide a forum for state-level planners to compare their experiences, learn from each other’s successes and failures, and build a common base of experience for land use planning in their states and across the region. Rather than promote a particular approach to land use planning and growth management, the retreats encourage planners to explore a range of land use planning strategies for responding to growth and land use issues in the West. This article summarizes what we learned during the first two retreats in 2000 and 2001.

Forces and trends of land use planning. The West is changing and there are many differences in the states’ approach to land use planning. New forces and trends are redefining the region’s quality of life, communities, and landscapes—directly influencing how we approach land use planning and growth management. Within these trends, western state planners recognize a variety of common challenges—pockets of explosive population growth, sprawl, drought, out-of-date legislation, a lack of funding, and a lack of public and political support for planning, and changing the way development occurs.

Major themes related to land use planning and growth in the West;

Why plan? How can we build public and political support for planning? Historically, land use planning was motivated by a concern to promote orderly development of the landscape, preserve some open spaces, and provide consistency among developments. These continue to be important objectives, but they are insufficient for building public and political support.

What is the role of state government? State programs should support local land use planning efforts, and should try to engage the “big players,” such as transportation departments, to work with local jurisdictions and maintain their state’s economic competitiveness by encouraging local communities to improve their quality of life through infill, redevelopment, and preserving the natural environment.

How can regional approaches to land use planning complement state actions? Regionalism allows multiple jurisdictions to share common resources and manage joint services, such as water treatment facilities and roads. Regional approaches are gaining momentum, but they also create new challenges.

Foster effective planning and growth management through collaboration. Collaboration can be defined many ways, but most planners agree with the premise that if you bring together the right people with good information they will create effective, sustainable solutions to their shared problems. Collaboration, when done correctly, allows the people most affected by land use planning decisions to drive the decisions.

How do we measure success? In 1998, the Arizona legislature passed the Growing Smarter Act, which was amended in 2000, and created a Growing Smarter Commission. The act reformed land use planning and zoning policies and required more public participation in local land use planning. This brings us full circle to our first theme—Why are we planning?

The Three Cs of Planning—three recommendations emerge from the western state planners’ retreats that can be implemented throughout the country. First, identify the most compelling reason to plan in your community; second, rely on collaborative approaches; third, foster regional connections.

“This [the West] is the native home of hope. When it fully learns that cooperation, not rugged individualism, is the quality that most characterizes and preserves it, then it will have achieved itself and outlived its origins. Then it has a chance to create a society to match its scenery.”

Wallace Stegner, The Sound of Mountain Water (Penguin Books 1980, 38)

During the past two years, state planners in 13 western states have met in the Western State Planning Leadership Retreat, an annual event sponsored by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and the Western Consensus Council. Cosponsors include the Western Governors’ Association, the Council of State Governments–WEST, and the Western Planners’ Association. The retreats provide a forum for state-level planners to compare their experiences, learn from each other’s successes and failures, and build a common base of experience for planning in their states and across the region. Rather than promote a particular approach to planning and growth management, the retreats encourage planners to explore a range of strategies for responding to growth and land use issues in the West. This article summarizes what we have learned during the first two retreats in 2000 and 2001.

Forces and Trends

The West is changing. New forces and trends are redefining the region’s quality of life, communities and landscapes, directly influencing how we approach land use planning and growth management. One force that sets the West apart from other regions of the country is the overwhelming presence of the landscape. The West has more land and fewer people than any other region, yet is also very urbanized. More people live in urban centers than in rural communities.

The dominance of land in the politics and public policy of the West is due in part to the large amount of land governed by federal and tribal entities (see Figure 1). More than 90 percent of all federal land in the U.S. lies in Alaska and the 11 westernmost contiguous states. The U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service manage most of the West’s geography and significantly influence the politics of land use decisions. Indian tribes govern one-fifth of the interior West and are key players in managing water, fish and wildlife.

The West is also the fastest growing region of the country (see Figure 2). The five fastest-growing states of the 1990s were Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, Utah and Idaho. Between 1990 and 1998, the region’s cities grew by 25 percent and its rural areas by 18 percent, both significantly higher rates than elsewhere in the U.S. As western demographics diversify, the political geography has grown remarkably homogeneous. Following the 2000 elections, Republicans held three-quarters of the congressional districts in the interior West (see Figure 3) and all governorships except the coastal states of California, Oregon and Washington.

Within these trends, western state planners recognize a variety of common challenges—pockets of explosive population growth, sprawl, drought, out-of-date legislation, a lack of funding, and a lack of public and political support for planning and changing the way development occurs in the West. They also point out many differences in their states’ approaches to planning. Oregon and Hawaii have long-standing statewide land use planning efforts, but planning in Nevada is a recent phenomenon, limited mainly to the Las Vegas and Reno areas. Vast federal holdings in Nevada, Idaho and Utah dictate land use management more than in other states, and Arizona and New Mexico share planning responsibilities with many sovereign tribal governments. Alaska and Wyoming—with small populations and little or no growth—do very little planning.

Major Themes

Based on the first two retreats, we have identified six major themes related to planning and growth in the West.

Why plan? How can we build public and political support for planning? Historically, planning was motivated by a concern to promote orderly development of the landscape, preserve some open spaces, and provide consistency among developments. These continue to be important objectives, but they are insufficient for building public and political support. Particularly during economic recession, planning takes a back seat—the public can focus on only so many problems at once. Today, the most compelling argument for planning is that it can be a vehicle to promote economic development and sustain the quality of life. People move to the West and create jobs because they like the quality of life in the region, and planners need to tap into this motivation.

In Utah, for example, quality of life is an economic imperative, so state planners tie their work to enhancing quality of life rather than to limiting or directing growth. It is used to integrate economic vitality and environmental protection. Several years ago, business leaders and others created Envision Utah, a private-public partnership. Participants use visualization techniques and aerial photos, mapping growth as it might occur without planning, and then again under planned cluster developments with greenbelts and community centers. These “alternative futures” scenarios help citizens picture the changes that are coming and the alternatives for guiding those changes in their communities. As Utah’s state planner says, “Growth will happen, and our job is to preserve quality. That way, when growth slows, we will still have a high quality of life.”

Kent Briggs, executive director for the Council of State Governments–WEST (a regional association for state legislators), and Jim Souby, executive director of the Western Governors’ Association, acknowledge the difficulty of nurturing public and political support for growth management in the West. They agree that political power shifts quickly from one party to the other, and yet is a lagging indicator of cultural, demographic and economic change. Governors and legislators might be more convinced to support land use planning, they say, by using visualization techniques to help them understand the costs of existing patterns of development, and to picture the desired future of our communities and landscapes.

How much planning is enough, and who should be in the driver’s seat? Arizona and Colorado have smart growth programs designed to help communities plan for growth and preserve open space. In the November 2000 elections, citizen initiatives in both states introduced some of the nation’s most stringent planning requirements, but both initiatives failed by a 70 to 30 percent vote, suggesting that citizens want to maintain flexibility and freedom—and local control—when it comes to planning and growth management. The story is similar in Hawaii, where business profitability—not zoning maps—directs land use. In May 2001, Hawaii’s governor vetoed a smart growth initiative because it was perceived as being too environmental and would limit developers’ ability to convert agricultural lands.

This emphasis on home rule or local control is supported by a recent survey of citizens in Montana, conducted by the Montana Association of Realtors. In the survey, 67 percent of respondents said that city or county governments should have the power to make land use decisions, while 60 percent opposed increasing state involvement in managing growth-related problems.

In Oregon, citizens narrowly passed Measure 7, an initiative requiring state and local governments to pay private property owners for any regulations that restrict the use or reduce the value of real property. While the impacts and constitutionality of this initiative are still being debated, it sends a strong message to planners in a state that has had one of the most progressive land use and growth management programs for 25 years. The message, according to Oregon’s state planner, is to not rest on your successes, and to keep citizens and communities engaged in an ongoing discussion about the effectiveness of land use planning. He also stressed the need to balance preservation with appropriate development, emphasizing that “good planning doesn’t just place limits on growth and development.”

What is the role of state government? Douglas Porter, keynote speaker at the first retreat and a nationally known consultant on land use and growth policy, says that one of the most important state roles is to offset the lack of will to plan at the local level. He says that state programs should support local planning efforts, and should try to engage the “big players,” such as transportation departments, to work with local jurisdictions. Porter also suggests that state governments can maintain their state’s economic competitiveness by encouraging local communities to improve their quality of life through infill, redevelopment, and preserving the natural environment.

Oregon’s state government attracted $20 million in federal funding to help communities overhaul zoning ordinances and remove obstacles to mixed uses. Colorado created an Office of Smart Growth to provide technical assistance on comprehensive planning; document best practices for planning and development; maintain a list of qualified mediators for land use disputes; and provide grants for regional efforts in high growth areas. In Arizona, Montana and New Mexico, state planning offices provide a range of technical services to assist communities, such as clarifying state laws, promoting public participation, and fostering intergovernmental coordination.

Jim Souby suggests that one of the most effective roles of state government is to promote market-based strategies and tax incentives. “Tax what you don’t like, subsidize what you do like,” Souby says. Other incentives might include cost sharing and state investment strategies—similar to Maryland and Oregon—to drive development in a positive direction.

How can regional approaches to land use planning complement state actions? Regionalism allows multiple jurisdictions to share common resources and manage joint services, such as water treatment facilities and roads. In Washington, citizens recently rejected the top-down smart growth model popularized in Florida due to concerns over home rule and private property rights. In response, the state legislature approved a system of regional planning boards that instill some statewide consistency while allowing for regional and local differences.

Nevada, despite double-digit growth in the Las Vegas and Reno areas, does not have a state planning office. However, the legislature mandated Washoe County (home of Reno and Sparks) to create a regional planning commission to address growth issues jointly rather than in a piecemeal manner. Key municipal and county officials in Clark County (Las Vegas) formed their planning coalition voluntarily—compelled to cooperate by the highest growth rate in the nation. This coalition recently presented the state legislature with a regional plan that emphasizes resolving growth issues locally rather than at the state level.

In New Mexico, the city and county of Santa Fe each recently updated their comprehensive land use plans. The plans were fine, except that they were stand-alones prepared with no coordination. Citizens demanded better integration of planning efforts and pushed for a new regional planning authority. Within 18 months, citizens and officials developed a joint land use plan for the five-mile zone around the city, and the regional authority is now developing zoning districts and an annexation plan. In Idaho, city and county officials in Boise voluntarily created the Treasure Valley Partnership as a forum to discuss policies for controlling sprawl, and to coordinate the delivery of services. They are also reviewing the possibility of light rail development.

Regional approaches are gaining momentum, but they also create new challenges. For example, the city of Reno has been reluctant to join the neighboring city of Sparks and Washoe County in revising their regional plan. With no enforcement or penalty at the state level, the other jurisdictions can do little to encourage Reno’s involvement. Likewise, New Mexico has no policy framework for regional planning and thus no guidelines on how to share taxing authority, land use decision making and enforcement responsibilities.

Foster effective planning and growth management through collaboration. Collaboration can be defined many ways, but most planners agree with the premise that if you bring together the right people with good information they will create effective, sustainable solutions to their shared problems. Collaborative forums allow local officials to weigh and balance competing viewpoints, and to learn more about the issues at hand. According to Jim Souby, local efforts should incorporate federal land managers because they play such a dominant role in the region’s political geography. Kent Briggs agrees that collaboration, when done correctly, allows the people most affected by land use decisions to drive the decisions. Collaborative processes, when they include all affected interests, can generate enormous political power, even when such efforts do not have any formal authority. While it may be appropriate in some cases to have national or state goals, it is ultimately up to the people who live in the communities and watersheds of the West to determine their future, according to Briggs.

How do we measure success? In 1998, the Arizona legislature passed the Growing Smarter Act, which was amended in 2000, and created a Growing Smarter Commission. The act reformed land use planning and zoning policies and required more public participation in local planning. The commission recommended that the state should monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of land use planning on an ongoing basis. The governor recently appointed an oversight council to continue this work, but council members say that clear benchmarks are needed against which to evaluate the effectiveness of land use planning—a percentage of open space preserved, for example, or a threshold on new development that triggers tighter growth restrictions. Arizona law, however, simply identifies the issues that must be addressed in comprehensive land use plans. It does not set specific standards or expectations, making meaningful evaluation impossible. This brings us full circle to our first theme—Why are we planning?

The Three Cs of Planning

Three recommendations emerge from the western state planners’ retreats that can be implemented throughout the country.

First, identify the most compelling reason to plan in your community. What are you trying to promote, or prevent? Be explicit about the values driving the planning process. Emphasize the link between quality of life, economic development and land use planning as a way to sustain the economy and the environment. Remember that people must have meaningful reasons to participate constructively in the planning process.

Second, rely on collaborative approaches. Engage the full range of stakeholders, and do it in a meaningful way. A good collaborative process generates a broader understanding of the issues—since more people are sharing information and ideas—and also leads to more durable, widely supported decisions. Collaboration may also be the most effective way to accommodate the needs and interests of local citizens within a regional approach and when the state’s role is limited.

Third, foster regional connections. Recognize that planning is an ongoing process, not a product to be produced and placed on a shelf. Link the present to the future using visualization and alternative futures techniques. Build monitoring and evaluation strategies into plan implementation. Encourage regional approaches that build on a common sense of place and address transboundary issues. Emphasize that regionalism can lead to greater efficiencies and economies of scale by coordinating efforts and sharing resources.

Matthew McKinney is executive director of the Western Consensus Council in Helena, Montana, a nonprofit organization that helps citizens and officials shape effective natural resource and other public policy through inclusive, informed and deliberative public processes. Will Harmon is the communications coordinator for the Western Consensus Council and a freelance writer based in Helena.

References

Center for Resource Management. 1999. The Western Charter: Initiating a Regional Conversation. Boulder, CO: Center for Resource Management.

Kwartler, Michael. 1998. Regulating the good you can’t think of. Urban Design International 3(1):13-21.

Steinitz, Carl and Susan McDowell. 2001. Alternative futures for Monroe County, Pennsylvania: A case study in applying ecological principles, in Applying Ecological Principles to Land Management, edited by Virginia H. Dale and Richard A. Haeuber. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag, 165-189.

Swanson, Larry. 1999. The emerging ‘new economy’ of the Rocky Mountain West: Recent change and future expectation. The Rocky Mountain West’s Changing Landscape 1(1):16-27.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000. Environmental Planning for Communities: A Guide to the Environmental Visioning Process Utilizing a Geographic Information System (GIS). (September).

Like many fast-growing areas across the country, the Bluegrass region of central Kentucky is dealing with two complementary growth management issues:

• How to manage growth that takes place within the 40-year-old urban growth boundary around Lexington and in the smaller cities and towns of the surrounding counties;
• How to best preserve the unique rural character of the countryside beyond urban growth areas.

Civic leadership for this critical planning process is provided by Bluegrass Tomorrow, a non-profit, community-based organization formed in 1989 to ensure that the region’s extraordinary resources-physical, natural and fiscal-are soundly managed for the future. Bluegrass Tomorrow works within the seven-county area for solutions that build a strong and efficient economy, a protected environment and livable communities. The organization accomplishes its goals by promoting regional dialogue and collaborative goal-setting among diverse interests, facilitating public, private and corporate sector cooperation, and developing innovative planning solutions to growth and conservation concerns.

The guiding framework for Bluegrass Tomorrow is the Bluegrass Regional Vision that was developed in 1993 through a broad-based regional planning process. In seeking to maintain a clear definition between town and country, this Vision reflects the region’s legacy of a large urban center (Lexington) surrounded by smaller, distinct cities and towns. These communities are separated and yet connected by a beautiful greenbelt of agricultural land and areas rich in environmental and historic resources.

Smart Growth Choices

Continuing a partnership established in the early 1990s, the Lincoln Institute and Bluegrass Tomorrow cosponsored a conference in October that focused on smart growth choices for the region. The conference was designed to bring together public officials, business interests and concerned citizens to revisit the Regional Vision, discuss why that Vision remains important for good business, good cities and a good environment, and to explore how it is being unraveled by current development pressures. Through a combination of keynote addresses, plenary sessions and interactive workshops, participants learned about smart growth principles and evaluated the appropriateness of various approaches and models to their region.

William Hudnut, senior resident fellow at the Urban Land Institute in Washington, D.C., discussed the characteristics of smart growth, which are also the goals of the Bluegrass Regional Vision:

• Begin with the end in mind and work back from there to plan in advance.
• Use incentives to guide development to areas that make sense.
• Think, plan and act as a region and work out issues through collaboration and teamwork.
• Make the commitment to preserve farmland and open space.
• Demonstrate environmental sensitivity, recognizing that “we borrow the land from our children.”
• Value compact, mixed-use development that supports alternative choices of transportation.
• Provide certainty for developers with less contention.
• Reuse older areas of cities and towns including abandoned lands and obsolete buildings.
• Preserve and reinvest in traditional downtowns and neighborhoods. “You can’t be a suburb of nothing.”
• Create a sense of place and community.

The conference program highlighted three smart growth themes, offered illustrative case studies from other regions in the U.S., and provided opportunities for participant feedback on promising directions and possible obstacles.

Planning and Paying for Infrastructure

The Bluegrass region’s ability to create incentives to promote smart growth practices is often limited because local governments are always in the business of playing “catch up.” This creates a problem because of the need for local government to be able to use public infrastructure to promote development in areas appropriate for growth, away from rural conservation areas, and to help in the purchase of development rights to protect the Bluegrass farmland.

Paul Tischler, a fiscal, economic and planning consultant from Bethesda, Maryland, advocated that government use a capital improvement plan to address this problem. This planning tool allows governments to create a comprehensive approach to current and future needs in one integrated program. It establishes goals for what projects are needed and how and when to pay for them. Peter Pollock of the Boulder, Colorado, Planning Department presented a case study of how his city has implemented a capital improvement program that addresses capital facilities planning and budgeting, equity concerns and linkage of service availability to development approval.

Infill Development

Promotion of more intense development and redevelopment within established cities and towns in the Bluegrass is a critical smart growth issue. It encourages more efficient use of the region’s highly valued Bluegrass farmland and makes better use of existing infrastructure. Too often, however, developers are required to reduce the density of development to respond to neighborhood concerns about incompatibility with the existing community character. As a result, land within urban areas is being used less efficiently, which increases the pressure to convert farmland on the edge of developed areas into future home sites.

To address this problem, Nore Winter, an urban design review consultant in Boulder, Colorado, discussed how communities can make sure that infill and redevelopment enhance the community and the quality of life in the surrounding neighborhood. He explained how to avoid “generica” by defining community character and using design guidelines to improve new developments with visual examples that demonstrate the type of development that is preferred. David Rice, executive director of the Norfolk, Virginia, Redevelopment and Housing Authority, shared examples of infill development projects in that city, which has successfully created quality neighborhoods, encouraged community participation and addressed difficult zoning, design and permitting concerns.

Regional Cooperation

The seven central Bluegrass counties constitute a highly integrated region in terms of land use, economy, and natural and cultural resources. Decisions in one county can have a long-term impact on another county. Although Bluegrass Tomorrow has drawn the region together to work on these issues, the current rate of change requires more intensive planning and coordination.

Curtis Johnson, president and chairman of the Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities area in Minnesota, explored with conference participants many examples of additional steps that can be taken to promote regional cooperation. The good news for the Bluegrass, Johnson noted in his opening observations, is that unlike some regions of the U.S., the Bluegrass is still able to make important choices. He cautioned, though, that any region has only a few opportunities to get it right, and that there is no magic solution. He also offered several succinct ideas about regionalism: “setting a bigger table, including those who disagree,” “it’s never over,” and “no one is excused.”

Next Steps

Conference participants and local community and political leaders who held a follow-up meeting concluded that the region needs to explore seven action steps to build on the ideas generated by the conference speakers and discussion sessions.

1. Encourage communities to put in place a well-communicated and clearly explained capital improvement plan to help build community confidence that government can meet and pay for the needs of local communities and the region as a whole. The plan should match services to regional growth and build consensus among diverse interest groups about which areas are to be designated as urban and which will remain rural.

2. Promote infill development by using a redevelopment authority to build downtown housing, redevelop old strip centers and explore new projects in overlooked urbanized areas.

3. Develop design guidelines for infill and redevelopment projects that work as a friend, not a foe. The guidelines should be developed in partnership with the neighbors to build confidence in the process, remove fear of the unknown, and set a design framework rather than dictate a particular design style.

4. Use Bluegrass farmland as the niche or “brand identity” when marketing the Bluegrass as a location.

5. Educate the business community, especially the lending community, about the reasons for and benefits of smart growth.

6. Address concerns over economic winners and losers in the region, and undertake economic planning accordingly.

7. Build on collaborative regional efforts now in place and the common sense of place in the Bluegrass to strengthen regional planning efforts. This involves taking care to maximize alliances among groups and to balance strategic long-term planning with specific actions.

What will become of these ideas? If the past is any measure, over the next several months the leaders and citizens of the Bluegrass region will sort out which of these ideas will work best, and they will form the coalitions necessary to make them work. Bluegrass Tomorrow will continue to provide a unique model of private sector leadership on smart growth issues in collaboration with the region’s public officials and community residents.

Jean Scott is executive director of Bluegrass Tomorrow, based in Lexington, Kentucky, and Peter Pollock is director of community planning in Boulder, Colorado, and a former visiting fellow of the Lincoln Institute. Together they developed and organized the conference on Smart Growth for the Bluegrass.

Decentralization of the state and growing business and community involvement in civic affairs are posing new challenges to the development of institutions focused on land policies and their implementation throughout Latin America. Mayors and local councils are assuming new responsibilities in the areas of environmental protection, urban transportation, basic infrastructure, local financing, social services and economic development. At the same time, business and civic organizations are finding new avenues to ensure public attention to their demands through participatory planning, budgeting, co-financing and control at the local level.

Thus, decentralization and democratic participation are gradually building an environment in which public-private alliances can develop joint projects of common interest to both government and individuals. However, many government institutions have a long way to go before they are fully adjusted to their new roles in planning, regulation and evaluation.

Long-entrenched cultures of apathy and citizen distrust of government have to be transformed into mutual confidence capable of mobilizing the best community traditions of the Latin American people. Political and economic patronage and state corruption need to be superseded by political and administrative accountability. Obsolete budget, contract and municipal laws still restrict the capacity of both local governments and civil society to interact creatively through contractual and co-financing arrangements.

The institutional challenges and policy dilemmas currently confronted by the Metropolitan Area of San Salvador (MASS) illustrate the transformations occurring throughout the region. After years of civil war, the Salvadorans signed a peace agreement in 1992 that provided the framework for real competition among political parties and stimulated more active participation by business, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and community organizations. MASS incorporates several municipalities, some of them led by mayors from opposition parties to the central government. The coordinating body of MASS is the Council of Mayors, which in turn is supported by a Metropolitan Planning Office.

With technical assistance from international NGOs, MASS has prepared a comprehensive development plan. Contemporary urban planning instruments such as macrozoning, multi-rate property tax, value capture for environmental protection, public-private consortiums and land use coefficients are being considered for the implementation of land, development and environmental policies. Indeed, the Salvadorans have the support of several research centers that are familiar with the use and impact of these and other instruments in other parts of the world. Their primary need now is to mobilize public and private metropolitan actors around common policies and to develop shared instruments for their application.

Toward that end, PRISMA, a prominent Salvadoran NGO and urban research center, invited the Lincoln Institute to develop a joint workshop on urban management tools, intergovernmental coordinating mechanisms for metropolitan areas and public-private initiatives for sustainable cities. The workshop, held in San Salvador in October, included high-ranking officers from the central government, mayors, planning officers and other authorities from MASS, and representatives from builders’ and developers’ associations and some cooperative housing institutions and community organizations.

Speakers from the Lincoln Institute presented experiences from Taiwan, The Philippines, Mexico and other Latin American countries that underlined policies and instruments capable of harmonizing the interests of different urban stakeholders and coordinating several layers of government for land use and urban development objectives. The Salvadorans explained their immediate concerns, such as the lack of intergovernmental coordination to protect the urban environment, discontinuities in policy measures, arbitrariness at all levels of government, and legal and administrative uncertainties.

The workshop participants concluded that to foster the new legal and institutional framework sought by MASS the Salvadorans need to expand discussions among other metropolitan actors. They also need to continue to work with institutions such as the Lincoln Institute that have the trust and credibility to present internationally recognized land management policies and can help build consensus among different public and private interests.

Mario Lungo is a researcher at PRISMA, the Salvadoran Program for Development and Environmental Research; Alejandra Mortarini is the Lincoln Institute’s Latin America and Caribbean programs manager; and Fernando Rojas, a lawyer from Colombia, is a visiting fellow of the Institute this year.

My father John C. Lincoln (1866-1959) had a strong code of ethics that played a prominent role in both his practice of business and his ideas about land. In 1895 he founded the Lincoln Electric Company of Cleveland, Ohio, which became the world’s leading manufacturer of arc welding equipment. He drew his ideas about land from the 1879 book Progress and Poverty, by the American political economist and social philosopher Henry George.

My father’s core ethical principle was to treat people as you would like to be treated. This implied the following precepts:

1) Treat people with absolute fairness. This means all people. In business it includes all the constituents of a company—employees, customers, owners, and the community. In society it means government must treat individuals fairly, and vice versa.

2) Whoever creates something should be entitled to keep it. Receiving the fruits of someone else’s labor—a windfall—often occurs. But for each windfall there is a wipeout—someone doesn’t get all he or she produced. Both the windfall and the wipeout are unethical.

3) People are important. They should be treated with respect and dignity, not as machines or cogs in a wheel.

Ethics in Business

Largely as a result of following these principles, the Lincoln Electric Company has demonstrated superior performance for its entire 100-year history. Many things have to happen to run a business ethically. One of them is making an adequate profit, which benefits the shareholders. But in my opinion, any company and all its constituents are better served if the customer comes first.

At Lincoln Electric, most employees are on piece work. If they produce more, they get more. The company has an annual bonus program, and the kitty for this bonus is composed of the extra profit beyond the returns required to run the business. Running the business includes providing a fair but not excessive dividend to shareholders and investing in new products and production methods. Beyond these costs, employees at Lincoln Electric get to keep any extra profit they produce. Recently bonuses have been about 50 to 60 percent of annual salaries. There are no windfalls, and no wipeouts.

Nowadays, manufacturing is no longer as much the “thing” as it once was. Making Lincoln Electric a successful global company requires more emphasis on company-wide teams. Individual pay is more dependent upon cooperation across departmental lines. This can work just as well as more individual programs of the past, but it is more difficult to manage. Incentives must be tailored to each location where we operate.

Ethics in Land

The heritage of the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy stems from my father’s interest in the ideas of Henry George, especially the land value tax. The ethics of this tax concept are parallel to those used at Lincoln Electric.

Someone who works the land should be entitled to keep the fruits of his labor. If he produces more because of increased skill or effort, he should reap a higher reward. However, Henry George said that land is a natural monopoly. Its value is largely created by things unrelated to the actions of the land’s owner, such as population pressure or mineral deposits. The landowner or user has nothing to do with these factors, yet if they cause the land value to increase, the owner gets a windfall.

This ethical dilemma disturbed my father, as it disturbs me. He subscribed to the remedy proposed by Henry George, which is to take as a tax each year the full rental value of land produced by natural or social factors. This would eliminate the windfall. It would still leave for landowners and users the value created by their own investments and labor.

A hundred years ago land was considered one of the three factors of production, along with labor and capital. Land was essential as both a place to work and a source of raw materials. Things are more complex today. A great deal of the economy has to do with telecommunications and computer software, which allow businesses to locate anywhere and use few or inexpensive natural resources. These changes may not negate the basic economic theories of Henry George’s time, but they do make it a bit more difficult to analyze the role of land in the economy.

There are many positive illustrations that ethical business practices lead to economic success. Unfortunately, there are not clearcut illustrations showing that land value taxation produces broad economic benefits. Nevertheless, economic research suggests that land value taxation could encourage the productive and careful use of land. Individuals who used the land in ways that increased its production would be able to keep the full value they had created, and society would keep the value it created.

I believe ethical practices will benefit all sides in any transaction. Ethical land taxation should lead to an improved economy, just as ethical business practices lead to more successful companies. One should get to keep the fruits of one’s labor, but the fruits of speculation or monopolies should accrue to the community as a whole, not to individuals as windfalls. Both the private sector and the public sector would benefit. Good ethics is good business. Good ethics is good for society as well as the economy.

___________________

David C. Lincoln, president of the Lincoln Foundation and former chairman of the Lincoln Institute, presented the annual Founder’s Day lecture on August 1 at Lincoln House. He had served as chairman for the Institute’s first 22 years before stepping down in May 1996. His talk, excerpted here in part, commemorated the 130th anniversary of the birth of his father, John Cromwell Lincoln, the Cleveland, Ohio, industrialist who founded the Lincoln Foundation in 1947.

Throughout North America, there is a growing trend to approach land use, natural resources and environmental problems on a regional basis. Since existing government agencies often lack broad authority, local and environmental leaders are increasingly taking the initiative to address the social, economic and environmental issues of a particular place by reaching across conventional political and jurisdictional boundaries, sectors and disciplines.

Interest in environmental regionalism has ebbed and flowed over the years, but its roots are as ancient as humankind’s first home in Africa’s Rift Valley and the early civilizations of Asia, Latin America and the Middle East. Regionalism flourished in Europe during the early nineteenth century and emerged in the U.S. in the form of the western explorations by Lewis and Clark and John Wesley Powell. In the 1930s, regional interest in the U.S. surfaced again in the form of Lewis Mumford’s ecological regionalism and the initiatives of the New Deal. After World War II, the U.S. Congress was persuaded to experiment with unifunctional and political forms of regionalism, such as the federal-state river basin and regional commissions. At the turn of the twenty-first century, prompted by dissatisfaction with the growing numbers, scale and complexity of governmental functions, and coincident with the public commitment to civic forms of environmentalism, the stage was set for the current revival of interest in regionalism.

What Is An Environmental Region?

An environmental region usually has some combination of the following attributes:

• a special place that people care about and identify with;
• a named area that “stirs the blood and arouses passion”;
• a place with a unity or homogeneity of some sort;
• an area defined by common system functions;
• a place with a similar context and culture;
• an area with a psychic identity (a “region of the mind”); and/or
• a place with a history (“story”) around which people can convene, organize and plan for what they want and need (C. Foster 2002a).

Examples of these places abound at different scales throughout the U.S.: Chesapeake Bay, the Northeast’s Northern Forest, the Great Plains (popularly termed the Buffalo Commons), the Southwest’s Sonoran Desert, the Rocky Mountains, California’s Great Valley of the Sacramento River, and the Pacific Northwest’s Puget Sound. The ambitious “Y2Y” (Yellowstone to Yukon) and Northeastern Landscape projects are designed to secure wildland corridors in crucial regions across the borders of the U.S. and Canada.

But environments need not be large to become good candidates for regional action. For example, a cranberry bog lying in two small Massachusetts towns was the spark for an eventual statewide statute permitting jurisdictions of all sizes to enter into joint powers agreements for environmental purposes. In the Deep South, high-level political negotiations currently preoccupy municipalities, states and federal agencies in the northern portions of the three-state, 20,000-square-mile Apalachicola/Chattahoochee/Flint (ACF) Basin while citizen environmental interests remain focused on the relatively modest, still unspoiled reaches at the southern end of the basin. The famous Quincy Library case in northern California was an initiative prompted by three local citizens, meeting at the town library, to forge a common strategy for nearby national forests. And, on Whidbey Island in Washington’s Puget Sound, one of the earliest land management collaborations involved local citizens and jurisdictions serving as surrogates for the National Park Service. In fact, such is the breadth and diversity of regional environmental initiatives across the country that national collaboration expert Julia Wondolleck of the University of Michigan has likened them to snowflakes— none exactly alike.

The Harvard Environmental Regionalism Project

Responding to an apparent resurgence of interest in regionalism throughout the U.S. and Canada, researchers at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government in the spring of 1998 asked nearly 150 prominent North American regionalists how regions might be used to advance environmental protection, use and management. The survey paralleled a similar New Deal-era inquiry into the possible use of regions for social and economic development and resulted in an outpouring of opinions (C. Foster and Meyer 2000). Some respondents advised that regions are bounded and shaped in response to a number of physiographic, hydrologic and biotic factors, while others noted influences built around a strong human sense of place.

Regions tend to be less distinct at the margins than at the core. In fact, many regions exhibit a kind of fractal, multi-core quality, operating through individual components that are layered, nested and organized hierarchically. But all seem to work best when they address real, politically relevant issues occurring in a “problem-shed” context. Thus, regions should be viewed as conceptual frameworks for analysis and practice, and ways to organize processes and relationships in order to harness capabilities and integrate policies and programs within a given area, rather than as definitive lines on a map.

Although environmental attributes will be prominent and compelling in any environmentally based region, they should not be controlling. More important will be the inhabitants’ own values, perspectives and priorities, which may include a range of environmentally relevant economic, social, political and cultural objectives. Such regions, like the environment itself, will turn out to be dynamic, not static. The best regions will employ a changing mix of largely organic activities supported by the programmatic services of established governmental agencies and political jurisdictions. Their scales must be large enough to encompass the problem or problems to be addressed, but not so large as to lose any prospect of a supportive constituency. The region’s form and administrative structure should be fitted carefully to its proposed programs and functions, and should operate as a viable business organization.

Despite passionate individual adherents for certain kinds of regions (for example, watersheds or ecoregions), no single best type of environmental region seems to fit all circumstances. Each region must reflect its own biological and cultural diversity and represent the needs of both the present and future occupants of the area in question. The survey respondents recommended starting with a sizable, recognizable, organic landscape, preferably one with a coincidence of natural and cultural features, where sufficient regional consciousness already exists to make the area identifiable (and even nameable). Pluralistic and deliberative processes should then be employed to define the required regional entity. In some instances, preexisting governmental authorities (such as the Endangered Species Act) can serve as the spark; in others, environmental functions may simply be added to established regional agencies for planning, transportation, economic development or metropolitan affairs. Whatever form it may take, and whatever its program objectives may turn out to be, the regional organization must not waver from its goal of achieving meaningful, positive and timely change in the state of the environment by either improving its present condition or removing impediments to its proper management, protection and use.

The Harvard researchers concluded that successful environmental regionalists will need a “tool box” of technical and financial assistance delivered to them through one or more “centers of excellence” established to serve on-the-ground networks of practitioners. Responding to that challenge, the Lincoln Institute has been supporting an inquiry and evaluation of the center of excellence concept through a project known as ENREG (environmental regionalism).

The ENREG Project

The project began with the drafting of a white paper, “Fostering Conservation and Environmental Regionalism: A Blueprint for Action,” describing the rationale for and likely attributes of a national environmental regionalism program (C. Foster 2002b). Separate audiences of regional practitioners and organization/agency representatives reviewed and debated the paper during sessions in Salt Lake City in December 2001 and at Lincoln House in Cambridge in April 2002.

After reviewing an extensive inventory and assessment of ongoing regional initiatives (McKinney et al. 2002), the western practitioners agreed that regionalism is by definition an integrative concept, eventually touching a whole circle of social, economic and political, not just environmental, issues. They noted that regionalism was growing in popularity for several reasons: necessity, self-interest, and as a way to design a shared future and avoid a common fate. They listed a number of obstacles and challenges facing regional initiatives in the West, describing such keys to success as new and creative processes, partnerships, coalitions, planned redundancy, and the exercise of a learning, adaptive attitude on the part of regional practitioners. As strategies to support and promote regionalism, they encouraged experimentation with different models, use of Internet tools to foster communications and networks, and the development of training programs for regional practitioners built around actual case experience. While they agreed that a common framework for promoting and supporting regionalism would be helpful, they cautioned against any attempt to institutionalize what was in essence an organic movement (McKinney, Harmon and Fitch 2002).

The eastern group used four case presentations to begin sorting out what regions are for, how they might be founded and used, what role government should be asked to play, and the implications of regionalism in a global sense. In terms of general precepts and strategies, participants were encouraged to be bold, positive, goal-oriented and adaptive. Those seeking to encourage and support regional initiatives should be sure that the right science and data are available at the right time, and that research and documentation do not overlook the crucial role to be played by people in achieving the necessary behavioral/societal changes (Foster 2002a).

Both groups agreed on the need for specialized education and training in regional environmental practice. The westerners urged training in designing regional initiatives, managing regional organizations and undertaking collaborative problem solving. The easterners suggested a curriculum that would start with concepts, principles and history, and then turn to the skill sets and processes needed to build an effective constituency for change. All favored research and documentation into what works in actual practice, what doesn’t, and why.

The Next Steps

Given these encouraging developments, what does the future portend for ENREG and the field of environmental regionalism it is advocating?

First, the Lincoln Institute is developing a short course on practical strategies to help citizens and officials initiate, manage and sustain regional initiatives. It is being designed for people interested in starting and operating regional initiatives or organizations, such as individual activists, local advocacy groups, governmental officials, and business and industry leaders. The course builds on recent work supported by the Lincoln Institute (see K. Foster 2001 and C. Foster 2002) and uses a combination of lectures, case studies and simulations to provide background information and teach practical skills. The first offering of the course is planned in the spring of 2003 for a group of 20 to 30 prospective practitioners and their associated organizations interested in solving environmental problems according to “the natural territory of the problem,” whether that be watersheds, ecosystems, metropolitan areas, or other types of regions. Ideally, the course will provide an opportunity for people from a common region to come together and begin the process of thinking and acting regionally. Future courses may be convened by one or more local organizational cosponsors that will be responsible for the recruitment of practitioners and many of the logistical and organizational arrangements and for working with the Lincoln Institute to provide instructional resources.

Second and closely allied with the short course is an executive seminar for senior regional practitioners who will be invited to share information and learn from one another through a peer exchange process, thereby building and sustaining viable practitioner networks and refining the instructional principles and strategies through the use of experiences drawn from the real world. The first executive seminar will be held in the West in March 2003.

Third, former ENREG national advisor Richard Doege is seeking supplemental funding to establish a national center of excellence on environmental regionalism. His efforts focus initially on case study research and on outreach to Congress, federal and state agencies, and national environmental NGOs. The objective is to develop a constituency for legislation, governmental practices and civic action that can promote sound environmental protection and management through the exercise of regionalism. The case studies are expected to be a critical resource for developing Lincoln’s training curriculum, and the contacts with organizations and agencies will help identify additional venues, targets and cosponsors for future courses. Through his liaison with Congress, Doege has already identified a number of regionalist provisions in important pending legislation. His future outreach efforts will aim to inform Congress and the national environmental community about ENREG’s research findings and help ensure that Lincoln’s curriculum objectives reflect the current status of regionalism in governmental circles.

Finally, the ENREG planners have in mind the ongoing development of curricular materials. For example, the initial elements of theory, skills and practice will be just the first steps toward an entire “library” of subject matter from which course organizers can make their own selections. Some courses may lend themselves to conversion into distance learning modules so that training can proceed either in conventional course settings or through home computers via the Institute’s web-based instructional program, Lincoln Education Online (LEO). This combination of face-to-face courses and distance learning will advance the Institute’s long-term mission of making knowledge comprehensible and accessible to citizens, policy makers and scholars throughout the world, and ENREG will have more than fulfilled the promise perceived by its proponents at the time of its founding just a year ago.

Charles H. W. Foster is adjunct senior research fellow at the John F. Kennedy School of Harvard University, a former Massachusetts secretary of environmental affairs and a former dean of Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. His colleagues in the ENREG inquiry were Matthew J. McKinney, executive director of the Montana and Western Consensus Councils, and former Harvard Loeb Fellow Rebecca Talbott, a career intergovernmental partnership specialist with the U.S. Forest Service.

References

Foster, Charles H.W. 2002a. Conference summary. ENREG Eastern Regionalism Conference (April). Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

_____. 2002b. Fostering conservation and environmental regionalism: A blueprint for action. ENREG working paper (June 30). Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Foster, Charles H.W. and William B. Meyer. 2000. The Harvard Environmental Regionalism Project. Discussion paper 2000-11. Cambridge, MA: Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.

Foster, Kathryn A. 2001. Regionalism on purpose. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

McKinney, Matthew, Will Harmon and Craig Fitch. 2002. Regionalism in the west: A working session with practitioners. (February 25). Helena: Montana Consensus Council.

McKinney, Matthew et al. 2002. Regionalism in the west: An inventory and assessment. Public Land and Resources Law Review. Missoula: University of Montana School of Law.

ENREG National Advisory Board

Robert L. Bendick, Jr., Southeastern Division vice president for The Nature Conservancy, Florida; former New York deputy commissioner for natural resources and director of the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management.

Richard L. Doege, Esq., Specialist in environmental economics and public policy; advisor to Congress in the areas of energy and the environment, Washington, DC; former business executive and legislative counsel.

Marion R. Fremont-Smith, Esq., Senior counsel at Choate, Hall and Stewart, Boston, and senior research fellow at the Kennedy School’s Hauser Center for Nonprofit Organizations; former Massachusetts assistant attorney general in charge of the Division of Public Charities.

DeWitt John, Director of the Environmental Studies Program at Bowdoin College, Maine; former director of the National Academy of Public Administration’s Center for the Economy and the Environment.

Chester M. Joy, Esq., Senior analyst for natural resources and the environment at the U.S. General Accounting Office, Washington, DC.

Ethan Seltzer, Director of the Institute of Portland Metropolitan Studies at Portland State University, Oregon; former land use supervisor for Portland Metro.

The implementation of any national planning program on a regional or local scale can be a challenge, even under the best circumstances. Colombia faces many social, political and economic issues that could easily have derailed the expansion of its major planning initiative—the national cadastral program. Some of these issues relate to its decentralized government, changing local public administrations, unstable economy and pervasive issues relating to poverty, the drug trade and international intervention. In spite of this situation, Bogotá’s Administrative Department for the District Cadastre (DACD) is gradually being recognized as a success story for developing countries in Latin America and beyond.

While legal conveyance, land policy and planning have been significant aspects of cadastres historically, fiscal management has been the primary focus in Bogotá for both its citizens and the business sector. The assessment administration process includes the maintenance of a database that receives information from the divisions that develop the econometric model, geographic information systems (GIS), building codes and enforcement, cartography, socioeconomic analysis of homogeneous sectors, land registration and zoning. As noted in the previous article, the numbers of incorporated (formación catastral) and updated (actualización catastral) properties have increased significantly (see Figure 1).

The large volume of parcels and improvements has been managed in such a short time by a deliberate and comprehensive administrative plan. The mandated public participation process did not compromise the efficiency with which the updates and property validation were completed. Within the last fiscal year, the econometric model took into consideration typical assessment variables but also considered a key element in the Bogotá cadastre, the “public value estimate.” According to Law 44 of 1990, a public comment and review process is used to update and maintain each property record card. The property owner or occupant provides an estimate of the property value and its depreciation or appreciation as required by the Unified Property Tax Reform Act. This legislation seeks to simplify the administration of taxes on land and avoid the possibility of taxing the same factors twice. Reliance on the public to provide the most current information on property conditions is important, but verification is also required. Thus, a fleet of professionally trained assessors has conducted inspections of all properties now recorded within the cadastral system. The public has been particularly forthcoming with information on improvements to vacant land, since the tax rate on land is higher than the rate on land with improvements. This integrated planning approach has encouraged community investment by limiting speculation.

The use of GIS has been key to department-wide integration and evaluation of property reviews, system updates and overall program administration. IGAC is in the process of developing an ArcCadastre program in coordination with the University of Bogotá. The goal is to link all of the regional cadastres to the national database. Within Bogotá a central GIS provides the cadastral managers with a powerful database that includes an interactive and multilevel inventory used during the property tax abatement process. The GIS has recently been expanded to allow for public searches of historic property record information along with parcel-level real estate listing data for all neighborhoods. The intended use of GIS, and the increase in the number of public terminals, will provide further access to the cadastral system. In the interim, the DACD Web site is a creative educational tool that keeps the public informed while managing this monumental process.

The Bogotá cadastre has made innovative and tangible progress in the creation, development and maintenance of a cadastral system considered by many to be a theoretical impossibility. The vision and tenacity of the public administrators, private industry and citizens have helped to build a cadastre that should meet or exceed the goals set by FIG’s Cadastre 2014 (Van der Molen 2003). This plan calls for a cadastre to have “inclusive rights and restrictions to land within map registers, comprehensive cadastre map models, seamless collaboration between public and private sectors and a cadastre that is cost recovering.” Given its political, administrative, financial, technical and practical challenges, the Bogotá cadastre has been able to turn a dream into an innovative reality.

Michelle Thompson is a real estate and research consultant teaching geographic information systems at the Cornell University Department of City and Regional Planning. She is also a faculty associate of the Lincoln Institute and she participated in the November 2003 conference on cadastres in Bogotá.

References

Bogotá’s Administrative Department for the District Cadastre (DACD): http://www.catastrobogota.gov.co/

Van der Molen, Paul. 2003. The future cadastres: Cadastres after 2014. FIG Working Week 2003, Paris, France (April 13-17). Available at http://www.eurocadastre.org/pdf/vandermolen2.pdf

Lawrence Susskind is the Ford Professor of Urban and Environmental Planning at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and president of the Consensus Building Institute, in Cambridge, Massachusetts. He graduated from Columbia University and received his Masters of City Planning and his Ph.D. in Urban Planning from MIT. As current head of the Environmental Policy Group in MIT’s School of Architecture and Planning, he teaches courses on international environmental treaty negotiation, public sector dispute resolution and environmental planning. He also holds a joint appointment at Harvard University as visiting professor of Law and director of the Public Disputes Program at the interuniversity Program on Negotiation, which he helped to found. Susskind has published many books and reports and held many visiting appointments and guest lectureships. He is a faculty associate of the Lincoln Institute.

Land Lines: How did you become interested in land use mediation?

Lawrence Susskind: Land use planners are supposed to ensure that the public is involved in all growth management decisions. Yet, most efforts to ensure such public participation lead to protracted political battles. Within the planning profession it is not clear how competing conceptions of appropriate land uses ought to be reconciled. Since the early 1970s I have been trying to introduce the concept of mediation as well as other conflict management tools into the lexicon of professional planners. In my view, in the absence of consensus building strategies of some kind, most communities are doomed to use resources inefficiently, unfairly and unwisely. I got interested in land use mediation as a way of helping the planning profession do a better job.

LL: What types of land use disputes are most difficult to resolve?

LS: Land use disputes that revolve around values or identity are the most difficult to resolve. When values (as opposed to economic interests) are at stake, people often feel that their identity is threatened and in such situations they are rarely open to considering the views of others. For example, proposed changes in land use that would eliminate agriculture as a way of life are not likely to be accepted, even if financial compensation is offered to the landowners involved.

LL: When did you start collaborating with the Lincoln Institute?

LS: My ties to the Lincoln Institute go back a long time. When Arlo Woolery was executive director in the late 1970s, we worked together on a multiyear effort to analyze the impacts of the Property Tax Limitation Law (Proposition 2 1/2) in Massachusetts and on the state’s Growth Policy Development Act. Two decades later, in 1997, I began working with Rosalind Greenstein and later Armando Carbonell, co-chairs of the Institute’s Department of Planning and Development, on a series of research projects that evolved into the training programs on land use mediation that we (LILP and CBI) currently offer together.

LL: Explain a little more about CBI.

LS: The Consensus Building Institute is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1993 to provide consensus building services to clients involved in complex disputes. Building on the “mutual gains” approach to negotiation developed at the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School, CBI offers conflict management assistance, negotiation training, dispute system design services and evaluative research to public agencies, corporate clients and nongovernmental agencies on five continents.

Our staff now includes a dozen full-time professionals, mostly based in Cambridge, and a network of more than 30 experienced affiliates around the world. We have become known as expert public and environmental dispute mediators and have helped to resolve complex disputes related to the siting of controversial facilities, the setting of public health and safety standards, the formulation and implementation of development plans and projects, and conflicts among racial and ethnic groups.

LL: When did the joint Lincoln and CBI training programs begin?

LS: After several years of careful analysis of land use mediation efforts throughout the United States, CBI developed a curriculum with Lincoln Institute for public officials and planners, and that course has been offered since 1999 at a number of locations. During the first few years we offered only a basic course designed to familiarize participants with assisted negotiation as a method to resolve land use disputes, and then we expanded our offerings to include more detailed skill building for experienced mediators and practitioners. Today we offer a full range of courses at multiple locations around the country.

LL: Who are the primary participants in these introductory and advanced courses?

LS: We are trying to reach three different audiences. First, we have identified and invited local elected and appointed officials who preside over land development disputes and administer land use regulatory systems at the local, regional and state levels. They need to know that there are techniques they can use to help resolve land use disputes before they escalate.

Second, we are trying to attract real estate developers and their attorneys so they know how to participate effectively in dispute resolution efforts when they are offered or suggested by public officials. Third, we have a special interest in attracting professionals of all kinds who want to learn how to be better facilitators, particularly of multiparty land use dialogues that involve complex technical dilemmas.

LL: What are the key goals and lessons of these programs?

LS: The introductory course offers a quick overview of the reasons that land use disputes seem to escalate so quickly and often end up in court. We then introduce the basic principles and tools of dispute resolution and show how they can head off such escalation. They are presented in a very interactive way using gaming and simulations. Participants are given a number of hands-on opportunities to apply what they are learning in hypothetical situations and to bring their own cases before the group. We spend some time talking about techniques for overcoming resistance to the use of mediation and other consensus building strategies.

The advanced course is aimed at experienced mediators or planners and lawyers who think they might want to become mediators. It assumes that the participants have mastered the material presented in the introductory course and moves to a set of dilemmas at the next level, including methods of handling science-intensive disputes through the use of joint fact finding. We also review key theoretical debates, such as managing unequal power relationships in a mediation context.

LL: How do you incorporate both theory and practice into the curriculum?

LS: We expect many of the participants to bring their own stories about land use disputes in which they have been intimately involved. We model in real time how the theory we are teaching can be applied in their cases. We also try to ground all of our theoretical presentations in detailed case accounts of actual practice. Finally, as mentioned above, we use role playing simulations. Students can’t just sit back and take notes. They have to wrestle with the application of the ideas we are presenting.

LL: What other projects have you undertaken with the Institute?

LS: About a year ago, in May 2004, I joined Institute President Jim Brown at a Lincoln-sponsored seminar in Cuba on the problems of restoring and redeveloping Havana Harbor. Energy production and inadequate attention to pollution control have spoiled one of the most beautiful harbors in this hemisphere. Some of the many different committees and groups concerned with economic development, environmental cleanup, restoration of the harbor ecology, historic preservation of Old Havana, and enhanced tourism are seeking advice on strategies for balancing these (sometimes) competing objectives.

CBI is beginning to develop a new joint course with the Lincoln Institute and some of its partners involved in local economic development efforts around the country. We believe conflict resolution tools and negotiation skills can be of great use in neighborhood development disputes, not just growth management conflicts in the suburbs. With Roz Greenstein CBI is creating a new set of training programs for community-based organizations that we plan to offer for the first time next summer.

Another new initiative is a collaborative Web site that highlights recent research by the Lincoln Institute and CBI, as well as timely news articles, background material on consensus building, and links to related programs and publications. One section of the site will provide an interactive platform that will permit hundreds of alumni of our joint courses to remain in touch with each other and share their mediation experiences. This “virtual learning community” will be a valuable resource for public- and private-sector stakeholders involved in land use disputes (even if they haven’t taken the course).

LL: What is the outlook for future joint programs?

LS: I believe our ongoing CBI–Lincoln Institute partnership holds incredible promise. We have conducted an Institute-sponsored study on the use of consensus building to resolve land reform disputes in Latin America and hope to expand on that work, as well as to address land issues facing China and the newly independent states of Eastern Europe. The Institute is already involved in research and training programs in these regions, and land use disputes are at the core of many of the challenges facing national and local policy makers.

The Lincoln Institute is an ideal partner for CBI. We both care about applied research, theory building and sharing new knowledge through educational programs of all kinds. We both measure our success in terms of real improvements on the ground, and we share interests in both domestic and international arenas.