Desde la primera reforma económica ocurrida en 1978 hasta la liberalización de inversiones extranjeras y el desarrollo del sector privado que se dio entre mediados de la década de 1980 hasta la actualidad, las principales reformas económicas de China han tenido como prioridad lograr una alta tasa de crecimiento económico. Estas políticas funcionaron tan bien que el PIB per cápita en dólares constantes en China aumentó cerca de un 10 por ciento anual de 1980 a 2010. Este rendimiento en el crecimiento no tiene precedentes en un país de grandes dimensiones, pero ha sido acompañado por incontables costos, tales como la transformación estructural de la economía, el ajuste social y las migraciones y la degradación medioambiental. En un nuevo libro del Instituto Lincoln titulado China’s Environmental Policy and Urban Development (La política medioambiental y el desarrollo urbano en China), editado por Joyce Yanyun Man, se trata el último de estos temas. Según este libro, de acuerdo con las estimaciones realizadas por agencias gubernamentales, los costos medioambientales sin documentar asociados a la producción económica fueron del 9,7 por ciento del PIB en 1999 al 3 por ciento en 2004.

El crecimiento económico en países de bajos ingresos por lo general viene acompañado de costos medioambientales. Este trueque se ve plasmado en la “curva medioambiental de Kuznets”, según la cual la calidad medioambiental se deteriora con el crecimiento económico en los niveles de bajos ingresos y luego mejora con el crecimiento económico en los niveles de ingresos más altos. Según lo indicado en este libro, las estimaciones de la curva medioambiental de Kuznets para las ciudades chinas entre 1997 y 2007 muestran que, durante dicho período, los índices de contaminación industrial en China se redujeron a medida que aumentaron los ingresos, lo que indica que las ciudades con ingresos más altos experimentaron mejoras en estos índices de calidad medioambiental conforme aumentaron sus ingresos.

Varios de los autores de los capítulos de este libro afirman que las políticas medioambientales de China y su rendimiento se encuentran en una etapa de transición. Los indicadores medioambientales están mejorando en respuesta a las nuevas políticas y reglamentaciones, mientras que el crecimiento económico continúa. Al mismo tiempo, China también ha sufrido reveses en este sentido. Por ejemplo, ciertos eventos de gravedad extrema, como la combinación de un clima extremadamente frío con inversiones atmosféricas que se dio este invierno en Beijing, produjeron niveles muy altos de concentraciones de partículas en dicha ciudad.

La lógica detrás de la curva medioambiental de Kuznets implica diferentes elementos, tanto de demanda como de oferta. En cuanto a la demanda, las poblaciones con ingresos más altos demuestran apreciar cada vez más los servicios que tienen que ver con el medio ambiente, por lo que defienden las mejoras medioambientales. Con respecto a la oferta, las inversiones en nuevas capacidades hacen uso de equipos modernos con procesos que respetan el medio ambiente y tecnologías de control más accesibles económicamente. Las últimas mejoras medioambientales en China también derivan del fortalecimiento de los entes de regulación ambiental. En 1982, la función que tenía la Agencia de Protección Medioambiental era principalmente de asesoramiento. No obstante, en 1988 se transformó en una agencia nacional; en 1998 se convirtió en un ente más independiente, la Agencia Estatal de Protección Medioambiental; y posteriormente, en 2008, se elevó la jerarquía del ente para convertirse en el Ministerio de Protección Ambiental.

La creciente influencia de las agencias de protección medioambiental centrales se vio acompañada por un cambio en el estilo de las reglamentaciones. El antiguo énfasis que se daba a las normas de orden y control (tales como las normas sobre emisiones) se reemplazó en forma parcial por instrumentos basados en incentivos económicos (tales como los impuestos sobre insumos y el nuevo impuesto sobre emisiones de carbono). Según las investigaciones realizadas, a la fecha la aplicación de las normas de orden y control ha arrojado mejores resultados.

Mientras que las agencias centrales establecieron normas nacionales, la responsabilidad de monitorear y velar por el cumplimiento de dichas normas se descentralizó en gran medida hacia las agencias medioambientales municipales o metropolitanas. El rendimiento de los gerentes municipales se revisa todos los años según criterios que hacen hincapié en el crecimiento económico. Otras mejoras en los resultados medioambientales pueden darse solamente cuando dichos criterios dan un mayor peso a las mejoras medioambientales. Por ejemplo, como consecuencia de haber incluido la reducción de las emisiones de sulfuro como criterio de rendimiento anual, se produjo un rápido aumento en el control de las emisiones de dióxido de sulfuro de las centrales de energía.

Aun cuando a China le resta mucho por hacer para reducir la contaminación del aire urbano, limpiar los ríos y lagos y mejorar la eficiencia en el uso de la energía, estos objetivos están cobrando mucha más importancia para los ciudadanos. La creciente disponibilidad de datos relacionados con los indicadores medioambientales está promoviendo un diálogo nacional respecto de la calidad medioambiental. El nuevo libro de la profesora Man representa un aporte a este diálogo, ya que informa sobre el progreso realizado, identifica los desafíos inmediatos y evalúa las nuevas políticas y enfoques normativos para las mejoras medioambientales.

In the wake of Hurricane Sandy, with more frequent extreme weather events and rising sea levels, the vulnerability of coastal cities and towns has become a matter of urgency. But out of disasters can come opportunities for innovation. Post-Sandy, a range of new initiatives, tools, policies, governance frameworks, and incentives are being tested, including competitions such as Rebuild by Design (RBD). Spearheaded by the Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task Force and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the contest used design as a key tool for creating integrated strategies to build resilience, sustainability, and livability.

After HUD announced the winners in June, Land Lines discussed RBD with Helen Lochhead, an architect, urban and landscape designer, and 2014 Lincoln/Loeb Fellow at the Graduate School of Design at Harvard University and the Lincoln Institute. Previously, she was the Executive Director of Place Development at Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority. She is also an adjunct professor at the University of Sydney.

Land Lines: How did Hurricane Sandy differ from other storms in the United States?

Helen Lochhead: Sandy caused unprecedented damage and underscored the vulnerability of coastal cities and towns to more frequent extreme weather events. Given the financial costs, topping $65 billion, and the excessive human toll, with 117 people dead and more than 200,000 displaced from their homes, it was clear from the outset of the recovery process that rebuilding what existed before was not a viable option.

All levels of government—federal, state, and city—clearly articulated the imperative to build greater resilience in the Sandy-affected areas of New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut. To ensure the tri-state region fares better next time around, it was acknowledged that we had to build differently. Because every $1 spent on mitigation and preparation can save $4 down the road on post-disaster rebuilding, government agencies are testing a range of new initiatives, including competitions that promote resilience through innovative planning and design, such as Rebuild by Design.

Land Lines: How did Rebuild by Design differ from other recovery efforts and design competitions?

Helen Lochhead: The RBD competition acknowledged design as a key tool for dealing with extreme weather events, with potential to reframe questions and develop new paradigms that challenge the status quo. Designers are collaborators, visualizers, and synthesizers. RBD provided them the opportunity to unpack issues and put together scenarios in new and different ways.

RBD’s approach was also regional. Hurricane Sandy defied political boundaries, so the competition aimed to address structural and environmental vulnerabilities that the storm exposed across all affected areas. It also promised to strengthen our understanding of regional interdependencies, fostering coordination and resilience both at the local level and across the United States.

The procurement strategy was different as well. The standard model for federal design competitions is to define an existing problem, develop a brief, and solicit solutions from the best experts in the field. But a problem of such unprecedented scale and complexity as Sandy cannot easily be defined until it’s understood in all its dimensions. This takes time. Such unchartered territory suggested the need for an open-ended question and an interdisciplinary, cross-jurisdictional approach.

First, a diverse pool of talent was engaged by a unique consortium of project partners—President Obama’s Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task Force and HUD in collaboration with New York University’s Institute for Public Knowledge (IPK), the Municipal Art Society (MAS), Regional Plan Association (RPA), and the Van Alen Institute (VAI), with financial support from the Rockefeller Foundation and other major foundations. Rather than limiting the field, the project partners sought integrated teams of interdisciplinary, collaborative thinkers, to facilitate a broad range of ideas and approaches as well as more holistic strategies.

Second, the competition process itself was different. Eight months total, it was short, sharp, and focused. The process involved research and design to interrogate the issues and maximize the breadth and range of ideas through open innovation paradigms. The process was research-led, open-source, and collaborative, to better refine the nature and scope of the complex regional challenges and develop comprehensive design solutions.

Third, RBD set aside HUD Community Development Block Grants (CDBG-DR) funding—$920 million specifically—to help implement winning projects and proposals. Typically, grantees are required to develop action plans only after receiving these funds. But RBD informally changed this procedure by fostering innovative proposals before awarding money. Thus, federal dollars became a catalyst for innovation as well as a mechanism to facilitate implementation. Teams were encouraged to secure their own funding for additional design development as well, fueling the extension of their outreach and their project’s scope.

Finally, RBD interacted with communities, not-for-profits, government agencies, and local, state, and federal leaders at every stage to build new coalitions of support and capacity in tandem with each design proposal.

Land Lines: How effective was Rebuild by Design as a vehicle for driving innovation and delivering resilience across the region? And what are the key possibilities and challenges of such a design-led process?

Helen Lochhead: We will not know for some time if RBD will ultimately deliver innovations that better prepare and adapt the region to a changing climate or whether the projects can be successfully implemented and leveraged to build resilience in other vulnerable communities. However, it is possible to identify where the competition has demonstrated innovation and potential impact over and above more standard processes.

The sheer number of participants, range of disciplines, and integrated team structures facilitated a multiplicity of ideas and approaches but also more holistic strategies. From a field of 148 submissions, RBD selected 10 multidisciplinary design teams to research and develop a range of proposals. These finalists included more than 200 experts primarily from planning, design, engineering, and ecology.

The multifaceted research phase, which began in August 2013, also differentiated the competition process from the start. Teams immersed themselves in design-based research, targeted discussions, and field trips to Sandy-affected areas to help understand the enormity of the challenge. The Institute for Public Knowledge led this stage as a way to address a broad range of issues and involve local community input and fieldwork. The IPK research identified vulnerabilities and risk, for which the design teams could then propose better, more resilient alternatives. This framework enabled the project teams not only to identify, understand, and respond to core problems, but to define opportunities and create scenarios. The process also facilitated the sharing of research and ideas across teams.

The designers undertook extensive precedent studies, examined global best practice, and met with community members to elicit input on what might be most effective in local contexts. They identified new and emerging approaches to coastal protection, finance, policy, and land-use planning, as well as communication models that demonstrated promise in other contexts and could be adapted in the Sandy-affected region. Visual tools were key to the exploration. Teams tested scenarios using GIS mapping tools to collate, synthesize, and communicate complex data. Three-dimensional visualizations helped to convey various options and engage stakeholders.

The power of design-led propositions cannot be underestimated as a means to translate intangible problems into tangible solutions that stakeholders can relate to and discuss in meaningful ways.

Land Lines: You mentioned that RBD built new coalitions of support. How was the outreach different?

Helen Lochhead: Ten ideas were selected for design development in October, commencing the final stage of the competition. Teams worked closely with MAS, RPA, and VAI to transform their design ideas into viable projects that would inspire cooperation from politicians, communities, and agencies across the region and thus facilitate implementation and funding. Because of the regional approach of these far-reaching projects, the role of the partner organizations was pivotal here in bringing together local networks of often vastly different interests.

Coalition building was essential to ensuring that the approach was inclusive as well as comprehensive. Even more important was the grassroots support for implementation, to create the necessary momentum to deliver projects in the long run, as inevitably some will roll out over time as funds become available.

Land Lines: What were some key themes in the proposals?

Helen Lochhead: The overarching logic in the proposals is that the greatest benefit and value is created when investment addresses not just flood or storm risk, but also the combined effects of extreme weather events, environmental degradation, social vulnerability, and vital network susceptibility. By restoring ecosystems and creating recreational and economic opportunities, the projects will enhance sustainability and resilience.

What prevailed were layered approaches that incorporate more ecological green/blue infrastructure as well as gray infrastructure systems, along with proposals for new, more regionally based governance models, online tools, and educational initiatives that build capacity within communities. Many demonstrated place-based solutions that also had wider application. All highlighted interdependencies, fostering coordination and inclusion.

Land Lines: Among the winning projects, announced by HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan on June 2, what are some of the key innovations?

Helen Lochhead: SCAPE/Landscape Architecture’s “Living Breakwaters” could have far-reaching application if the engineered protective oyster reefs are successful. Although the proposal faces some challenges—in-water permitting and potential broader environmental impacts that need to be worked through—it has the potential to be piloted and tested on a much smaller scale, with the buy-in of local communities and champions such as the New York Harbor School, to iron out teething problems early on. If feasible, it has the added benefit of self-sustaining biological systems that keep replenishing themselves. The ingenuity of this scheme is the use of a pilot project to challenge the policy and regulatory framework with a radical rethink of the possibilities. Regulatory hurdles are often a significant barrier to innovation, so a small-scale trial is a low-risk investment. If it fails, there is little downside; if it succeeds, it will have circumvented major policy hurdles, paving the way for other new approaches to more ecologically based storm protection.

MIT CAU + ZUS + URBANISTEN’s “New Meadowlands: Productive City + Regional Park” proposal for the New Jersey Meadowlands affords another equally innovative approach to implementation. It’s a striking example of green infrastructure in the form of thick, multifunctional, landscaped berms along the water’s edge that act as a flood barrier but also allow occupation. The proposal features a productive regional park, with berms and wetlands ringing the waterway, that buffers vital property and infrastructure from floods, rebuilds biodiversity, and hosts recreational and social programs as well as a mix of development to take advantage of the new parklands.

The project also proposes a compelling opportunity for a regionally based governance model to help implement the vision. The New Jersey Meadowlands Commission—with existing land use zoning in 14 municipalities—is a case study in intermunicipal collaboration with latent powers that position it well for a coalition-building effort over this regional landscape. With some re-engineering, it could potentially become an ecological and economic development agency. There are many regulatory hurdles embedded in this proposal that a strong governance body such as this one could potentially streamline. The regional scale of many of the proposals means that they cross jurisdictional boundaries, which complicates implementation. By identifying the untapped potential of this existing governance framework, this team has shifted a major roadblock.

The BIG Team’s “BIG U” is a compartmentalized, multipurpose barrier designed to protect vulnerable precincts in lower Manhattan from floods and storm surge. The team focused on the Lower East Side. The project integrates green space and social programs and, in the longer term, proposes much-needed transit. While it aims to redress the lack of recreational open space in the neighborhood, it inadequately addresses systemic shortcomings, such as the shortage and quality of low-income housing in the area, access to services, and the potential gentrification this project could accelerate.

In Nassau County, Long Island, the Interboro Team’s “Living with the Bay” sought to enhance the region’s quality of everyday life in nonemergency times while addressing flood risk. Taken as a whole, the initiatives present a collection of relatively low-risk propositions that can be readily implemented and that sow seeds for a more strategic and resilient future. Over the long term, improvements would include denser housing close to mass transit and a new community land trust.

PennDesign/OLIN’s “Hunts Point Lifelines” proposal for the Bronx focused on social and economic resilience. While the team considered environmental vulnerabilities, its chief concern was the critical role that the Hunts Point Food Market plays in the local community and the regional food chain. The team worked with the community and industrial property owners to develop site-specific designs for integrated storm protection as well as green infrastructure that offers high-quality social space using components that can be manufactured locally and built cooperatively. The project demonstrated the potential of hybrid port protection and ecology throughout the estuary.

OMA’s comprehensive strategy for Hoboken—“Resist, Delay, Store, Discharge”—represents a catalogue of interventions that incorporates extensive green/blue infrastructure as well as a protective barrier for critical transport infrastructure. While it shares many similarities with the Hoboken Sustainable Communities project, its strength is the comprehensive approach achieved through a series of key initiatives that brought Hoboken and Jersey City to the table with more than 40 stakeholders who will be essential to implementation.

Land Lines: What were the most winning aspects of projects that didn’t win?

Helen Lochhead: Open-source frameworks enabled online engagement that informed both the process and the public, so teams could tap into a much broader range of users than just those who traditionally attend community meetings. For example, Sasaki’s “CrowdGauge for Rebuild” first asked users in Asbury Park, New Jersey, to rank a set of priorities. Then it demonstrated how a series of actions and policies might affect those priorities. Finally, it gave users a limited number of coins, asking them to put that money toward the actions they supported most.

Various teams demonstrated a kit-of-parts approach, drawing on economic development initiatives, how-to toolkits, and urban improvement projects in various combinations to achieve resiliency objectives. HR&A Cooper Robertson’s proposal for Red Hook, Brooklyn, is an example of this method. With all the layers in place, a number of these strategies could be scaled up and result in systemic transformation and benefits. Such granular approaches facilitate phased implementation and with funding are immediately actionable, impactful, and scalable.

Sasaki/Rutgers/Arup’s “Resilience + the Beach” shifted the focus inland from the Jersey Shore to higher, drier headlands, by redefining the coastal zone as the six-mile deep ecosystem between the beach and the New Jersey Pine Barrens. By revealing the scenic attributes and recreational potential of the hinterland’s waterways and forests, the strategy encourages development to migrate from the barrier island edge to stable inland areas to grow a more layered tourism economy. The site for this project is Asbury Park, but the approach has broader regional application by capitalizing on the geographical attributes characteristic of the New Jersey coast—the Pine Barrens, inland bays, and barrier islands—to create new attractions. The strategy includes a range of actions including new green/blue infrastructure, open space and development, and a community toolkit to educate landowners on local risk and options for resilience.

Another prototype for regional coastal cities, WB’s “Resilient Bridgeport” consists of a resilience framework and specific design proposals for the Long Island Sound region. A set of integrated coastal, urban, and riparian design strategies and planning principles provide multiple lines of defense to protect Bridgeport against flooding and storm surge while stimulating environmental restoration, economic development, and neighborhood revitalization focused around social housing.

Land Lines: In sum, what have been the key successes of the competition so far?

Helen Lochhead: The urgency of the problem and the fast pace of the competition provided a level of intensity, drive, and momentum that yielded results in a short time frame. Many of the design solutions were characterized by a quantum and richness of ideas, depth of resolution, and cleverness of approach. The focus was not just on recovery and risk reduction, such as flood and storm mitigation, but on long-term resilience and sustainability. All propositions deliver multiple social, economic, and environmental benefits—improvements related to amenities, ecology, education, capacity building, long-term savings, and community health and well-being—and so tend to be higher-performing, holistic solutions.

The impact to date has already been catalytic. If nothing else, RBD has generated momentum and delivered major benefits to the region by starting the conversation on resilience by design. Granted, the real measure of success is in the implementation, but a robust, innovative process is required to provoke cultural change in practice. RBD has set that example.

Land Lines: What will be the key challenges of implementation?

Helen Lochhead: Finding the sweet spot between the visionary and the pragmatic.

The carrot for the winners was the possibility of building these projects with disaster recovery grants from HUD and other sources of public- and private-sector funding. As such, a key part of the final phase was an implementation strategy that demonstrated feasibility, support of local grantees, phasing, and short-term deliverables that can be delivered with CDBG-DR funding as well as ongoing revenue streams for later stages.

The real opportunity for HUD now is to leverage this process and its exemplary projects to benefit other regions at risk on a national scale.

As interest in urban living grows, the cost of residential real estate in many hot markets is skyrocketing. According to the Joint Center for Housing Studies (JCHS 2015), in 2014 rental vacancy rates hit their lowest point in two decades; rents rose in 91 out of 93 metropolitan areas studied; and the consumer price index for contract rents climbed at double the rate of inflation—and 10 percent or more at the top end, in Denver, San Jose, Honolulu, and San Francisco. Despite some interruption from the mortgage crisis, asking prices for homes for sale have continued to rise as well, often beyond the reach of potential home buyers (Olick 2014); in Washington, DC, the median home value nearly tripled from 2000 to 2013 (Oh et al. 2015). As housing activists look for effective tools to prevent displacement of lower-income families from gentrifying neighborhoods and create inclusive communities, many are turning to community land trusts (box 1) as a way to help build the nation’s stock of permanently affordable housing.

————————

Box 1: The CLT Model

Under the CLT model, a community-controlled organization retains ownership of a plot of land and sells or rents the housing on that land to lower-income households. In exchange for below-market prices, purchasers agree to resale restrictions that keep the homes affordable to subsequent buyers while also allowing owners to build some equity. The CLT also prepares home buyers to purchase property, supports them through financial challenges, and manages resales and rental units.

CLTs thus bring sustainable home ownership within the reach of more families, supporting residents who want to commit to their neighborhoods for the long term. In gentrifying areas, they provide an effective way for lower-income families to retain a stake in the neighborhood because they take a single initial subsidy (which could come from a variety of sources, often public programs such as the HOME Investment Partnerships Program or Community Development Block Grants) and attach it to the building, keeping the units affordable over time without new influxes of public money. In weak housing markets, they are beneficial as well (Shelterforce 2012), providing the financial stewardship that ensures fewer foreclosures, better upkeep, and stable occupancy. In 2009, at the height of the foreclosure crisis, Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) loans were 8.2 times more likely to be in the foreclosure process than CLT loans, despite the fact that CLT loans were uniformly made to low-income households (Thaden, Rosenberg 2010), and MBA loans included all income brackets. Of the very few CLT homes that did complete foreclosure, none were lost from the CLT’s portfolio.

————————

Much like community development corporations (CDCs), many CLTs grew from grassroots neighborhood organizations. Traditional community organizing (distinct from broader “resident outreach”) creates a base of residents who are empowered to determine for themselves what they need and mobilize to get it; as a united front, these individuals are better able to counter-balance corporate or governmental opponents and other forms of institutional power. Strategic collaboration and strength in numbers are essential to the successful formation of a CLT. But the skills required to organize politically around local concerns are very different from the skills required to manage real estate. While both sets of skills are required to implement and sustain a CLT, growing these core competencies under the same roof might hamper the neighborhood-based organization’s ability to pursue or achieve its core founding mission.

How have community organizations that created CLTs navigated the challenge of building two seemingly incompatible skill sets? We examined the experience of five established CLTs in locations across the country to see how they addressed this challenge and how their focus evolved as a result. From Boston to Los Angeles, community organizers faced a range of conditions, from high-vacancy neighborhoods with almost no housing market to booming areas where displacement was the top concern. Yet all five organizations had remarkably similar reasons for starting a community land trust: each CLT director spoke of wanting community control of land to prevent residents from either losing a home or being unable to afford one. Even those CLTs that began in weak housing markets were located near downtowns, university districts, or other popular areas, and recognized the potential for displacement as conditions in the neighborhoods improved. All agreed that a clear community vision is essential to the success of a CLT, but some groups take direct responsibility for creating and implementing that vision, while others are devoted to housing work on behalf of a parent organization charged with shepherding the larger vision. Approaches to organizing and housing development varied as well, but all agreed that these two activities can be a difficult mix.

Dudley Neighbors Inc., Boston, MA

The oldest organization in our study, Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative (DSNI), formed in a cold market in the 1980s to fight illegal dumping on broad swaths of vacant land left behind by a wave of arson. The city was proposing a master plan for the area without seeking input from residents, and community members responded by organizing DSNI to assert the community’s right to direct decisions about land use within its boundaries. They won that right and through DSNI decided that a CLT was the best tool to help the organization implement the community’s vision. “A lot of times, groups want to jump into creating a CLT thinking it will magically solve a neighborhood’s problems,” says Harry Smith, director of DSNI’s CLT, Dudley Neighbors Inc. (DNI). “But first we say: ‘Have you written down a vision of development in your community, and can you say how a CLT fits into that?’”

Founded in 1984, DNI is an independent organization, but it maintains close ties to its parent organization. The two groups share staff, and DSNI appoints a majority of the CLT’s board. The CLT is responsible only for providing affordable housing and community control of land, freeing DSNI to make organizing and community planning its main priority. Neither DSNI nor DNI carry out development directly, but instead partner with local affordable housing developers.

Because of its long history and established relationships, DSNI engages in less confrontational organizing than it did in its earliest days. But it doesn’t shy away from it if necessary. In fact, Smith reports that maintaining a CLT can be a unique political strength. When DSNI organizes around the fate of a particular parcel of land, “Having a land trust gives us an extra level of impact,” he says.

Sawmill Community Land Trust, Albuquerque, NM

Located in Albuquerque, New Mexico, Sawmill CLT was born in 1996 when, after a decade of community organizing, low-income residents banded together to fight a nearby factory that polluted their air and threatened their health. They wanted to assert control over future use of the space. After leaders attended a conference to learn more about CLTs, they held a series of community meetings on the topic. Though some residents aired concerns about the lack of land ownership in the CLT model, a community elder reminded them that they didn’t truly have ownership of their property in any case, either because they were renting or were ill-equipped to control what happened on their land. Former executive director Wade Patterson says, “The fact that the work was specifically geared toward controlling housing costs assuaged concerns about gentrification and displacement. The fact that we got a house instead of another factory was something we couldn’t argue with.”

Sawmill CLT was created as a standalone organization dedicated to housing development, stewardship, and property management. It’s one of the largest CLTs in the country, with 34 acres, which includes rental, ownership, and senior housing. Recently, it won an RFP issued by the city of Albuquerque to revitalize an old motel in a new neighborhood in the city, and the CLT is figuring out how to enter the community respectfully from outside.

Albuquerque’s Sawmill-area neighborhood associations, including the Sawmill Advisory Council, which launched the CLT, focus on “community building” through cultural events, says Patterson. The CLT supports neighborhood organizing by offering meeting space in one of its buildings and other support. Patterson says, “Our goal isn’t to lead but to be behind them.”

San Francisco Community Land Trust, San Francisco, CA

SFCLT was launched in 2003, at a time when the city was already one of the hottest real estate markets in the country, and low-income residents were concerned about soaring rents and illegal evictions for condo conversions. Housing organizers were seeking a model that could prevent evictions and give lower-income residents more control over their living situations.

The CLT is a standalone entity, but it maintains a close relationship with the housing organizers who founded it. When its partner groups organize to prevent evictions or condo conversions in an at-risk building (generally small apartment buildings), SFCLT steps in as a preservation purchaser and converts them to co-ops on CLT-owned land. SFCLT has in-house real estate expertise, but does not develop new buildings, and it contracts out any needed rehabilitation. It handles the financial aspects of the acquisition and the conversion, the stewardship of the land, and the training and support that helped residents form a co-op board and carry out co-op governance. “Housing groups refer everyone to us; we’re the only housing organization that can help stabilize a multi-unit apartment building by buying it,” says director Tracy Parent. SFCLT organizes its member base to support the broader issues that its coalition partners push for, but it doesn’t “initiate organizing” on issues, according to Parent.

T.R.U.S.T. South LA, Los Angeles, CA

When T.R.U.S.T. South LA was formed in 2005, its target neighborhoods were filled with vacant lots and deteriorated housing, while surrounding areas were under increasing development pressures. While the founders—Esperanza Community Housing Corporation, Strategic Actions of a Just Economy, and Abode Communities—originally envisioned the CLT as primarily a housing tool, it has taken on a broader role in implementing a community vision. “Originally, we formed as a land acquisition group. Then our members wanted to organize,” says executive director Sandra McNeill. The CLT has, for example, organized against a slumlord who was trying to evict residents from a building he had strategically let deteriorate in order to cash in on expiring section 8 affordability restrictions. It has also organized to raise funding for transportation and green space improvements in its neighborhood and participated in coalitions to support broader citywide policies such as increased funding for affordable housing.

The group now describes itself as “a community-based initiative to stabilize the neighborhoods south of downtown Los Angeles.” T.R.U.S.T. South LA is a standalone organization that considers itself part of the development team on housing projects, partnering with others to purchase, finance, and construct or rehabilitate housing.

Although T.R.U.S.T. South LA does a lot of organizing, nearly all of its policy work is conducted in collaboration with other groups, including its founding partners. “Affordable housing developers generally aren’t risk takers,” says McNeill. “They may be involved in political work to ensure that funding streams are in place for affordable housing, but that’s as far as most of them go.”

Community Justice Land Trust, Philadelphia, PA

Community Justice Land Trust in Philadelphia formed in Northeast Philadelphia in 2010 amid combined cold and hot market challenges. Although the neighborhood suffered from a large number of vacant and abandoned properties, it was surrounded on all sides by booming markets, and those rising prices and development pressures seemed likely to spread. The Women’s Community Revitalization Project (WCRP), along with a coalition of local civic organizations, held dozens of public meetings to help the community members understand what forming a CLT would mean and to explore their concerns about resale restrictions. Attendees voted in favor.

Community Justice CLT is set up as a program of WCRP, which has its own in-house development and organizing expertise, including an entire department devoted to organizing.

But as WCRP’s executive director Nora Lichtash warns, “Sometimes you lose relationships when you’re organizing. . . . Sometimes people don’t like to be pushed to do the right thing.” Indeed, WCRP apparently pressured its local council person enough on certain issues that she declined to give the CLT vacant land it had hoped to secure for its first development. In the end, however, the council person helped the group establish a citywide land bank (Feldstein 2013–14), which furthers some of the same goals as the land trust.

Despite potential tensions like these, Lichtash believes that organizing and CLT functions should stay closely related. “It’s important to remember that organizing and building affordable housing fit together,” she says. “Your funders think you should be doing one or the other, but it’s not good for CLTs to be separated from organizing. You’re building your capacity for present and future work. When you organize, you’re respected because you have people power.”

To Develop or Not to Develop: A Big Decision

Affordable housing development is a complicated and expensive business that no community organization should take lightly if it is thinking about starting a CLT. As DNI’s Smith says, “If you do development work, it will take time away from organizing, which is cumulative. It takes time and a lot of sacrifice to form a truly representative, neighborhood-based organization. If you cut corners, you risk jeopardizing a lot of the power you’ve built up over the years.”

The Boston experience, for example, begins with a cautionary tale. DSNI stepped in when the original developer for the CLT’s first project backed out of the deal. It was “traumatic” for staff and board, says Smith. “It took so much time. It distracted DSNI from its core functions.”

The idea of controlling development resources and accessing developer fees can be seductive to grassroots groups, says WCRP’s Lichtash. But they should proceed with extreme care. “Becoming a developer can muddy the waters,” she says. “You have to focus on every detail in million-dollar deals. It takes you away from educational work.”

“Real estate work is very hard, speculative,” Lichtash continues. “You think you’re getting one thing and instead you get another. I tell people to partner for a long time first. It’s hard to keep both tenants and funding sources happy.”

Patterson of Sawmill agrees and adds that it’s particularly difficult “to meet all the deadlines and reporting requirements on funding [for development]. I’m always shocked by the amount of administrative overhead that’s required.” He also advises that if you can’t make the numbers work, “it’s important to know you can pull out of a project if needed.”

T.R.U.S.T. South LA’s McNeill says, “Development definitely has its own language. It’s complex stuff. Nonprofits that do it have large budgets and tend to have sizable staffs. I respect the skill it takes to pull off these deals. It’s a very different skillset from what we do.”

Another consideration is that affordable housing development is not an easy industry to break into these days. In the current funding environment, many of the subsidies that CLTs have traditionally used to develop and steward their units are being slashed, and mortgages for potential CLT home buyers are harder to find. McNeill says, “We’ve gone through enormous shifts in the housing industry. The reality is that there isn’t an opening now for new organizations to get into the development business. It’s definitely not the time.”

Even the ongoing stewardship of a CLT requires a different kind of relationship with residents than an organizer would have. “Developer fees and rent collection could impact the relationship with residents and the power dynamic,” says Smith of DNI. “You’re responsible to leaseholders and non-leaseholders in your community, so there are tensions,” according to Lichtash of WCRP. And as SFCLT’s Parent comments, “Organizers often paint issues as clear moral choices,” but when you are involved as a property manager, “there are nuances.”

Eyes on the Prize

Once a community group has determined that a CLT is an appropriate tool for keeping housing affordable to local residents, the next questions should be: How will the roles be divided up? Who is taking the lead on implementing the broader vision? Is there an organization already in place that’s committed and able to take that on, or does one need to be created? Are there groups serving the community that already have development expertise and access to funding that could partner with a CLT or even fold one into their work? How can the new CLT partner with and support the community’s organizing work rather than distract from it?

Many newer CLTs are following the lead of groups like DSNI and T.R.U.S.T. South LA by setting up a separate organization to manage the stewardship and land ownership functions, and then drawing on the capacity of existing affordable housing developers through partnerships. While every locality is different, this approach seems like a wise place for groups to start, especially if they want to preserve their energy for the important work they started with: fighting for vibrant, equitable communities.

Miriam Axel-Lute is the editor of Shelterforce, a magazine devoted to the field of community development. She has written extensively on both organizing and community land trusts.

Dana Hawkins-Simons is an award-winning journalist who has published groundbreaking investigations in U.S. News & World Report. She is also the former director of the Opportunity Housing Initiative at the National Housing Institute.

References

Beckwith, Dave, with Cristina Lopez. 1997. “Community Organizing: People Power from the Grassroots.” http://comm-org.wisc.edu/papers97/beckwith.htm

Feldstein, Jill. 2013/14. “Winning a Land Bank We Can Trust.” Shelterforce. Fall/Winter 2013/14. www.shelterforce.org/article/3910/winning_a_land_bank_we_can_trust2/

Horwitz, Staci. 2011. “It’s All About Choice.” Shelterforce. www.shelterforce.org/article/2313/its_all_about_choice/

Joint Center for Housing Studies. 2015. State of the Nation’s Housing 2015. Harvard University. www.jchs.harvard.edu/research/state_nations_housing

Oh, Seunghoon, Josh Silver, Annelise Osterberg, and Jaclyn Tules. 2015. Does Nonprofit Housing Development Preserve Neighborhood Diversity? An Investigation into the Interaction Between Affordable Housing Development and Neighborhood Change. Manna, Inc. www.mannadc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Final_Neighborhood_Impact_Analysis_7_1.pdf

Olick, Diana. 2014. “Housing Still Too Expensive Despite Positive Signs.” CNBC.com, July 10. www.cnbc.com/2014/07/10/housing-still-too-expensive-despite-positive-signs.html

Shelterforce. 2012. “What’s the Point of Shared-Equity Homeownership in Weak Market Areas?” Shelterforce. www.shelterforce.org/images/uploads/theanswer171-2.pdf

Schutz, Aaron and Marie G. Sandy. 2011. “What Isn’t Community Organizing.” In Collective Action for Social Change: An Introduction to Community Organizing, London: Palgrave McMillan. pp. 31–44.

Thaden, Emily and Greg Rosenberg. 2010. “Outperforming the Market: Delinquency and Foreclosure Rates in Community Land Trusts.” Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/dl/1846_1154_LLA10102%20Foreclosure%20Rates.pdf

Is urban spatial segregation a consequence of the normal functioning of urban land markets, reflecting cumulative individual choices? Or, is it a result of the malfunctioning of urban land markets that privatize social benefits and socialize private costs? Is it the result of class bias, or racial bias, or both? Does public housing policy create ghettos? Or, do real estate agents and lending officers substitute personal bias for objective data, thereby creating and reinforcing stereotypes about fellow citizens and neighborhoods? Can changes in land policy lead to changes in intra-metropolitan settlement patterns? Or, do such changes come about only from deep social changes having to do with values such as tolerance, opportunity and human rights?

Thirty-seven practitioners and academics from thirteen countries struggled with these and other related questions at the Lincoln Institute’s “International Seminar on Segregation in the City” in Cambridge last July. The seminar organizers, Francisco Sabatini of the Catholic University of Chile and Martim Smolka and Rosalind Greenstein of the Lincoln Institute, cast a wide net to explore the theoretical, historical and practical dimensions of segregation. Participants came from countries as diverse as Brazil, Israel, Kenya, the Netherlands, Northern Ireland and the U.S., and they brought to the discussion their training as lawyers, sociologists, economists, urban planners, regional scientists and geographers. As they attempted to come to terms with the meaning of segregation, the various forces that create and reinforce it, and possible policy responses, it became apparent that there are no simple answers and that many viewpoints contribute to the ongoing debate. This brief report on the seminar offers a taste of the far-reaching discussion.

The papers presented by all participants in this seminar are posted on the Lincoln Institute website.

What is Segregation and Why Is It Important?

Frederick Boal’s (School of Geography, Queen’s University, Belfast) work is informed by both the rich sociological literature on segregation and his own experience of living in the midst of the troubles between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland. Boal suggested that segregation was best understood as part of a spectrum that ranged from the extreme approach of ethnic cleansing to the more idealistic one of assimilation (see Figure 1). As with so many policy issues, segregation will not be solved by viewing it as a dichotomy but rather as a continuum of degrees or levels of separateness, each with different spatial manifestations.

For Peter Marcuse (Graduate School of Architecture, Preservation and Planning, Columbia University, New York) segregation implies a lack of choice and/or the presence of coercion. When racial or ethnic groups choose to live together, he calls that clustering in enclaves. However, when groups are forced apart, either explicitly or through more subtle mechanisms, he calls that segregation in ghettoes. It is the lack of choice that distinguishes these patterns and invites a public policy response.

The meaning and importance of segregation varies with the historical context. For William Harris (Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Jackson State University, Mississippi), who writes about spatial segregation in the U.S. South, segregation can be neither understood nor addressed without fully appreciating the role that race has played and continues to play in American history and public policy. Flavio Villaça (School of Architecture and Urbanism, University of São Paulo, Brazil) understands segregation within a class framework, where income level and social status, not race, are the key factors influencing residential patterns. In Brazil and many other countries with long histories of authoritarian regimes, urban services are generally provided by the state. In these countries, urban residential patterns determine access to water and sewer facilities (and therefore health) as well as transportation, utility infrastructure and other urban services.

In many cases, Villaça and others assert, land market activity and urban codes and regulations have been used, both overtly and furtively, to create elite, well-serviced neighborhoods that segregate the upper classes from the rest of society, which is largely ignored. This view has parallels in the U.S., where access to high-quality schools and other valued amenities is largely determined by residential patterns that are closely associated with segregation by income level, ethnic background and other demographic characteristics. Seminar participants also cited the correlation between disadvantaged communities and the location of environmental hazards. People segregated into low-income ghettoes or neighborhoods comprised primarily of people of color confront the downsides of modern urban living, such as hazardous waste sites and other locally unwanted land uses.

Ariel Espino (Department of Anthropology, Rice University, Texas) presented an analysis of how distance is used to reinforce social, political and economic inequality in housing. When social and economic differences are clear and understood, ruling elites tolerate physical proximity. For example, servants can live close to their employers, even in the same house, because economic relations and behavioral norms dictate separation by class.

Why Does Segregation Persist?

Prevalent throughout the seminar was an assumption that all residents of the city (i.e., citizens) ought to have access to urban services, at least to a minimum level of services. However, Peter Marcuse challenged the participants to think beyond a minimum level and to consider access to urban amenities in the context of rights. He questioned whether wealth or family heritage or skin color or ethnic identity ought to determine one’s access to public goods—not only education, health and shelter, but also other amenities directly related to physical location. In language reminiscent of Henry George’s views on common property in the late-nineteenth century, Marcuse asked whether it was fair or right, for example, for the rich to enjoy the best ocean views or river frontage or other endowments of nature while the poor are often relegated to the least attractive areas.

Robert Wassmer (Department of Public Policy and Administration, California State University) described the economic processes involved in residential location, as they are understood by public choice economists. In this view, house buyers do not choose to buy only a house and a lot; they consider a diverse set of amenities that vary from place to place. Some buyers may choose an amenity bundle that includes more public transit and less lakefront, while others may choose greater access to highways and higher-quality public education. However, not all citizens have equal opportunities to make such choices. Several seminar participants added that this debate is part of a larger conversation about access and choice in society, since nearly all choices are constrained to some extent, and many constraints vary systematically across social groups.

Other participants drew attention to the ways that government policy (e.g., tax codes, housing legislation) and private institutions (e.g., real estate agents, lending institutions) interact to influence the behavior of land markets, and thus the effects of land policies on public and private actions. Greg Squires (Department of Sociology, George Washington University) reported on a study of the house-hunting process in Washington, DC. His research findings emphasize the role of real estate agents in steering buyers and renters into same-race neighborhoods. As a consequence, blacks simply do not enjoy the same opportunities as whites and are far less likely to obtain their first choice of housing, thus challenging the public choice model. Squires also found that housing choice is determined by social or economic status. For example, priorities for neighborhood amenities among black house-hunters tended to differ from those of whites, in part because they had fewer private resources (such as an automobile) and were more dependent on a house location that provided centralized services such as public transportation.

John Metzger (Urban and Regional Planning Program, Michigan State University) examined the role of the private market in perpetuating segregation. He presented research on the demographic cluster profiles that companies like Claritas and CACI Marketing Systems use to characterize neighborhoods. These profiles are sold to a range of industries, including real estate and finance, as well as to public entities. The real estate industry uses the profiles to inform retailing, planning and investment decisions, and, Metzger argues, to encourage racial steering and the persistence of segregation. Mortgage lenders use profiles to measure consumer demand. Urban planners—both private consultants and those in the public sector—use profiles to determine future land uses for long-range planning and to guide planning and investment for central business districts. Real estate developers use profiles to define their markets and demonstrate pent-up demand for their products. The profiles themselves are often based on racial and ethnic stereotypes and in turn reinforce the separation of racial and ethnic groups within regional real estate markets.

Xavier de Souza Briggs (John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University) brought the idea of “social capital” to the discussion. As the term is being used today by sociologists and social theorists, social capital embodies the social networks and social trust within communities that can be harnessed to achieve individual and group goals. Briggs argued that social capital is both a cause and an effect of segregation in the U.S., but it can be leveraged to create positive change. Others challenged the extent to which social capital theory and research helps to address urban spatial segregation. These participants argued that it tended to frame the policy question as “How do we improve poor people?” rather than addressing the structural and institutional mechanisms that contribute to residential segregation and income inequality. Yet, the sociologists’ view is that social capital is the very element that communities need to exert some element of control over their immediate environments, rather than to be simply the recipients of the intended and unintended consequences of the political economy.

Social Justice and Land Policy

Seminar participants from around the world shared examples of spatial segregation enforced as a political strategy through the power of the state.

• The British colonial government in Kenya employed planning laws and exclusionary zoning to separate native Africans from the British, and those residential patterns established almost a century ago are reflected in Nairobi today.
• The military government at the time of the British mandate in Palestine forced the Arab Palestinians to reside in only one sector of the city of Lod, facilitating the transformation of this once Arab city in what is now Israel.
• The military regime of Augusto Pinochet evicted thousands of working-class Chileans from certain sectors of their cities to make way for small, elite middle- and upper-class settlements.
• The Apartheid regime of South Africa created separate residential sectors based on race and systematically kept groups isolated in virtually all aspects of society.

The connections between these extreme forms of spatial segregation and the land policies and market forces at work in most cities today are complex and challenging to articulate. One link is in the ways that land policies and the institutions that support land markets continue to be used to legitimize discriminatory practices.

By envisioning cities where citizens have real freedom to choose their residential locations, the planners in the seminar focused on government policies and programs to facilitate integration, such as the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Moving to Opportunity Program. However, Stephen Ross (Department of Economics, University of Connecticut) questioned the assumed benefits of resettlement or integration policies by asking, “What if you dispersed high-income people across the city? What would change? Does this idea help us to think more carefully about why space matters?”

Another query from Xavier Briggs challenged participants to think about where the most meaningful social interactions actually occur. Specifically, what needs to happen, and in what circumstances, to move from the extreme of ethnic cleansing on Boal’s urban ethnic spectrum toward assimilation? Briggs suggested that institutions such as schools and workplaces might be better suited to foster more diversity in social interactions than are residential neighborhoods.

Ultimately, the urban planners wanted the tools of their trade to be used for shaping a city that offered justice for all. Haim Yacobi (Department of Geography, Ben-Gurion University, Israel), while referring to the status of the Arab citizens in the mixed city of Lod, touched the foundations of western democratic ideals when he asked, “If a citizen does not have full access to the city, if a citizen is not a full participant in the life of the city, is he or she living in a true city?”

Allegra Calder is a research assistant at the Lincoln Institute and Rosalind Greenstein is a senior fellow and cochairman of the Institute’s Department of Planning and Development.

My experience in attending the “Who Owns America? II” conference in Madison, Wisconsin, last June was like contemplating a landscape of ideas about land and people. From my perspective, this landscape had four salient features:

• the expansion of property rights;
• the challenge of the private/public dichotomy;
• the growing complexity of the physical world, which constitutes the ‘object’ of property rights;
• and the narrative approach as a methodological tool for better understanding property as a social relationship.

The most noticeable feature in U.S. legal thinking about land is the great importance of property rights. Latin American legal tradition, following French jurist Leon Duguit’s doctrine of the social function of property, tends to see property rights as something to be limited by government and law in order to meet social needs. So, it was a cultural shock for me to discover the popularity of Charles Reich’s theory about property, where egalitarian ideas are advanced by means of asserting individual property rights.

At the conference, one could see many different ways in which the notion of property rights was expanded to accommodate new social demands. Eric Freyfogle’s contention that property should have an honored place in society is one example. Of course, an idea does not have to be accepted unanimously in American legal thinking for it to be an important aspect of today’s landscape of ideas about property.

The second feature refers to the distinction between public and private-a distinction that is so essential to modern societies that it is usually taken for granted. We are used to recognizing the coexistence of two separate forms of social control over the same piece of land: that of private landowners and that of public government organizations. However, one has to remember that this separation is not eternal or universal; it is a historical product.

Urban studies have long shown that land use regulations constantly affect the relationships between public and private control. Planning powers and development rights have been shrinking and expanding since the inception of modern urban management, and that process is now seen as normal. A more profound challenge to the separation of public and private categories was raised at the conference by indigenous peoples’ claims to their territories in the United States.

Those claims refer to a third, not yet fully codified, form of social control over land. In general, indigenous peoples do not aim at controlling local governments, i.e. governing a territory through conventional means. They also reject being treated simply as private corporations who own land. They talk about rights of a different nature, with old and new elements, and they do so by challenging a series of treaties between the people and the state. A treaty is the typical form of legal relationship between a nation-state and an external force. Apparently, past treaties were supposed to ‘settle’ the territorial question. But those treaties are now being questioned both in terms of the public/private dichotomy and because the formation of a nation-state was not completed.

We must also recognize that classical legal thinking does not have the tools to give meaning to these developments, because it is the very foundation of that thinking that is being shaken. Clearly, these concerns are also being raised in Canada and Mexico, although under different forms and with different outcomes. Scholars and practitioners in legal theory, and particularly constitutional theory, in all three countries of North America can learn a lot from each other in this process.

We should not be surprised to see new forms of territorial control when there have been so many changes in the land itself. Thousands of books have been written about the transformation of the land, mainly from what we now call an environmental perspective. Land as the ‘object’ of property relations has become extremely complex, and this complexity is the third feature I see in this landscape of ideas. Territories have become very difficult to understand, and perhaps the most relevant development is the blurring of the urban/rural distinction. We do not have cities in the traditional sense of the word; what we have is a set of urbanization processes.

The heralds of cyberspace tell us that as distances are shortened through new technologies, space and distance have become irrelevant. The truth is that technological change, combined with demographic and social change, has only made land more complex. This is clear when we see, as in the papers presented at the conference, the great number of disciplines that describe, analyze and even sing about land. There is not a single discipline that can embrace land into one form of discourse.

Maybe the most interesting new way of looking at land is the narrative approach, the fourth feature in our landscape. Listening to stories about land throws more light on property relationships than many other empirical methods because it allows us to recognize the subjective aspects without getting too far from empirical social sciences. Compared to the rigidity of legal and economic approaches, personal accounts give us the fluidity of property as a social relationship, the changes that occur in that relationship as a result of many interactions, and the different meanings that a piece of land or a neighborhood can have for its dwellers, new settlers, visitors or others.

Recognizing the richness and vividness of people’s stories and contrasting this richness against the rigidity of legal categories does not require neglecting those categories. Indeed, this more subjective approach can be another way of taking the law seriously. There is hardly any social discourse about land, even in its most vernacular form, which does not have a normative connotation. When someone says ‘this land is (was or should be) mine,’ he or she is making a legal claim. Legal categories are important outside the professional circles of lawyers, judges and realtors precisely because they are part of people’s stories; moreover, their function is to give meaning to people’s experiences.

When legal categories are not able to embrace a people’s normative representations about land, the law has lost its meaning. If traditional legal thinking defines property as a bundle of rights, the narrative approach can teach us to see property rights as bundles of representations that can be used to help people give meaning to their relationship to the land. Maybe this is the main lesson I have learned from “Who Owns America?”: to use many lenses to look at the landscape and to explore comparative ideas about individual and community ownership, informal settlements and legal systems throughout North America.

Antonio Azuela is the Attorney General for Environmental Protection in the federal government of Mexico. A graduate of Universidad Iberoamericana (Mexico City) and the School of Law, University of Warwick (England), he has been the legal advisor to several state governments and federal government agencies on planning law. Mr. Azuela is author of La Ciudad la Propiedad. Privada y el Derecho-The City: Private Property and the Law (El Colegio de Mexico, 1989) and numerous other publications on urban and environmental law from a sociological perspective.

Editor’s Note: The “Who Owns America? II” conference in June 1998 was cosponsored by the Lincoln Institute and the North American Program of the Land Tenure Center at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

The University of Wisconsin Press has recently published Who Owns America? Social Conflict over Property Rights, edited by Harvey M. Jacobs, and based on the first conference in 1995. Contact: www.wisc.edu/wisconsinpress

How have infrastructure investments shaped global city regions? What have been the effects on the residents? Do the effects differ among residents in different sections of the city? Is the process different by type of infrastructure, such as highways, mass transit, airports or seaports? What if high-technology telecommunications infrastructures are included among our considerations? When the forces of globalization and technological change interact, do cities fare differently? Do their residents experience these changes differently?

These were among the questions generated at the second meeting of the global city regions consortium coordinated in July by Roger Simmonds, senior lecturer of planning at Oxford Brookes University. Most of the participants at the first conference held at the Lincoln Institute in September 1995 reconvened in El Escorial, Spain, to present the results of their latest research on the relationship between the location and timing of infrastructure development and the spatial form of the region. Teams from 11 city regions made presentations: Ankara, Turkey; Bangkok, Thailand; Madrid, Spain; San Diego, California; Santiago, Chile; and Sao Paulo, Brazil; Seattle, Washington; Taipei, Taiwan; The Randstad, Holland; Tokyo, Japan; and West Midlands, England.

Commenting on the relationship between infrastructure, governance and regional planning, Pedro Ortiz Castano, director of planning for the municipal government of Madrid, described the municipality’s extensive infrastructure plan. Existing highways, roads and transit lines will be woven together with other planned development to cover the region in a matrix or grid. This configuration is meant to reduce congestion and increase accessibility across city sectors as well as among social and economic classes.

Madrid’s grid-system of infrastructure and settlements presents a sharp contrast to the concentric rings of highways found in Seattle, as described by Anne Vernez-Moudon, professor of architecture and urban planning at the University of Washington. Despite the presence of Puget Sound to the west and the Cascade Mountains to the east, Seattle reflects the typical North American affection for beltways. Furthermore, with one highway dubbed the “Boeing Beltway,” the relationship between government-funded infrastructure and the private sector is clear.

This comparison also illustrates the role of Madrid’s strong regional government in attempting to have infrastructure-whether government-funded or privatized-shape the urban form. In most global city regions with weaker governments, infrastructure only plays catch-up with existing demand.

Consortium commentator Gary Hack argued that the polynucleated ‘spread city’ is the more typical reality, usually accompanied by an increase in spatial segregation by class. Since the powerful economic and technological forces at work around the globe are likely to accelerate and reinforce these trends, he concludes that planners should focus on specific sites within city regions where they can exert their influence with the most positive results.

The comparative analysis between Ortiz’s metropolitan-wide infrastructure plan and Hack’s site-specific approach reminds us that, despite the similarities among forces shaping city regions across the globe, the ways these forces play out vary widely. These variances reflect important differences in institutional arrangements, history, culture, attitudes about private property, and notions of the public interest, among other factors. Furthermore, these differences also affect how researchers see their own cities in comparison to others.

The role of informal markets, for example, illustrates the challenge researchers face in attempting to understand both the unique and common features of international forces. While it is hard to understand land markets and land use in cities as different as Ankara and Santiago de Chile without understanding the informal sector, western European and North American researchers rarely attempt to understand their cities’ land markets from this perspective.

The regional city teams are continuing to work on their respective reports in preparation for publication of a book by International Thomson Publishing in the United Kingdom.

Rosalind Greenstein is a senior fellow of the Lincoln Institute and director of the Program on Land Use and Regulation.

Despite the long-term and continuing trend away from central business districts and toward suburban development, a number of factors are motivating recent attention to rail transit. These factors include:

concerns about the negative impact of auto-oriented sprawl desires to reduce air pollution and energy consumption interest in rebuilding urban communities need to provide access and mobility to those without autos desires to save the costs and avoid the impacts of new or widened roadways

Many metropolitan areas in the United States are considering the addition or expansion of light rail and commuter rail systems to link employees with business centers. The land use characteristics of the corridors where transit lines operate have been shown to influence transit ridership, but much of the previous work is more than 20 years old and based on data from a limited number of regions.

Our national research project, conducted for the Transit Cooperative Research Program with Jeffrey Zupan, expands and updates earlier research. We analyzed information on 261 stations on 19 light rail lines in 11 cities, including Baltimore, Cleveland and St. Louis, and 550 stations on 47 commuter rail lines in the six city regions of Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Philadelphia and Washington, DC.

The study shows that light rail and commuter rail serve distinctly different markets and land use patterns. Light rail with its closely spaced stations attracts more riders per station when it is located in denser residential areas. Feeder bus service helps to boost ridership. Light rail can function in regions with a wide range of CBD sizes and employment densities. Commuter rail depends more on park-and-ride lots at stations in low-density, high-income suburban areas farther from the CBDs, which tend to be larger and more dense than those in light rail areas.

Light rail, with its more frequent service, averages about twice as many daily boarders per station as commuter rail, even though light rail is more often found in smaller metropolitan areas. Figure 1 shows that light rail is most effective in attracting passengers close to the CBD. Figure 2 shows that commuter rail attracts the largest number of its riders about 35 miles out from the CBD. In both figures, other factors affecting ridership, except CBD employment density, are held constant.

Because most transit systems emanate from and focus on a region’s CBD, the amount of employment concentrated downtown clearly affects the demand for transit. Figures 1 and 2 also show that ridership increases with CBD density for both light rail and commuter rail. For light rail, the effects of CBD density on ridership are most pronounced for stations within 10 miles of the core, while for commuter rail the larger impacts occur at stations 20 to 50 miles outside the city.

Changes in Employment and Residential Density

CBD employment density (as measured by employment per gross CBD acre) is nearly twice as important for commuter rail ridership as for light rail. Our study shows that a 10 percent increase in CBD employment density produces 7.1 percent more commuter rail riders, but only 4.0 percent more light rail riders. Commuter rail boardings are more strongly influenced by CBD employment density because these systems usually have a single downtown terminal. Higher-density CBDs assure that more jobs are within walking distance of the commuter rail station. Employment density in city centers is less important in light rail regions since they have more stations distributed throughout the CBD.

On the other hand, a 10 percent increase in station area residential density (as measured by number of persons per gross acre within two miles of a station) boosts light rail boardings by 5.9 percent and commuter rail boardings by only 2.5 percent. Throughout the study these effects are measured holding constant transit system characteristics such as parking availability, station distance to the CBD and station area income levels.

Light rail, with its relatively short lines, is most effective in attracting passengers when stations are in higher-density residential areas close to the CBD. Commuter rail ridership rises more slowly with residential density because commuter rail is a high-fare mode, and its higher-income riders tend to live in more expensive, lower-density places. Moreover, the higher speeds and longer distances on commuter rail tend to increase ridership to the CBD from precisely those places outside the city where residential densities tend to be low.

Cost-efficiency and Effectiveness

In this study, cost-efficiency is measured by annual operating costs plus depreciation per vehicle mile. Effectiveness is measured by daily passenger miles per line mile. For light rail, these measures indicate a strong positive relationship with CBD employment size and residential density. A weaker but still significant relationship occurs for CBD employment density and for the line distance from the CBD. This suggests that medium to large cities with higher density corridors work best for light rail. For commuter rail, larger, denser CBDs attract more riders per line mile, but add to the cost per vehicle mile, creating a trade-off between effectiveness and cost-efficiency.

The length of the rail line is important for both light rail and commuter rail. Longer light rail lines are both slightly more cost-efficient and effective, but ridership diminishes beyond 10 miles. Commuter rail lines are much more cost efficient when they are longer, but their effectiveness declines beyond 50 miles.

This summary does not address many other significant factors in rail transit usage and land use patterns, including operating, capital and environmental costs saved as a result of not using other modes of transportation, notably automobiles and buses. Cities considering investment in new or expanded rail systems need to examine carefully all transportation alternatives in a corridor, including site-specific conditions and local preferences. Further, our study makes clear the need to integrate transit planning with land use planning at the earliest possible stage.

___________________________

Judy S. Davis is an urban planner and Samuel Seskin is a senior professional associate with Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas in Portland, Oregon. As a faculty associate of the Lincoln Institute, Seskin also develops and teaches courses linking land use and transportation. This article is derived from a report titled Commuter and Light Rail Transit Corridors: The Land Use Connection. It will be published by the Transit Cooperative Research Program in the summer of 1996 as part of Volume 1 of An Examination of the Relationship Between Transit and Urban Form, TCRP Project H-1.

The land market allocates land and access to urban amenities, and it does so with impressive efficiency. Yet, economists and planners continue to debate the extent to which the market fails to achieve broader social goals, how far regulation can offset for that failure, and even whether regulation results in land market outcomes being even farther from the socially desired outcome than would be the case without any regulation. To examine this debate and the underlying issues, more than 30 economists and planners met at the Lincoln Institute in July 2002 to encourage new policy-relevant analysis on land markets and their regulation, and to foster more fruitful communication between the disciplines.

At the center of the substantive debate was the basic question of regulation within a market economy and the unintended consequences that can result. The discussions touched upon many themes including gentrification, the use of public resources for private consumption, distributional issues, urban form and its regulation. If perspectives regarding market regulation differed between the two disciplines, so too did views regarding the strengths and limitations of the analytic tools that academics from different disciplines bring to such thorny problems. Among the challenges are the basic questions of how to define the problem, how to measure the current conditions in light of limited data, and how to interpret findings. Throughout the conference, the differences in the perspectives, assumptions, tools and references between planners and economists were ever present, in particular with regard to the role of politics in planning and policy making.

Unintended Consequences of Land Market Regulations

Despite their differences, concern for land markets and their centrality to social, political and economic life was the common focus of both economists and planners at the conference. They agreed that land markets are about far more than land. These markets have an important role in delivering life experiences and conditioning the welfare of the majority of people in developed and developing countries alike who live and work in cities. In addition, their regulation has both direct and indirect economic effects that extend into many areas of economic life and public policy. For example, the urban poor are likely to have worse schools and to experience higher levels of neighborhood crime because land markets capitalize the values of neighborhood amenities, such as better school quality and lower crime, thereby pricing poorer households into less desirable neighborhoods.

This power of land markets to reflect and capitalize factors that affect a household’s welfare was revealed in a study of impact fees levied on new development in Florida. Ihlanfeldt and Shaughnessy found that impact fees appear to be fully capitalized into house prices for owners of new and existing houses by redistributing the costs of new infrastructure provision from existing taxpayers to a reduced value of development land. In fast-growing Miami the cost of impact fees was borne by developers, yet offset by the increases they received in higher prices for new housing, “while buyers of new homes are compensated for a higher price by the property tax savings they experience. In contrast to the neutral effects that fees have on developers, landowners, and purchasers of new housing, impact fees provide existing homeowners a capital gain” (Ihlanfeldt and Shaughnessy, 26).

One complement to their story of Florida’s impact fees was illustrated in several other papers concerned with the unintended outcomes of regulation. British participants reported that Britain’s containment policy has generated higher densities within urbanized areas, but cities leapfrog out across their Greenbelts (or growth boundaries) to smaller satellite settlements; the consequence is that development becomes less contiguous and travel times increase. Villages become high-density suburbs surrounded by a sea of wheat: London in functional terms extends to cover most of southeastern England.

In a U.S. example based on an econometric simulation, Elena Irwin and Nancy Bockstael found that a clustering policy intended to preserve open space could instead backfire. Using Maryland data, they simulated the effects of a policy that was intended to preserve rural open space and found that it would instead accelerate development if “small to moderate amounts of open space are required to be preserved (specifically, 20 acres or less) and would slow the timing of development if larger amounts of open space are required to be preserved” (Irwin and Bockstael, 26). Their simulation results yield an interpretation that is highly nuanced and requires careful thought. That is, under certain conditions the cluster policy can backfire, while under other specific conditions the policy can yield an intended policy outcome.

These hypothetical clusters in Maryland may be echos of a real situation that Jean Cavailhès and his colleagues observed in the French countryside, where some urban dwellers moved to farm regions to create a mixed-use area that is neither entirely urban nor entirely rural. These former urbanites appear to value their proximity to a functioning rural landscape in exchange for longer commutes and (surprisingly) smaller residential lots. The authors hypothesize that these peri-urban dwellers benefit in different ways from living among the farmers.

In another example of the unintended consequences of regulations, Donald Shoup analyzed curbside parking. Many U.S. municipalities require developers to provide minimal parking per square foot of new commercial or, in some communities, residential space. The requirement for off-street parking, coupled with a systematic underpricing of curbside parking, has a double impact, according to Shoup. It imposes a substantial tax on affected developments (equivalent to up to 88 percent of construction costs), increases land taking, and means that public revenues annually lost an amount equal to the median property tax.

In these cases of unintended consequences of policy or regulatory interventions in the market, the authors argued for more careful design of both policies and regulations so state and local governments could reasonably achieve their policy goals. Despite the fact that the conference debate tended to pit regulation against the market, there was probably a tendency—if not full-fledged consensus—to favor market incentives and disincentives to achieve policy goals, rather than to rely strictly, or even largely, on regulation. Roger Bolton’s comments on Shoup’s paper cogently reflected this viewpoint. He said that Shoup’s work was valuable because it urges us to pay attention to a whole package of “important and related phenomena: inefficient pricing of an important good, curb parking; inefficient regulation of another good, privately owned off-street parking; and missed opportunities for local government revenue.”

Data and Measurement Challenges

Growth management and urban form were referenced extensively throughout the conference. The paper presented by Henry Overman, and written with three colleagues (Burchfield et al.) provided useful grounding to that conversation. They attempted to measure the extent of sprawl for the entire continental U.S. Using remote sensing data they calculated and mapped urban development and the change in urban land cover between 1976 and 1992. They defined sprawl as either the extension of the urban area, or leapfrog development, or lower-density development beyond the urban fringe. They concluded that only 1.9 percent of the continental U.S. was in urban use and only 0.58 percent had been taken for urban development in the 16-year period covered by the study. Furthermore, during this period, urban densities were mostly on the increase.

This study found development to be a feature of the “nearby urban landscape,” whether that was defined as close to existing development, or near highways or the coasts, and thus was perceived as encroaching on where people lived or traveled. The authors use this last observation to reconcile the apparent contradiction between their finding that less than 2 percent of the continental U.S. has been developed and the fact that containing and managing sprawl is at the center of policy agendas in many states and regions across the U.S. While relatively little land might have been consumed by new development in aggregate during the study period, many people see and experience this development on a daily basis and perceive it to represent significant change, often the kind of change they do not like.

The conference discussion touched upon some of the data questions raised by this work. The paper’s discussant, John Landis, noted some challenges he has faced in working with these and similar data to measure growth patterns in California. The estimates by Burchfield et al. are extremely low, possibly for technical reasons, according to Landis. Among the reasons is the difficulty in interpreting satellite images and the different outcomes that can occur when different thresholds are used for counting density, for example. That is, an area can be classified as more or less dense depending on what threshold the analysts establishes. “Ground-truthing” is required to remove some of the arbitrariness from the analysis, but this is an enormously costly undertaking.

Policy analysts are always faced with data limitations. Sometimes the problem is missing data, while other times it is data with questionable reliability. Yet, all too often researchers spend very little time paying attention to how serious that deficiency is for the policy problem at hand. When the available data is a very long time series with frequent intervals that relies on a well-structured and well-understood data collection method, and where few transformations occur between data collection and data use, most researchers and policy analysts would feel extremely comfortable interpolating one or two or even a handful of missing data points. Econometricians relying on data collected at regular intervals from government surveys frequently face this situation and are quite adept at filling in such “holes in the data.” In the world of limited data, that might be considered the best-case scenario.

At the other extreme we might have data that are collected using relatively new methods and that require significant transformation between collection and use. Data reliability likely decreases under these circumstances. Given the imperfect world in which we live, the answer is probably not to insist on using only the “best data.” However, researchers and policy analysts do have the obligation to use care in interpreting results based on weak data and to convey that weakness to their audience.

Another side of the limited data problem is the translation from concept to measure, and it explains why the conference participants spent so much time discussing “What is sprawl?” For researchers this question becomes “How does one define sprawl in such a way that one can measure it?” Burchfield et al. define sprawl as leapfrog or discontiguous urban development. Landis argues for “a more multi-faceted definition of sprawl, one that also incorporates issues of density, land use mix, and built-form homogeneity.”

Definitions are not trivial in policy analysis. If we cannot define the problem or the outcome, and we cannot measure it, how can we know if it is getting better or worse, and if our policies are having an impact? On the other hand, a very precise definition of a different but perhaps related concept may lead to unnecessary intervention. The new policy may improve the score on the measure but have little or no effect on the problem. For a variety of reasons (perhaps in part the customs and cultures within different disciplines) the economists at the conference tended to favor concepts that are simple and for which the data exist. On the other hand, the planners tended to favor concepts that are messy. In the end, one is left with weaknesses on both sides. The uni-dimensional definition, and therefore the uni-dimensional measure, may provide many of the desirable properties that allow statistical analyses. Multi-dimensional concepts are difficult to translate into measures. Which is better for policy making?

The Political Nature of Land Policy

Planning as a political activity was emphasized by several authors, notably Chris Riley (discussant of papers by Edwin Mills and Alan Evans), to emphasize the importance for economists to recognize this role and the constraints it imposes on significant change (particularly given the capacity of land markets to capitalize into asset values the amenities generated by planning policies themselves). Richard Feiock added there was also evidence that the forms of planning policies that communities selected (both the severity of such policies and the degree to which they relied on regulation in contrast to market instruments) could be largely accounted for by the political structure and socioeconomic and ethnic composition of those communities.

Participants reacted differently to the political nature of land policy and planning. For some this was problematic: it meant that the market was not being allowed to work. For others, it meant that the political process in a democracy was being allowed to work: the people had spoken and the policy reflected the expressed will of the body politic.

Reflections on Debate

The differences between economists and planners will continue, and differences among practitioners in different countries and even different parts of the same country (notably the large United States) can either stimulate or thwart future debates over the study of land market policies and implementation. Perhaps, though, the word debate itself thwarts our efforts. In debates, the debaters rarely change their minds. They enter the debate with their point of view firmly fixed and do not get “points” for admitting that their debating opponent taught them something or that they have consequently changed their own mind. However, one purpose of a professional conference is, indeed, for thoughtful people to consider their own assumptions and to be informed and changed by the points of view of others. In the future, perhaps debates will be supplanted with reflective conversation.

Paul Cheshire is professor of economic geography at the London School of Economics, England; Rosalind Greenstein is senior fellow and cochair of the Department of Planning and Development at the Lincoln Institute; and Stephen C. Sheppard is professor in the Department of Economics at Williams College, Massachusetts. They jointly organized the Lincoln Institute conference, “Analysis of Urban Land Markets and the Impact of Land Market Regulation,” on which this article is based.

Conference Papers

The conference participants whose papers are cited in this article are noted below. All conference papers and discussants’ comments are posted on the Lincoln Institute website (www.lincolninst.edu) where they can be downloaded for free

Burchfield, Marcy, Henry Overman, Diego Puga and Matthew A. Turner. “Sprawl?”

Cavailhès, Jean, Dominique Peeters, Evangelos Sékeris, and Jacques-François Thisse. “The Periurban City.”

Feiock, Richard E. and Antonio Taveras. “County Government Institutions and Local Land Use Regulation.”

Ihlanfeldt, Keith R. and Timothy Shaughnessy. “An Empirical Investigation of the Effects of Impact Fees on Housing and Land Markets.”

Irwin, Elena G. and Bockstael, Nancy E. “Urban Sprawl as a Spatial Economic Process.”

Shoup, Donald. “Curb Parking: The Ideal Source of Public Revenue.”

Seeking to address housing affordability and transportation congestion issues, the executive directors of the 25 largest public-sector metropolitan regional councils gathered in Los Angeles in September 2003 for their second regional forum. The three-day conference was sponsored by the Lincoln Institute, the Fannie Mae Foundation and the National Association of Regional Councils (NARC).

Case Studies

The opening session featured presentations on three case studies that illustrate different approaches to growth and development: Atlanta, Chicago and Los Angeles.

The Atlanta region is home to 3.6 million people in 10 counties. Charles Krautler, of the Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC), noted that the commission was created in 1947 and in 1952 presented its first regional plan. “It proposed a tight development pattern with an urban growth boundary close to where I-285 circles our region,” he explained. “It was rejected outright. Instead, we adopted a plan with growth in concentric circles. We did not have unplanned sprawl, we planned for it and we got it.” However, he continued, “now we have two societies. Many people moved to the northern part of the region and took their wealth with them. We encouraged them to trade long drives for big houses. But poverty remains concentrated in Atlanta and Fulton County.”

No slowdown is forecasted for 2030, as the population is expected to grow to 5.4 million people and employment to 3.1 million jobs. That means more congestion, and Atlanta faces other constraints as well. The region is the largest metropolitan area with the smallest water supply, and there is no opportunity for significant expansion of the supply. “If we keep doing what we’re doing, then what we have today is the best its going to be,” Krautler stated. “We’re trying to encourage a movement back to the city. After losing population for the last 30 years, the city has grown by 16,000 since the 2000 census. In a further effort to rewind the sprawl clock, ARC has designated 44 activity/town centers as part of its regional development plan linking transportation and land use. Each center receives planning and, more important, infrastructure resources to concentrate development.”

The Chicago metropolitan area is the “hub of the Midwest,” according to Ron Thomas of the Northeast Illinois Planning Commission (NIPC). With more than 8 million residents in 6 counties with 272 incorporated municipalities, Chicago has built its strength around the waters of Lake Michigan. The NIPC region hosts almost 4.5 million jobs and 62 companies that are listed in the Fortune 1000. The 4,000-square-mile region stretches north to Wisconsin and east to Indiana. And yet, Thomas laments, “our urban growth ‘edge’ is beyond our region. That means that the people who are attempting to control this growth are not at our table.”

Building on the Burnham plan, the first regional plan in the country created in 1909, Chicago’s urban fabric is held together by a series of 200 town centers, an extensive rail network and an expansive highway system. The good news, Thomas said, is that “90 percent of the region’s population is within one mile of a transit line.” Three satellite cities, Elgin, Joliet and Aurora, create a polycentric region around Chicago’s western fringe. The net result is that the region still has the capacity to absorb the projected growth of more than 2 million new people in the next 30 years.

Like every metropolitan region, Chicago is experiencing immigration from all over the world, but especially an influx of Hispanic families. New immigrants enter a region with longstanding socioeconomic patterns of segregation, especially in the southern counties. Thomas explained there are pockets of diversity in some suburban communities, but exclusionary zoning keeps the barriers high. While NIPC has successfully brought together the mayors in the metropolitan area to discuss critical issues, “we suffer from a lack of major universities, most of which are either downtown or 100 miles out,” Thomas noted. “Our political leaders are organized, and so is our business community. However, we run on parallel tracks and talk in stereo.” To address this disconnect, NIPC has created a broad-scale civic leadership process to undertake community-based planning. “We have created a tool called ‘paint the town,’ which allows interactive meetings in local city and town halls,” he continued. “We have a future to plan and it needs to be grounded where the people live, work and raise their families.”

Los Angeles has more than twice as many people as Chicago and more than 4.5 times the population of the Atlanta region, and yet “the urban portion of our region is the densest in the country,” according to Mark Pisano of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). “We have 187 municipalities in 6 counties. With 76 local officials in our structure, our congressional delegation comes to us for solutions to the tough issues we face. We do have a region that is large enough to cover the true regional economy, but the economic and social forces are relentless. Our economic bases are shifting faster than we can plan infrastructure to keep up with the changes.”

Like Chicago and Atlanta, Los Angeles is a polycentric region; it spreads across all of Southern California except San Diego County. “We were one of the first regions in the country to become a majority of minorities. Immigration drives development in our region,” said Pisano. Some of the trends are good. “Forty percent of our region is doing extremely well, but that means that 60 percent is not. We have been called the ‘new Appalachia’ by some, and we are banding together with other states along the border with Mexico to create the Southwest Authority. This, like other similar efforts around the country including the Appalachian Regional Commission, would create a federally supported multistate compact to address critical infrastructure needs required to support the economy of this large area.”

SCAG forecasts another 6 million people will arrive in the region by 2030, more than twice the population of the City of Chicago. As the new immigrants arrive, cities and towns already cramped by the constraints of Proposition 13 are beginning to close the door on new housing production. “Housing is the most undesirable land use in Southern California,” said Pisano. “We are seeing the fiscalization of land use. Our leaders tell me that they don’t want any more housing. They say this is sound fiscal policy. However, this approach just puts more pressure on places that already have housing. The net effect is that Los Angeles is three times more overcrowded than the rest of the region and eight times more crowded than New York City.”

To address these big-picture problems, SCAG is focusing on macro-level regional development patterns. “We can’t build our way out of the traffic congestion, but we have two scenarios under discussion,” Pisano continued. “The first focuses on infill development; the second proposes creation of the fifth ring of development in the high desert. Effective land use will generate three times more benefit than highway expansion.” Using a creative strategy of building truck lanes, paid for by the truckers, “we can create some relief and target key transportation logistics, i.e., moving freight out of the port of Los Angeles into the rest of the country. This strategy also addresses a key workforce issue, since you don’t need a college education to drive a truck. To fund such major infrastructure expansion, we are exploring how to create a tax credit that would allow significant private-sector investment in regional transportation projects.”

Discussion Sessions

Ruben Barrales, deputy assistant to President Bush and director of intergovernmental affairs for the White House, presented an overview of the executive branch’s current national priorities. During the discussion Krautler asked if a White House conference would be a possible response to the critical issues facing the largest metropolitan regions in the country. Barrales said the concept was worth discussing but would require considerable advance preparation to be effective. Pisano offered the resources of the group, working through NARC, to help with conference planning. Robert Yaro of the Regional Plan Association (RPA) suggested an interesting theme. “We’ve had several major eras of planning in this country,” he explained. “When Jefferson made the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, he spurred a major expansion in the nation’s land mass and then had to figure out what to do with it. One hundred years later Teddy Roosevelt appointed Gifford Pinchot to create the National Park Service. We’re due for another national planning initiative, but we now have many challenges that require a sophisticated response. We can’t build an economy based on people driving several hours to and from work each day. We need to focus on how we can create a place that is both pleasant and affordable.”

Armando Carbonell of the Lincoln Institute asked the group to expand on what national policies are needed to support the large metropolitan regions in the country. Comments included:

• We need to re-magnitize our regions, and modest incentives from Washington, DC, could help start that process.
• We need to partner with groups like the Urban Land Institute.
• We are flying blind and that’s dangerous. Even though we’re in the planning business, we need better data, better policies and different paradigms for managing our regional governance that include partners from our business and civic sectors as well as our political leaders.
• We can use a structure like the Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), created for transportation, to address other critical issues like water and housing.
• The bad news is that we are growing, but the good news is that we are growing. We attract smart, entrepreneurial people from around the world.

Dowell Myers, director of the Planning School in the University of Southern California School of Planning, Policy and Development, moderated a session focused on transforming regional actions into local implementation. As part of the program, representatives of three regions commented on their strategies.

“Seattle grew a lot over the last 20 years and we grew in different ways,” said Mary McCumber of the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC). “Our new growth was outside of our historic cities. We knew we needed to do something and we got lucky. We got ISTEA [Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act], a state growth management law and a new regional council at the same time.” Using these tools, PSRC created Destination 2030, which was honored as the best regional plan in the country by the American Planning Association (APA). “But we have planned enough. We are a land of process. Now we need to have the courage to act.”

Martin Tuttle of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) reported, “We used our federal transportation dollars to create land use incentives for community design and backed it up with $500 million. We asked people, ‘Is Atlanta what we want?’” Using the best data available and a sophisticated feedback planning process, SACOG brought the planning to the people and took the people’s plan back to the council.

Bob Yaro of RPA reminded the group that it takes “patience, persistence and perseverance.” He presented New York City as an urban success story, where 8 million people ride the transit system per day. “The Regional Plan Association, created in 1929, oversees a three-state region, and those states don’t like each other much. They have different DNA,” Yaro noted. Despite that history, RPA created the first strategy for a multi-centered region. Unlike the other regional councils, RPA is a private-sector organization. “The real power is in the civic community, if you can get people organized and move them in the right direction,” Yaro added.

Tom Bell, president and CEO of Cousins Properties in Atlanta, introduced a private-sector perspective on engaging in regional policy development: “I was surprised to read in Time magazine that the Atlanta region is the fastest growing settlement in human history. We are gobbling up 100 acres a day. There is no common ground. Democracy and land planning go together like oil and water. But you [planners] are the people who can make a change. Developers will do a lot of work if we can see a payoff. Visions are in short supply and the status quo is not an option.”

Addressing income distribution in the regions, Paul Ong, director of the Lewis Study Center at UCLA, reported that poverty rates among the elderly have declined at the same time that rates among children have increased. More distressing, poverty is higher and more concentrated in urban areas. “We are seeing a working underclass—not people on welfare but people who have jobs.” Rick Porth from Hartford and Howard Maier from Cleveland responded with case studies from their regions on income and social equity. In Hartford, Porth said, “the disparity is getting worse. More important, 20 percent of our future workforce is being educated in our worst schools.” Maier noted, “our economy is in transformation. The Cleveland area was a manufacturing center for steel and car production, but now we have more healthcare workers than steel or auto workers. As a region of 175 communities, we have 175 land use policies based on 175 zoning codes and maps. Each community’s plans may be rational, but together they project a future of sprawl without the ability for coordinated public services or facilities.”

In other sessions several regions that had developed assessment and benchmarking studies presented their current work, and the conference concluded with presentations by each of the councils on a best practice study, strategy or methodology that they have implemented.

The conference theme—confronting housing, transportation and regional growth—underscores the complexity of the metropolitan environment and the necessity for an integrated response to regional dynamics. Traditional regional councils are unique in their ability to link multiple regional systems to focus on specific regional questions. Housing affordability, a seemingly intractable problem overwhelming metropolitan regions, can only be understood against the backdrop of the local government fiscal policy. Transportation systems, often understood as infrastructure designed to service an existing regional settlement pattern, must be seen as a key determinant of economic development policy as well as a primary driver of land use change in regions. The metropolitan regions of this country are the economic engines of our states and the country as a whole. A new, enriched dialogue with the White House could stimulate a series of policy initiatives. As that conversation proceeds, regional councils are the key organizations to engage business and civic leaders with local elected officials around the regional table.

David Soule is senior research associate at the Center for Urban and Regional Policy at Northeastern University in Boston. He teaches political science and conducts research on urban economic development, tax policy and transportation systems. He is the former executive director of the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC), the regional planning agency representing 101 cities and towns in the Boston area.

Una versión más actualizada de este artículo está disponible como parte del capítulo 7 del CD-ROM Perspectivas urbanas: Temas críticos en políticas de suelo de América Latina.

Como Visiting Fellow en el Lincoln Institute y Loeb Fellow de la Harvard University Graduate School of Design durante el curso académico 2004–2005, Mario Navarro ha emprendido un análisis crítico de la innovadora política de financiación de vivienda desarrollada en Chile durante los últimos 30 años. El objetivo del estudio, resumido aquí, es ayudar a los diseñadores de políticas de vivienda de los países en vías de desarrollo a entender el modelo chileno como alternativa para proporcionar viviendas a personas de sectores de ingresos bajos y moderados.

Hasta principios de los años 70, los programas de vivienda de los países en vías de desarrollo consistían en iniciativas patrocinadas por el gobierno para diseñar, construir y vender viviendas usando préstamos con tasas de interés subvencionadas. Estas políticas eran generalmente de escala limitada e inaccesibles por las familias pobres o no claramente orientadas en las mismas, y a menudo eran ineficaces (mayo de 1999). Conscientes de estos problemas, las organizaciones de desarrollo internacionales de mediados de los 70 empezaron a dirigir sus préstamos y consejos a países en vías de desarrollo basándose en la nueva estrategia de nuevas “necesidades básicas”, que consistía en proporcionar sitios y servicios, mejora de asentamientos informales, y vivienda básica (Kimm 1986).

Al mismo tiempo, e independientemente de estas organizaciones de desarrollo, Chile dio comienzo a varias reformas en el sector financiero y en programas de viviendas sociales, entre las que se encontraba la creación del primer programa del mundo en subsidiar la demanda para comprar viviendas (Gilbert 2004). Este modelo chileno se estableció diez años antes del método de “habilitación de mercados de vivienda” promovido por organizaciones internacionales como la Agencia de EE.UU. para el Desarrollo Internacional (Kimm 1986), el Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo (Rojas, Jacobs y Savedoff 1999) y el Banco Mundial (World Bank 1993). Según esta política habilitadora, los gobiernos generan incentivos y actúan como facilitadores, de modo que el sector privado produzca y financie las viviendas que necesita el país.

El modelo chileno ha influido en la política de vivienda de muchos países de América Latina, e incluso en la de otros continentes (Gilbert 2004; Gonzáles Arrieta 1997). No obstante, no se ha reconocido ampliamente como el primer programa en el que el gobierno desempeña la función de habilitador del mercado. Gilbert (2002), un experto importante del modelo chileno y su influencia en otros países, menciona que Chile se encaja en el modelo habilitador, pero mi estudio muestra que, más que sólo encajar, el modelo de vivienda chileno fue el precursor de la política. Las características principales de este programa (pagos puntuales en efectivo de una cantidad fija) corresponden “incuestionablemente al tipo de subsidio [para vivienda] que es menos problemático que otros” (Angel 2000).

El gobierno chileno, a través del Ministerio de Vivienda y Urbanismo, MINVU, fue el protagonista principal del éxito del modelo chileno. Durante los primeros 27 años de implementación de esta política (hasta 2001), el MINVU no sólo financió y gestionó los programas de subsidio, sino que también fue la compañía inmobiliaria más grande y el segundo banco hipotecario del país, en términos de número de viviendas construidas y número de préstamos hipotecarios concedidos.

Tres períodos de política de vivienda

¿Cuáles han sido los instrumentos y las cantidades de recursos públicos y privados que se adjudicaron a la construcción y a la mejora de la vivienda social en Chile? Mi estudio se divide en seis partes; las tres primeras revisan períodos bien definidos de la política de vivienda en los últimos 30 años, y las tres partes siguientes describen los acontecimientos más importantes en la evolución de esta política.

El primer período, de 1974 a 1984, estableció las bases de la política de vivienda basada en la habilitación de mercados. Durante esos 11 años, se llevaron a cabo profundas reformas en el sistema bancario. Los programas de subsidio a la vivienda fueron creados y después se ajustaron significativamente con el tiempo. Sin embargo, se dedicaron pocos recursos a los programas de vivienda, y el sector privado participó solamente en el suministro de vivienda para la clase media alta. Los recursos públicos no llegaron a los grupos más pobres, por lo que el déficit de la vivienda siguió aumentando.

El segundo período abarcó más de 17 años, de 1985 a 2001, y durante ese período la política se consolidó con una intervención estatal significativa. El terremoto que sacudió la zona central de Chile en marzo de 1985 marcó el máximo histórico de déficit de vivienda, llegando a más de un millón de unidades. Este acontecimiento precipitó una mayor atención al diseño de programas de vivienda y subsidio, así como un aumento del nivel de recursos adjudicados a estos programas. Estos dos factores fueron decisivos para atraer al sector privado al mercado de vivienda social. La continuidad de las políticas de vivienda implementadas por gobiernos democráticos que dieron comienzo en 1990 fue un esfuerzo estratégico para consolidar la confianza y los conocimientos que requería el sector privado para aumentar su participación en el mercado. El gobierno continuó su función en la construcción y financiación de viviendas para amplios sectores de la población, y el enfoque de los recursos mejoró con respecto al período anterior. Aunque la dedicación seguía siendo inadecuada, el gran logro de este período fue la reducción del déficit de vivienda a la mitad de lo que había sido a mediados de los 80.

El tercer período, de 2002 a 2004, corresponde a la implementación de la política de vivienda de habilitación de mercados. Aunque la política de la vivienda de Chile recibió reconocimiento internacional antes de 2001, sólo el 25 por ciento de sus recursos se adjudicaron a familias por debajo del nivel de pobreza. A ese nivel de rendimiento, se habrían tardado 24 años en eliminar el déficit de vivienda (Focus 2001). El MINVU estaba gastando más de la mitad de sus recursos en programas de construcción de vivienda directos y seguía funcionando como un banco, concediendo préstamos hipotecarios, aunque más del 70 por ciento de los pagos estaban vencidos (División Técnica 2001).

Política de vivienda actual

Para mejorar el enfoque de su adjudicación de recursos, en 2002 el MINVU empezó la transformación más importante de su política de vivienda desde 1974. Al mismo tiempo, el MINVU dejó de conceder préstamos hipotecarios y abandonó la construcción directa de viviendas. En 2004, el 96 por ciento de los recursos se dedicaba a programas de subsidio y sólo el 4 por ciento a programas de construcción. Los programas de vivienda más importantes para familias urbanas según esta nueva política de vivienda se describen aquí.

Para los residentes más pobres, el MINVU creó un programa de subsidio llamado Fondo Solidario de Vivienda (Financiación para Viviendas Cooperativas) con un subsidio inicial de US$8.400 por hogar. Los solicitantes necesitan tener US$300 en ahorros y deben presentar una propuesta de vivienda específica. El subsidio cubre el costo del suelo, la infraestructura y una unidad de aproximadamente 33 metros cuadrados que contenga cuarto de baño, cocina, espacio multiuso y dormitorio. Esto se considera como la primera fase de una vivienda que se construirá paulatinamente con el tiempo. El permiso de construcción municipal está aprobado de antemano suponiendo una ampliación de la unidad a un mínimo de 51 metros cuadrados.

Las familias deben hacer las solicitudes en grupos organizados de al menos 10 hogares y con el apoyo de una organización gestora, que puede ser una municipalidad, una organización no gubernamental o una firma de consultoría registrada en el MINVU. El ministerio ya no decide dónde y qué construir, ya que los grupos familiares presentan sus proyectos y el MINVU selecciona los mejores desde los criterios de desarrollo social de diseño y urbanístico. La organización gestora recibe los fondos para desarrollar el proyecto, implementar un plan de acción social y ayudar a las familias con apoyo técnico para ampliar sus unidades.

Las familias no reciben ningún otro subsidio para la ampliación, pero como no tienen que pagar una hipoteca pueden ahorrar para financiar los materiales y la mano de obra requeridos. El nuevo programa es flexible y también acepta proyectos que comprenden la compra de viviendas existentes o construcciones en espacios abiertos existentes dentro de una parcela para aumentar la densidad de las viviendas.

El mecanismo de selección beneficia a las personas que compran viviendas usadas por sobre las que compran viviendas nuevas. El objetivo era abrir un nuevo mercado para el sector de ingresos muy bajos, haciendo posible que compraran las viviendas que habían sido construidas por el gobierno durante los 30 años anteriores. Esta política también está considerada como una solución a los problemas tradicionales asociados con la mudanza de familias a nuevos proyectos urbanos en la periferia de las ciudades, lejos de redes sociales y laborales y más costosas a la hora de desplazarse al trabajo. Este programa se concentra en las personas que viven por debajo del nivel de pobreza (aproximadamente 632.000 hogares en Chile, equivalente al 19 por ciento de la población). Se han concedido casi 30.000 subsidios de esta clase al año desde 2002.

El segundo programa de subsidios fue diseñado para personas de bajos ingresos por encima del nivel de pobreza que eran los consumidores principales de los anteriores proyectos de vivienda desarrollados por el MINVU hasta 2001. Los subsidios pueden usarse para comprar viviendas nuevas o existentes o para construir una vivienda en su propio suelo. El subsidio es de US$4.500 para viviendas que cuestan US$9.000 o menos y disminuye linealmente hasta US$2.700 para viviendas hasta un límite de precio de US$18.000. Se han concedido casi 40.000 viviendas anualmente bajo este programa.

Debido a las mejoras de crédito ofrecidas por el MINVU, seis bancos privados firmaron acuerdos para conceder préstamos hipotecarios para viviendas con un valor inferior a US$18.000. Esta política fue capaz de reducir los requisitos de alquiler y permitir a los trabajadores informales reunir las condiciones necesarias para obtener préstamos hipotecarios. Para reducir los índices de morosidad, los préstamos requerían un seguro contra incendios y desempleo o la muerte de la persona. Se incluyen tres mejoras de crédito en los acuerdos del MINVU con los bancos.

1. Subsidio para costos de cierre: se da al banco una cantidad fija entre US$300 (si el costo de la vivienda es de US$9.000 o menos) y US$120 (para valores de la vivienda de hasta US$18.000) por cada préstamo concedido para financiar una vivienda subsidiada.

2. Subsidio implícito: el MINVU garantiza que el préstamo se venda en el mercado secundario al 100 por cien de su valor nominal. Si no ocurre esto, el MINVU paga la diferencia al banco.

3. Seguro contra impago: en caso de ejecución de hipoteca, el MINVU garantiza que el banco recuperará el saldo de la deuda y el costo de los trámites legales. Contrariamente a los préstamos de la FHA en EE. UU., la ejecución hipotecaria la realiza el emisor del préstamo, no el MINVU.

Algunos distritos temían que los subsidios se asignarían sólo al límite superior del precio permitido y que el mercado no proporcionaría ni vivienda ni crédito por viviendas de menos de US$15.000. Los resultados mostraron que la progresividad de los subsidios era suficiente para estimular el mercado a todos los niveles de precios enfocados por el subsidio (ver Figura 7.1.3.1 en archivo anexo).

El tercer tipo de subsidio es para viviendas entre 18.000 y 30.000 dólares estadounidenses para promover unidades para ingresos mixtos en proyectos de vivienda privados. Sólo se han concedido 6.500 subsidios de esta clase al año. El subsidio ofrece un capital inicial de US$2.700, pero las mejoras de crédito se eliminaron porque muchos bancos privados ya estaban originando préstamos hipotecarios en esta gama de precios.

Las tres últimas partes del estudio analizan (1) temas clave para generar una política de vivienda habilitadora de mercados, incluidos los costos de transacción, acceso a financiación bancaria, ahorros para viviendas y apoyo a familias para que puedan aprovecharse de los subsidios; (2) el impacto de los programas de vivienda en los ingresos familiares y la distribución de la renta nacional; y (3) lecciones sobre las finanzas de las viviendas aprendidas de la experiencia de Chile en los últimos 30 años o más.

Conclusión

Mi estudio analiza la política de vivienda chilena desde 1974, para entender mejor cómo se hizo posible incorporar la participación del sector privado y mejorar el énfasis en la asignación de recursos al sector más pobre. El estudio explora las decisiones tomadas, tanto las buenas como las malas, en los últimos 30 años, y particularmente en los tres últimos años, e identifica las funciones de diferentes actores sociales y económicos en el proceso. Los primeros resultados son alentadores. Al usar el mismo presupuesto para subsidios en cada uno de los cuatro últimos años, el MINVU aumentó al 57 por ciento el número de familias de los tres tramos de ingresos más pobres que se han beneficiado de subsidios de vivienda del gobierno (ver Figura 7.1.3.2 en archivo anexo).

A pesar del gran avance en viviendas sociales en Chile, quedan muchas tareas por hacer. Un informe del MINVU estima un déficit de vivienda de 543.000 unidades en 2000 y sugiere que se necesitan 96.000 unidades de vivienda nuevas cada año simplemente para satisfacer la demanda de familias nuevas (Ministerio de Vivienda y Urbanismo de Chile 2004).

Los efectos en términos del uso del suelo también son notables. Hasta 2001, todas las unidades de vivienda construidas para familias de bajos ingresos en el área de Santiago fueron desarrolladas por el MINVU en nuevos proyectos de relleno en la periferia de la ciudad. El programa de Financiación para la Vivienda Cooperativa, establecido en 2003, alentó la adquisición de viviendas existentes y aumentó la densidad de las viviendas dentro de áreas ya urbanizadas. Como consecuencia, el porcentaje de estos tipos de viviendas empezó a aumentar considerablemente, de cero en 2001 al 23 por ciento en 2003 y hasta el 63 por ciento en 2004, con una disminución correspondiente del porcentaje de nuevas unidades de relleno desarrolladas en la periferia.

Chile tardó más de 28 años en implementar completamente la política de vivienda de habilitación de mercados. Espero que este estudio pueda ayudar a otros países a formular sus políticas de vivienda, de modo que todos los ciudadanos, sin importar su condición socioeconómica, pueden tener la oportunidad de ser propietarios de un hogar decente.

Mario Navarro fue director de la política de vivienda en el Ministerio de Vivienda y Urbanismo de Chile (MINVU) de 2000 a 2004. De 2004 a 2005 fue Loeb Fellow en Harvard y Visiting Fellow en el Lincoln Institute.

Referencias

Angel, S. 2000. Housing policy matters: A global analysis. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

División Técnica de Estudio y Fomento Habitacional. 2001. Informe de gestión: Diciembre de 2000. Santiago, Chile: Ministerio de Vivienda y Urbanismo.

Gilbert, A. 2002. Power, ideology and the Washington consensus: The development and spread of the Chilean housing policy. Housing Studies 17(2): 305–324.

———. 2004. Helping the poor through housing subsidies: Lessons from Chile, Colombia and South Africa. Habitat International 28(1): 13.

Gonzáles Arrieta, G. 1997. Acceso a la vivienda y subsidios directos a la demanda: Análisis y lecciones de las experiencias latinoamericanas. Serie Financiamiento del Desarrollo (63).

Kimm, P. 1986. Evolving shelter policies for developing countries. Second International Shelter Conference, Viena, Austria.

Mayo, S. 1999. Subsidies in housing. Washington, DC: Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo.

Ministerio de Vivienda y Urbanismo de Chile. 2004. El déficit habitacional en Chile: Medición de los requerimientos de vivienda y su distribución espacial. Santiago, Chile: Política Habitacional y Planificación (321).

Rojas, E., Jacobs, M., and Savedoff, W. 1999. Operational guidelines for housing: Urban development and housing policy. Washington, DC: Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo.

World Bank. 1993. Housing: Enabling markets to work. Washington, DC: Banco Mundial.