Property taxes based on market value have many features that recommend them as a source of local government revenue. They promote visibility and accountability in public spending by providing property owners with a means of evaluating the costs and benefits of local government services. They can provide stable, independent local revenue that is not at the mercy of state budget surpluses or deficits. They are now considered to be proportional or even mildly progressive, in contrast to earlier economic views that presumed the tax to be regressive.

Against these strengths, the greatest challenge to a value-based property tax is political: taxpayers’ strong and completely understandable resistance to sharp increases in tax payments that reflect rising markets but not necessarily rising incomes with which to pay the tax increases. The best known and most dramatic response to this situation was rejection of the value-based tax system in California in 1978. When voters approved Proposition 13, they changed the tax base to the value of the property at the time of purchase or construction, with a maximum 2 percent annual inflation adjustment. For property held by the same owner since 1978, the inflation adjustment is applied to its value on the 1975–1976 tax roll.

This change has greatly altered California’s fiscal landscape. It has restricted the role of local governments, centralized service provision and decision making, and redistributed the tax burden from long-time residents to new property owners. Local governments now have an incentive to seek sales tax revenue by encouraging large retail establishments, such as auto malls, in what has been termed the “fiscalization of land use.” Can the property tax achieve greater stability and predictability without such drastic social and governmental costs? Table 1 illustrates the wide range of residential property tax levies in large metropolitan areas, a factor that presents additional challenges to formulating uniform policies or practical recommendations.

A Lincoln Institute seminar in April 2005 brought together public finance and assessment officials, policy analysts and scholars to consider alternate approaches to the recurrent problems that volatile real estate markets pose for value-based property taxes.

Problems Related to Market-Value Assessment

Discussion began with the incontrovertible observation, “Taxpayers do not like unpredictability.” In theory, reductions in tax rates could balance increases in property prices to maintain stability in actual tax payments under market-value assessments. This approach faces two obstacles. The first and most straightforward is governmental reluctance to reduce tax rates and forego increased revenues when rising values provide a cover for greater tax collection. The second is nonuniform price appreciation in different locations and for different types of property. When one segment of the tax base experiences a disproportionate value change, a corresponding change in the tax rate applied to the entire property class will not maintain level tax collections. California faced both difficulties in the years preceding adoption of Proposition 13. There, rapid residential appreciation was not matched by the lagging commercial sector, and a $7.1 billion state surplus fueled taxpayer cynicism as to the actual need for increased government revenues.

While rapid market shifts are the most challenging source of unpredictable tax changes, taxpayer “shocks” can also be caused simply by long delays in reassessment. Maintaining outdated values on the tax rolls achieves short-term predictability in tax bills, but at the expense of uniformity, accuracy and even legality. Long-postponed reassessments have been followed by tax revolts in many jurisdictions, both in this country and overseas.

Options for Addressing Value Shifts

Seminar participants reviewed the benefits and drawbacks of various measures to address these problems.

Circuit breakers, as their name implies, attempt to reduce a property tax “overload” by providing a refund or credit for taxes that exceed a set percentage of the property owner’s income. When funded by the state and administered as part of the state tax system, they have the dual benefit of protecting local revenue and targeting aid to the most needy taxpayers. At the same time, they require state funding and administration, and taxpayers must file tax returns to order to obtain these benefits. Like all programs that require income information, they sometimes encounter taxpayer resistance and consequent underutilization.

Homestead exemptions, available in most states, reduce assessments on the taxpayer’s primary residence. These exemptions are often granted without regard to taxpayer income, and so are not targeted to the most needy. In predominantly residential communities, this results in a significant loss of municipal revenues unless the tax rate is increased or the tax burden is shifted to other taxpayers. Like all preferential programs for homeowners, these exemptions fail to benefit renters, who bear a portion of the property tax burden and generally are less affluent than homeowners.

Tax deferral measures, often available to low-income elderly homeowners, permit unpaid taxes to accumulate as a lien against the property, to be paid after the residence changes hands. However, the desire to retain property clear of encumbrances has traditionally led homeowners to avoid making use of this option.

“Truth in taxation” legislation requires local governments to take various measures, such as publishing voter information and requesting ballot approval, to treat increases in tax collections in the same manner whether they are the result of growth in the tax base or increases in the tax rate. These enactments seek to counter the temptation to allow rates to remain constant while market values rise, thus increasing taxes and spending without budgetary accountability.

Limitations on annual total property tax collection increases, such as Proposition 2½ in Massachusetts, restrict overall levy growth but do not address unpredictable tax bill changes for specific taxpayers. For example, after several decades of tax stability, Boston taxpayers are now facing assessment shifts that reflect a downturn in the commercial property market with simultaneous explosive growth in certain residential values.

Limitations on annual tax increases for individual properties have enormous political appeal, but face three hazards. First, there is often pressure to make the phase-in period as long as possible, or even longer than possible. Montana provided for an extended 50-year phase-in of new assessments. Second, initial success at limiting increases to a certain percentage may lead to efforts to reduce that limit again. Oklahoma instituted a 5 percent limit and now faces pressure to reduce it to 3 percent. Finally, the “catch-up” of tax assessments when values stabilize or even drop elicits opposition of its own as taxpayers face increasing assessments while property values are flat or falling.

Assessment “freezes” take limitations on increases to their ultimate conclusion, prohibiting any increases despite changes in market values. They often are restricted to specific groups of taxpayers, such as elderly homeowners. Proposition 13 is a type of assessment freeze for all property, with only a 2 percent annual inflation adjustment in the tax base. These measures are in many respects equivalent to the long delays in reassessments that lead to nonuniformity and resistance to new valuations. After values are frozen taxpayers may seek to transfer that value to other family members, as they do in California, or to new residences, as in Texas.

Possible New Approaches

Seminar participants discussed methods for utilizing these and other measures to address the problems of unpredictability while minimizing the problems of inequitable distribution of the tax burden and maintenance of collections. A major distinction was drawn between approaches that moderate tax bill shifts but maintain a market-value base and those that alter assessments themselves. Altering assessments by limiting increases in value can result in situations where owners of similar properties pay very different tax bills. Furthermore, over time properties with average or lesser value appreciation can experience an increasingly greater share of taxes compared with properties that have had larger market increases. As a result wealthier taxpayers are more likely than those of moderate or low incomes to benefit from assessment limits.

To maintain a market-value tax base, with its benefits of uniformity, understandability and administrative efficiency, participants offered suggestions to stabilize rapid increases in tax payments due to significant shifts in the assessment base.

• Eliminating stringent income limitations on eligibility for senior citizen deferral programs, expanding eligibility for circuit breakers and tax deferral, and including such measures in state rather than local tax relief programs would allow more taxpayers to participate. A state could establish a property tax deferral fund to reimburse local jurisdictions for delayed collections.
• Classification and taxation of property according to use is a common means of taxing commercial and industrial properties at a higher rate than residential properties. Changing the class rates to accommodate a shift in the value base can be an appropriate short-term remedy, but may have harmful economic consequences in the long term. In Massachusetts the permitted shift of the share of the total tax levy from residential to commercial property in a municipality is subject to statutory limits. The recent combined acceleration of residential values and downturn of commercial values would have resulted in a substantial shift of taxes to homeowners in the City of Boston and a few other urban centers. Thus the legislature permitted a temporary increase of the share to be borne by the commercial class, at local option, but required a return to an even more limited class share difference within a five-year period.
• Alternative methods of tax collection, such as credit card, direct debit or more frequent payment schedules, may offer greater financial convenience than the more common annual and semiannual billings.
• Shorter periods between revaluations avoid the “sticker shock” that accompanies dramatic shifts and increases in value when reassessment occurs infrequently. Annual reassessments using computer-assisted mass appraisals offer greater stability and uniformity. Tax bills that reflect current values, rather than fractional assessments or outdated figures, are easier for taxpayers to understand.

Even significant increases in assessed value, if relatively uniform across the jurisdiction, do not result in increased taxes for most property owners if the municipal budget requires no additional property tax revenues and the tax rate is reduced proportionately. Better information about the relationship between assessed value and the tax rate will make it less likely that taxpayers will place the blame for their higher taxes on the assessors and their assessments. They may consider instead the adequacy of funding sources available to local governments, the effect of exemptions that reduce the property tax base, and unfunded mandates that require additional local expenditures.

The property tax, as the most important source of autonomous local revenue, often bears the brunt of criticism for the social, economic and fiscal pressures on local communities. Among these pressures are increased costs of new educational, environmental and security requirements, reductions in state and federal assistance, changing demographics and economic conditions, and increasing numbers of exemptions. Attention to these issues can clarify the debate over the role and burden of property taxes and the effectiveness of various tax relief measures.

Improving Educational Resources

There is an urgent need to provide government officials, lawmakers and the public with better information on property tax policy choices. Tax revolts and anti-tax initiatives make compelling news stories, but they should be balanced by concise and accessible information that sheds light on the problem and its solution. There is also a need for periodic research on such topics as:

• The effects over time of assessment and tax limits on the distribution of the property tax burden and on revenue growth, and the full costs to residents of additional fees and charges imposed to offset decreases in local property tax revenues.
• The effectiveness of property tax relief measures, and the distribution of their benefits across taxpayer classes.
• “Tax expenditure” studies to quantify the cost of exemptions, and exploration of the use of payments in lieu of taxes (PILOTS) for tax-exempt nonprofit property owners to pay for municipal services received.
• Assessment quality studies to evaluate both individual assessment equity and the distribution of the tax burden.

The Institute will be collaborating with the seminar participants and others in continuing these discussions and will undertake further research and the preparation of publications on these property tax issues in the coming year.

Joan Youngman is senior fellow at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, where she chairs the Department of Valuation and Taxation. Her writings include Legal Issues in Property Valuation and Taxation (1994), and two books co-edited with Jane Malme, An International Survey of Taxes on Land and Buildings (1994) and The Development of Property Taxation in Economies in Transition (2001). She is a contributing author on the property taxation chapter of Jerome R. Hellerstein and Walter Hellerstein’s State and Local Taxation (7th ed. 2001), and writes on property taxation for State Tax Notes.

Jane Malme, fellow of the Lincoln Institute, is an attorney, author and consultant on property tax policy, law and administration in the U.S. and internationally. She directed the Massachusetts Department of Revenue’s Bureau of Local Assessment as it implemented major property tax reforms from 1978 to 1990.

The Lincoln Institute seminar on Property Taxes and Market Values—Responding to Post-Proposition 13 Challenges in April 2005 included participants from many states, including California, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York and Oklahoma. The discussion leader was Alan Dornfest, property tax policy supervisor in the Idaho State Tax Commission.

The Institute will continue this discussion at the International Association of Assessing Officers (IAAO) Annual Conference in Anchorage, Alaska, in September. Jane Malme will moderate a policy seminar on Property Tax Viability in Volatile Markets with speakers Alan Dornfest; Mark Haveman, director of development for the Minnesota Taxpayers Association and project director for its Center for Public Finance Research; and Andrew Reschovsky, professor of public affairs at the University of Wisconsin’s LaFollette School of Public Affairs.

Faculty Profile of Andrew Reschovsky

Weidong Qu is a research fellow at the Peking University–Lincoln Institute Center for Urban Development and Land Policy in Beijing, and an associate professor in the Department of Land and Real Estate Management at Renmin University of China. Dr. Qu’s research interests include real estate appraisal, land and cadastral management, fuzzy cluster analysis, GIS programming and analysis for real estate valuation, and real estate investment analysis and finance.

Since 2003, he has focused much of his research on property tax reform in China. Dr. Qu has authored five academic books and published over twenty papers for both international and domestic Chinese journals and conferences. He earned his Ph.D. in real estate appraisal at the Geodetic Institute of the University of Hannover, Germany, in 2000.

Dr. Qu also serves as director of the China Association of Real Estate Academicians and executive secretary general of the Global Chinese Real Estate Congress. He is also conducting research in Munich on real estate mortgage valuation and risk analysis as a Humboldtianer fellow of Germany’s Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, and taking part in a research project on property tax reform in Germany.

Land Lines: How did you become associated with the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy?

Weidong Qu: After returning to China in 2002 following my studies Germany, I took part in a training seminar on urbanization and smart growth that was cohosted by the Lincoln Institute and Renmin University. Then, in December 2003, I was invited by officials in the City of Shenzhen to participate in an international symposium on property taxation organized by China’s State Administration of Taxation and the Lincoln Institute. At a later conference on property taxation in Beijing in 2007, I met Joyce Yanyun Man, the director of the Institute’s China Program and the Peking University–Lincoln Institute Center for Urban Development and Land Policy, and she invited me to join the Center’s research group to lead the property tax team.

Land Lines: Why is research on property taxation in China so important?

Weidong Qu: China’s real estate market has developed rapidly over the past 30 years as economic reforms have been introduced. At the same time, real estate–related taxes remain relatively complicated, with a lack of distinction between taxes and fees, and widespread use of administrative fees in place of taxes that may not otherwise have been approved by central regulatory authorities. The steady increase in the use of taxes and fees has begun to influence development costs in the residential housing sector, with the combined charges estimated to account for 40 percent of total costs for new housing stock. This situation is a growing source of criticism from both property developers and residents, who see this increase in charges as one of the factors pushing China’s urban housing prices ever higher.

Another tax-related issue confronting the sustainable growth of China’s real estate sector is the preference for levying taxes and fees on the developer rather than the ultimate owner. To date, China has not established a property tax system, and taxes and fees levied on property owners remain comparatively low, which has contributed to overinvestment and speculation in the property market.

In addition, due to China’s centralized tax system and the lack of a stable local revenue source such as a property tax, local governments have become heavily dependent on revenues from land transfer fees to fund public expenditures and infrastructure investments. According to China’s Ministry of Land and Resources, during the 11th Five-year Plan (2006–2010), more than 33 million mu (more than 200 million acres) of land was transferred by local governments for development, generating revenues of 7 trillion renminbi (approximately US$1.1 trillion). This land-based approach to public finance undermines economic stability and puts pressure on land prices, with the potential to contribute to a real estate bubble.

Land Lines: What challenges differentiate property tax issues in China from the experience in the United States, Europe, or other developed economies?

Weidong Qu: Property tax levies in developed countries are generally based on an assessed value, and most jurisdictions utilize computer-assisted mass appraisal (CAMA) systems to administer their property taxes. At this time, however, none of the taxes or fees levied on China’s real estate sector are based on an assessed value and, consequently, there is a critical shortage of experienced assessors and officials. Most current assessors focus primarily on individual properties, and they lack experience with mass appraisal techniques.

Administering a modern property tax also requires an integrated geographic and property database. My research indicates that more than 90 percent of China’s cities do not yet have such a property database, and many local governments cannot document the number of parcels within their jurisdictions, or even the ownership of each parcel.

Land Lines:How does property taxation in China relate to the country’s rapid urban development and growth?

Weidong Qu: According to a projection from the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, China’s rate of urbanization will be 52.28 percent in 2015, 57.67 percent in 2020, and 67.81 percent in 2030, after which the rate is expected to stabilize. This trend will produce a rapid increase in the urban population and the need for significant expansion of basic infrastructure, such as schools and hospitals, as well as more residential housing. Supplying land for this new infrastructure will be an ongoing challenge and will eventually render China’s current land-based public financing approach unsustainable.

Land Lines: How do you approach property taxation in China through your own research?

Weidong Qu: The first official mention of property tax reform came in a report from the third plenary session of the 16th Central Committee of the Chinese Community Party in 2003. That report directed the government to “reform city and village construction taxes and fees, and levy a property tax on fixed assets when the conditions are ready, including the concomitant cancelation of overlapping taxes.” This statement was one of the major impetuses for the Lincoln Institute to become involved with property tax research in China and to collaborate with the State Administration of Taxation in Shenzhen, as well as the beginning of my own work in the area.

With the central government’s support, policy makers selected six Chinese cities to serve as initial property tax reform pilot cities for internal sample valuations and research. The study was later expanded to ten cities, including Beijing. These pilots have built upon China’s ongoing stamp tax reform, which refers to a value-based tax paid during the sale of a property and has been invaluable in pushing jurisdictions to formulate their own assessment standards. According to the Ministry of Finance, China will transition to an assessed-value standard for the stamp tax by 2012, which will require each jurisdiction to develop its own computer-assisted mass appraisal system.

In my opinion, four key issues merit research attention. First, it is important to define what we mean in China by a property tax, because considerable disagreement exists among policy makers and scholars about what such a tax should include. Second, property databases remain incomplete or inaccurate, so it is vital to conduct a national-scale survey of housing stock and ownership. Without this data, government agencies are unable to assess property values for all parcels within their jurisdictions or ensure that property tax bills are mailed to the correct property owner.

Third, further research into mass appraisal theories and techniques is still needed. Although China’s tax officials have made progress in their knowledge of the basic principles of mass appraisal, they generally lack specialized real estate training, and their limited understanding threatens to lead to ill-informed policy making. Fourth, before any progress can be made, it is necessary to overcome opposition from China’s political and economic elites, who often own multiple properties and have emerged as one of the biggest obstacles to property tax reforms. Given the uncertainty as to the final direction of property tax reform in China, these interest groups have seen delaying the imposition of a property tax as their best strategy.

Land Lines: What challenges has the PKU-Lincoln Center’s property tax demonstration project sought to address?

Weidong Qu: Since property tax reform in China was first mentioned in 2003, the Lincoln Institute has contributed to this important issue by hosting training seminars and international conferences on property tax assessment and theory, along with lessons from other international experiences. The property tax demonstration project represents the logical next step in the Institute’s work, with a goal of identifying and addressing the practical challenges of such reform. Many of these challenges, such as the importance of cross-ministerial information sharing and CAMA valuation codes, are not the high-profile issues focused on by officials, but they are equally important in ensuring the success of any property tax reform.

Specifically, the demonstration project has focused on 18 properties on Financial Street in western Beijing, the location of the People’s Bank of China and the headquarters of a number of other major domestic and international financial companies. We chose Financial Street because it is one of the most developed districts in Beijing; however, even in such a modern area it took us several months to collect all of the geographic, property, and tenant information needed. This underscores the importance of constructing standards for data gathering and information sharing among government agencies.

Land Lines: What are the biggest remaining obstacles to implementing an effective residential or commercial property tax in China?

Weidong Qu: Assessing a property tax on residential housing stock and on commercial real estate are two separate issues in China. As mentioned, many factors hinder the implementation of a property tax on residential housing stock, including the opposition of powerful interest groups and the current lack of reliable property transaction and ownership data. As in most countries, citizens’ historic opposition to paying taxes on owner-occupied property is also a challenge.

In terms of a property tax on commercial real estate, the current consensus is to leave the existing tax burden unchanged by eliminating the present land use fee and the rental-income and original-value-based real estate taxes levied on commercial property and then establishing a single assessed-value property tax. This approach should not generate the same opposition as that seen against a residential property tax.

In my view, there are two key challenges remaining. The first is to revise China’s existing laws related to taxes on property and then to draft new legislation. The second challenge is the current variety of commercial real estate and the lack of consensus on what valuation method should be used for each type. The demonstration project conducted by the PKU-Lincoln Center in 2009 focused exclusively on top-grade commercial real estate, such as office space, hotels, and apartments. There remains a need for further research on the best valuation methods for property such as gas stations, hospitals, shopping centers, and informal shops in China.

It is difficult to overstate how ongoing population loss has devastated Detroit. Between 1900 and 1950, when the rise of U.S. automobile manufacturing made the city one of America’s premier industrial and cultural centers, the population spiked from 300,000 to 1.85 million. Beginning in 1950, however, it began to fall. And its decline has been continuous to the present day, plummeting to just 700,000 in 2010, at a rate of descent nearly as swift as the rate of ascent in the first half of the 20th century.

Despite Detroit’s decades-long effort to keep pace with population loss by removing dilapidated housing stock, roughly a quarter of its 380,000 parcels are now abandoned, managed by the city or other public entities. As of July 2014, 114,000 properties have been razed, and 80,000 more are considered blighted (Austen 2014).

While the downtown is recovering and the suburbs remain vital, the “unfathomable dissolution of [the] built landscape” in vast areas of the city may shock the unsuspecting visitor (Austen 2014).

The first installment in a two-part series, this article considers the fiscal causes and repercussions of Detroit’s surplus of housing and vacant property: from the extent and location of abandoned homes and lots throughout Detroit to the downward spiral of house price declines leading to overassessment, property tax delinquency, and foreclosures; the public acquisition of that property; the pattern of land values across the city; and, finally, some potential ways to reconcile the remaining number of people with the amount of vacant and publicly held property. These measures range from targeting densely populated neighborhoods for redevelopment to establishing a greenbelt and reclaiming vacant parcels for public use as parks, forests, industrial buffers, retention ponds, and other open space (Austen 2014).

Factors Behind the Fall

The reasons for Detroit’s demise are numerous and perhaps too familiar. Federally subsidized transportation infrastructure, such as the Interstate highway system, facilitated rapid suburbanization, which was further enabled by permissive development codes. Racial tension, global economic forces, and corruption corroded what remained of the city proper. In the early stages of the malaise, higher-income residents, most of them Caucasian, left for the suburbs in search of a better quality of life, as shown in table1. By 1990, the African-American population had peaked as well and began to drop in the first decade of the 21st century. Beginning in the 1960s, Michigan auto manufacturing began its long, precipitous decline, disproportionately impacting Detroit and Flint. The loss of well-paying middle-class jobs further harmed the urban demographic and economic base, as households sought new employment opportunities elsewhere. Rising crime rates and continued erosion of public services induced another wave of exits.

Table 1 illustrates this downturn in the city’s demographic and economic conditions from 1950 through 2010. By 2012, according to government sources, median household income was just $25,000, less than half of the national median income. Poverty and unemployment rates were 38 and 27.5 percent, respectively. The labor force participation rate was 54 percent (compared to 63 percent nationwide), and for every 6.35 employed workers, there was one person receiving Social Security Disability benefits (compared to 1 of 12 nationwide). More than 34 percent of the city’s population received food stamps, and 81 percent of children in the Detroit Public Schools qualified for the Free and Reduced Lunch Program. Revenue streams became increasingly dependent on external sources, including nonresidents, as discussed in box 1. In 2013, when the city finally succumbed to the weight of accumulating fiscal challenges and declared bankruptcy, its debt and unfunded liabilities amounted to $18 billion—or $68,000 per household, which is about 2.7 times the median household income (Turbeville 2013).

The Failed Housing Market

The enormous excess supply of housing that accumulated over decades as a result of winnowing demand in Detroit corroded the value of that property. The real estate crisis of 2007–2008 dealt the final blow, resulting in the near-complete breakdown of Detroit’s housing market. By 2010, the average price of a residential property had plummeted to about $7,000 from $57,000 in 2006 (Hodge et al. 2014a). Detroit’s current excess of land and housing would likely suppress real estate price recovery in the coming years even if the population were to stabilize.

Property Tax Delinquency, Abandonment, and Public Acquisition of Property

Tax officials have not recalibrated assessment values to reflect house price declines. The resulting overassessment is as high as 80 percent (Hodge et al. 2014a), contributing to a general unwillingness to pay taxes, according to Alm et al. (2014). Their research also shows that additional factors such as high statutory tax rates and limited services such as public safety worsen this delinquency as well.

In the midst of the real estate crisis, property tax delinquency reached an alarming 50 percent (Alm et al. 2014). Figure 2 (p. 13) shows delinquency rates by neighborhood across the city in 2010. Property tax collection depends on a jurisdiction’s ability to impose sanctions for nonpayment of taxes, as noted by Langsdorf (1973). When real estate values collapse, taxing authorities have no workable enforcement mechanism; homeowners’ savings from nonpayment of property tax are greater than the value of the house they own and would lose in the instance of foreclosure. Further, proceeds from the sale of low-valued tax-foreclosed property are insufficient to cover back taxes owed and the government costs of initiating foreclosure proceedings.

Widespread failure to pay property taxes and the subsequent abandonment of homes has resulted in the public acquisition of thousands of properties throughout Detroit. Fifteen percent of the parcels within the 139-square-mile city are now empty, and nearly 25 percent of Detroit’s land area is now nontaxable, owned and managed by the city or some other public entity (Sands and Skidmore 2014), as illustrated in figure 3.

The Downward Spiral of Foreclosures

Currently, the number of properties flowing into public hands via tax foreclosure far outpaces the number of publicly held properties being purchased back by private taxpaying owners.

In Michigan, delinquent property taxes are subject to a 4 percent administration fee and 1 percent monthly interest on the delinquent amount computed at a non-compounded rate, beginning in the first month of nonpayment. After one year of delinquency, the city forfeits the property to county government, and the owner becomes subject to an additional 0.5 percent monthly interest charge. During this two-year period, owners may redeem their properties by paying all outstanding taxes and fees.

If property taxes go unpaid for more than two years, the Wayne County Treasurer initiates foreclosure proceedings. After a show cause hearing in the Circuit Court, the County Treasurer publicly auctions the foreclosed parcels. The starting bid equals the unpaid property taxes plus interest and penalties, and the proceeds are distributed proportionately to the taxing jurisdictions. If the property doesn’t sell at the first auction, the county lowers the minimum bid to $500 and holds a second auction. This procedure has led to further tax evasion, as some homeowners elect to ignore their tax bills with the expectation that they will be able to repurchase the parcel for $500 at the second auction.

Property that doesn’t sell at either auction may be transferred to a public body (city or state) or to a state or local land bank, or it may be held for a subsequent auction. County records indicate that 80 percent of the parcels sold to private buyers at auction over the past two years are once again delinquent on taxes (MacDonald 2013). Given that the tax delinquency rate is 67 percent for non-homestead property owners (Alm et al. 2014), it seems likely that a significant proportion of buyers at auction are absentee landlords who intend to reduce their operating expenses and increase their net rental income by never paying property taxes.

Property taxes are effectively optional on low-valued parcels as well. To minimize the backlog of tax-delinquent lots (MacDonald 2013), the county does not foreclose on homeowners who owe less than $1,600 in taxes and penalties in aggregate, effectively rendering these debts optional.

Expected revenue from the sale of low-valued parcels is insufficient to cover legal expenses associated with tax foreclosure and unpaid property tax balances. The end result is an increasing rate of delinquency and a growing inventory of unwanted property that ends up in the public sector, where it generates no revenue for the city.

Where to Go from Here?

Another wave of property tax-related foreclosures is expected in late 2014 and early 2015. What can be done to stabilize the situation?

Curbing Property Tax Delinquency

As mentioned, delinquency will abate when tax payers perceive that they receive commensurate returns for their money. Thus, improving the tax-service package by upgrading core services such as public safety will reduce evasion and lateness (Alm et al. 2014). Under the leadership of recently elected Mayor Mike Duggan, city government is taking steps to improve basic public service provision and put its fiscal house in order. For example, just 35,000 of 88,000 streetlights currently work, so Duggan plans to install 2,400 functioning streetlights per month (Austen 2014). He also increased the number of operating buses from 143 to 190, and improved snow plowing during the particularly harsh winter.

Lowering tax rates would modestly reduce delinquency as well (Alm et al. 2014). Roughly double the regional average, Detroit tax rates are at the state’s maximum of 67 mills and 85 mills per assessed value for homestead and non-homestead properties, respectively. While a reduction would improve the competitive position of the city relative to other communities in the region, currently there is no discussion of reducing property tax rates.

Aligning assessed values more closely with actual market conditions will also reduce delinquency. Mayor Duggan recently promised to lower assessments by 5 to 20 percent across the city to reconcile them with state guidelines. However, Duggan’s promised reductions are just a small fraction of the 80 percent cut needed to bring assesment to market levels, according to Hodge et al. (2014a).

Removing Land from the Market

In the absence of robust demand for land, which seems unlikely in the near future, the excess must be removed from the market for a period of time in order for real estate value to improve broadly across the city. Given that public entities now hold so much property, it is within the power of government authorities to credibly remove it from the market. Without this type of policy action, the possibility that these parcels could be quickly transferred to the private sector serves to hamper price recovery.

Currently, public lands are held by many public entities. Authorities from the City of Detroit, Wayne County, and state government are working to consolidate these parcels under a single entity that can manage them more effectively. Detroit Future City (2010) details the extent of the fragmented ownership of public lands:

——–

Public land in Detroit is held by many separate agencies, including city, county, and state agencies, as well as autonomous or quasi-governmental entities such as the Detroit Public Schools, the Detroit Housing Commission, and the Detroit Economic Growth Corporation. Few other cities have such fragmented holding of their public land inventory. There is no consistency of policy, procedure, or mission among these agencies, while many are hamstrung by burdensome legal requirements and complex procedures. The Department of Planning and Development controls the largest number of properties, yet its ability to do strategic disposition is constrained by procedural obstacles, including the need to obtain City Council approval for all transactions, however small and insignificant from a citywide perspective.

——–

While this consolidation process is necessary, it is not sufficient. Financial resources are required to remove blight and implement land use plans. City leaders are focused mainly on strategies to return these parcels to private ownership. If they can stimulate greater interest in Detroit property, this approach might be viable.

Indeed, opportunities for private ownership are emerging in the central business district (CBD). Daniel Gilbert, founder of Quicken Loans, has moved his headquarters to downtown Detroit and invested $1.3 billion in city real estate (Forbes 2014). And downtown renewal has led to substantial rental price increases (Christie 2014).

Land values are very high in the CBD, as depicted in figure 4 (p. 16) by the black parcels, which represent the very highest land values on the map. Detroit’s land value gradient is very steep, however. While several areas within the donut around the CBD have retained some worth, land values plunge rapidly as distance from the CBD increases, though they rise again near the city’s border, probably because amenities such as shopping are available in the nearby suburbs.

Given the weak demand outside the CBD, it may be more effective to determine which publicly held properties should return to private taxpaying parties, which properties should be taken off the market for a decade or two, with the option of returning land to the market should conditions change, and which should be permanently removed from the market.

The 2012 master plan, as outlined by Detroit Future City, calls for the reclamation of land for parks, forests, industrial buffers, greenways, retention ponds, community gardens, and even campgrounds (Austen 2014). Full implementation of this ambitious proposal requires significant financial resources. But consider how state and federal authorities intervened in the last major episode of mass tax foreclosure. During the Great Depression, many homesteaders on marginal agricultural lands in Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin were unable to pay their property taxes, and this default resulted in a mass wave of tax delinquency, foreclosure, abandonment, and eventual forfeiture. In these states, county governments frequently became the owners of thousands of acres, much of which was eventually sold to the state and federal governments. The six national forests in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan, as well as the region’s numerous state forests, all have origins in this mass land abandonment of the Depression Era, as state and federal authorities pieced together a patchwork of adjacent lands purchased from counties eager to sell off their tax-forfeited property.

Today, state and federal authorities have no taste for a Detroit “bailout.” But history suggests that state and federal governments could help Detroit regain fiscal viability by purchasing patchworks of unwanted parcels, making payments in lieu of taxes, as is typical for other publicly owned lands, and then using the land for the benefit of the general public. Potential uses are mapped out in the aforementioned city master plan which the second installment of this series will explore. A federal, state, and local government partnership to reclaim these properties could help stabilize the land market and generate a revenue stream for the city and the other overlying taxing jurisdictions (including the state government via the state education tax). Property value recovery in combination with downtown reinvestment, continued efforts to improve Detroit’s tax-service package and remove blight, and long-run investment in Detroit’s human and social capital are essential elements of a sustainable Detroit recovery.

————————

Box 1: Targeting Nonresidents for Revenue

Detroit’s revenue streams have become increasingly dependent on external sources, including nonresidents, as its population and economic base have declined. This shift occurred in part because over time Michigan state legislatures empowered the City of Detroit to use tax-exporting strategies to help shore up weakening fiscal conditions and deal with massive structural changes to the regional economy. While there were periods during which it appeared that Detroit was on the cusp of recovery, various forces prevented “escape velocity.”

Today, the City of Detroit relies on the income tax, property tax, casino wagering tax, state revenue sharing, a utility user’s tax, federal grants, and various fees and licenses to fund public services. Of these, the casino wagering tax and the city income tax were adopted to bolster fading revenues from more traditional sources.

The casino wagering tax, based on gamers’ winning receipts, has become particularly important to the City of Detroit over the last decade, as shown in figure 2, which summarizes trends in the city’s major revenue sources from 1960 through 2012. The state legislature authorized casino gaming activity and the wagering tax in Detroit in 1996, to help the city address its fiscal challenges. By 2001, casino construction had been completed. The $180 million in additional annual revenues helped to stave off financial pressures even as other sources, such as income taxes and state shared revenues, were in decline. Up to 85 percent of gamers at the three major Detroit casinos are nonresidents, according to recent reports and interviews with gaming experts (Miklojcik 2014).

Since 1963, the city income tax has represented Detroit’s largest and, for a number of years, fastest-growing revenue source. At the time of adoption, the majority of the income tax was paid by city residents. As Detroit’s population has declined, however, the income tax on nonresidents who work in the city has become an increasing share of the city income tax base, composed of wages and salaries earned at a city-based job. The tax rate is 2.4 percent for city residents, whereas nonresidents pay 1.2 percent. While corporations and partnerships also pay an income tax, it is a very small portion of total revenues collected. According to Scorsone and Skidmore (2014), about half of the city income tax revenue in Detroit is paid by nonresidents.

State revenue sharing continues to play a critical role in Detroit’s finances, though population loss has diminished even this income source. In Michigan, state government collects a statewide sales tax and then shares a portion of the proceeds with municipal governments. Sales tax revenues are allocated to local governments based on constitutional provisions as well as state statute. The constitutional portion of revenue sharing is based on each jurisdiction’s share of the total state population. Given the dwindling number of Detroit residents, this portion of state revenue sharing has been falling for decades. The city experienced significant growth in total revenue sharing funds through the 1970s and 1980s, due to increases in statutory revenue sharing, which is distributed by formulae that have been changed by legislators many times in recent decades. But new changes to the statute combined with stagnation in the sales tax led to declining growth and eventual decline in revenue sharing for cities across the entire state in the 1990s. As Michigan entered a decade-long recession, this decline continued for most local jurisdictions, including Detroit, through the 2000s.

Some have pointed to revenue sharing reductions as a major source of stress for the City of Detroit, and a major catalyst for the bankruptcy. However, these declines affected all cities that received revenue sharing in Michigan; while cuts to revenue sharing likely influenced the timing of Detroit’s bankruptcy, they were not the ultimate cause. Further, it is important to note that revenue sharing for Detroit represents a net positive transfer of funds from the rest of the state to the city. According to the 2007 economic census, retail sales in the City of Detroit were $3.2 billion, or about 2.9 percent of the $109 billion in the State of Michigan.

In 2012, total state revenue sharing to all municipalities in Michigan was about $1 billion, and Detroit’s share of the total was $172 million, or 17.2 percent. Given that Detroit represents just 3 percent of total state retail sales in Michigan, one can conclude that the majority of state revenue sharing that flowed to Detroit originated from retail transactions that occurred outside the city.

As of 2014, the City of Detroit had approximately a $1 billion General Fund, considerably lower than in 2002 when revenue peaked at $1.4 billion. A 30 percent drop in revenues over time without a commensurate cut in expenditures led to the Detroit fiscal crisis and the eventual declaration of bankruptcy in 2013. By 2012, Detroit had borrowed more than $1 billion in an attempt to stave off default and a liquidity crisis (Michigan Department of Treasury 2013).

————————

About the Author

Mark Skidmore is professor of economics at Michigan State University, where he holds the Morris Chair in State and Local Government Finance and Policy, with joint appointments in the Department of Agricultural, Food and Resource Economics and the Department of Economics.

References

Alm, J., T. Hodge, G. Sands, and M. Skidmore. 2014. “Detroit Property Tax Delinquency—Social Contract in Crisis.” Lincoln Institute of Land Policy Working Paper.

Austen, B. 2014. “The Post-Apocalyptic Detroit.” New York Times, July 13. http://nyti.ms/1mFu3Jn

Center for Educational Performance and Information. Accessed in July 2014 from www.michigan.gov/cepi/0,4546,7-113-21423_30451—,00.html

City of Detroit. 2013. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. www.detroitmi.gov/Portals/0/docs/finance/CAFR/Final%202012%20Detroit%20Financial%20Statements.pdf

Christie, Les. 2014. “I’ve Been Priced Out of Downtown Detroit.” CNN Money, May 27. http://money.cnn.com/2014/05/27/real_estate/downtown-detroit/index.html

Detroit Future City. 2010. Detroit Future City Strategic Framework Book. http://detroitfuturecity.com/framework

Forbes. 2014. “World’s Billionaires.” www.forbes.com/profile/daniel-gilbert

Hodge, T., D. McMillen, G. Sands, and M. Skidmore. 2014a. “Tax Base Erosion and Inequity from Michigan’s Assessment Growth Limit: The Case of Detroit.” Lincoln Institute of Land Policy Working Paper.

Hodge, T., G. Sands, and M. Skidmore. 2014b. “The Land Value Gradient in a (Nearly) Collapsed Urban Real Estate Market.” Lincoln Institute of Land Policy Working Paper.

Landsdorf, K. 1973. “Urban Decay, Property Tax Delinquency: A Solution in St. Louis.” The Urban Lawyer 5: 729–748.

MacDonald, C. 2013. “Half of Detroit Property Owners Don’t Pay Taxes.” The Detroit News, February 12.

Michigan Department of Treasury. 2013. Supplemental Documentation of the Detroit Financial Review Team. www.michigan.gov/documents/treasury/Review_Team_Report_Supplemental_2–19-13_411866_7.pdf

Michigan Department of Treasury. 2010. Real Property Tax Forfeiture and Foreclosure. www.michigan.gov/taxes/0,4676,7-238-43535_55601—,00.html

Miklojcik, J. 2014. President of Michigan Consultants. Information shared in personal interview with Eric Scorsone.

National Public Radio. 2014. “Chinese Investors Aren’t Snatching up Detroit Property Yet.” www.npr.org/2014/03/04/285711091/chinese-investors-arent-snatching-up-detroit-property-yet

Sands, G. and M. Skidmore. 2014. “Making Ends Meet: Options for Property Tax Reform in Detroit.” Forthcoming in Journal of Urban Affairs.

Scorsone, E. and M. Skidmore. 2014. “Blamed for Incompetence and Lack of Foresight and Left to Die.” Response to William Tabb’s “If Detroit Is Dead Some Things Need to Be Said at the Funeral.” Forthcoming in Journal of Urban Affairs.

Turbeville, W. 2013. “The Detroit Bankruptcy.” Demos, November 20. www.demos.org/publication/detroit-bankruptcy

Since first holding democratic elections at the national and provincial levels in 1994, South Africa has undertaken far-reaching constitutional changes. Arguably, the most fundamental transformation is taking place at the local government level, where the divisions created by apartheid were most severe. These changes were set in motion by the Local Government Transition Act of 1993, and during 1994-1995 the formerly racially segregated urban local authorities were amalgamated into a variety of non-racial transitional councils:

• in metropolitan areas, transitional metropolitan councils (TMCs) with constituent transitional metropolitan local councils (TMLCs);
• in secondary cities and towns, transitional local councils (TLCs); and
• in rural areas where no primary municipalities existed in the past, transitional representative councils (TRepCs) or transitional rural councils (TRCs).

In non-metropolitan areas, the former regional services councils were transformed into district councils, thereby retaining a secondary tier of local government in rural areas.

In March 1998 the national government published the White Paper on Local Government, which set out its vision for the future of local government. The White Paper resulted in passage of the Local Government Demarcation Act and the Local Government: Municipal Structures Act. Under the Demarcation Act, the Municipal Demarcation Board was established to assign new boundaries for the different categories of municipal governments throughout the country. The present 843 transitional municipalities are to be severely reorganized after the local elections in November 2000 into 284 newly demarcated municipalities (see Table 1).

Within the six metropolitan areas to be established, single-tier metropolitan municipalities will replace the TMCs and TMLCs. In the non-metropolitan areas 47 district municipalities will replace the present 42 district councils. Each district municipality will consist of two or more (primary-tier) local municipalities to replace the present local and rural councils. A typical future local municipality will consist of a number of neighboring towns and their rural hinterland. In sparsely populated rural areas where the establishment of a local municipality is not viable (designated as district management areas), a district municipality will be the only form of local government.

Municipal Finance Reform

The structural reforms at the local government level also require reform of municipal finances. The government is currently preparing two important pieces of legislation in this regard, the Local Government: Property Rates Bill (dealing exclusively with property taxation) and the Municipal Finance Management Bill.

Section 229 of South Africa’s Constitution guarantees “rates on property” (i.e., the property tax) as an autonomous source of revenue for municipalities. It states that the “power of a municipality to impose rates on property…may be regulated by national legislation.” National framework legislation regarding the property tax is indeed needed for the following reasons:

• Property tax is currently levied in terms of four outdated provincial ordinances retained from the apartheid era (e.g., it is not presently possible to utilize computer-assisted mass appraisal (CAMA) because physical inspections of each rateable property is legally required).
• Property tax is presently levied only by urban municipalities.
• The future amalgamation of urban and rural councils (i.e., the structural changes to date and still to be effected) necessitates change.
• The amalgamation of racially segregated urban municipalities has resulted in a number of constitutional challenges.
• It is the most important own-tax instrument at the local government level, accounting for 19 percent of total local government operating income (Budget Review 2000).

Therefore, the Local Government: Property Rates Bill, currently in its 10th draft, is to be welcomed, at least in principle. It has not yet been published for public comment and may be further amended. However, when this bill is eventually passed into law, it will regulate the levying, assessing and collection of property taxes by municipalities.

Policy Issues in the Property Rates Bill

Diversity of Tax Bases

Urban municipalities generally have a choice between three tax bases, which are spread remarkably evenly throughout the country:

• Site rating (rating land values only) is prevalent in at least three of South Africa’s nine provinces (Gauteng, Northern Province and Mpumalanga);
• Flat rating (rating improved capital values) is dominant in the Western Cape; and
• Composite rating (rating land values and the value of improvements, but at different tax rates) is most commonly used in KwaZulu-Natal.

Earlier drafts of the Property Rates Bill retained this diversity as well as local choice. However, clause 5(1) of the 10th draft of the bill now states that a rate levied on property “must be…an amount in the Rand (South Africa’s currency) determined by the municipality on the improved value of the property.” Although it seems that government has opted for a single tax base (i.e., improved capital value), the bill goes on to provide that a rate levied on the “improved value of property may be composed of separate amounts on the site value of the property and the value of the improvements.” By implication, therefore, composite rating and site rating have been retained (if the amount in the Rand on improvements is set at zero).

Extension of the Tax Base and Possible Exclusions

In principle a municipality may tax “all property in its municipal area,” including areas where the property tax has not been levied before, such as agricultural and tribal land. However, the bill also allows a municipality to exclude a category or categories of property from rating. These excluded properties need not be reflected in the valuation roll.

McCluskey and Franzsen (2000) suggest several reasons why municipalities should include all properties in the valuation roll, and then allow specific exemptions rather than exclusions from the taxing process. First, it can be difficult to justify and defend exclusions constitutionally; second, it is politically easier to phase out an exemption than to introduce a tax on formerly excluded properties; and third, if properties are not valued and thus not reflected in the valuation roll, the extent of the tax base relinquished through exclusions is not known.

“Public infrastructure” is to be excluded from the tax base. This will have significant implications, particularly for municipalities with large tracts of land owned by public utility companies, and may need to be reconsidered in light of privatization. International practice suggests that public utilities should be rated at least on their operational land.

Differentiation and Phasing-in of Rates

Current legislation only provides for rate uniformity throughout a municipal area. However, municipalities sometimes achieve effective differentiation by granting arbitrary rebates to certain properties on the basis of zoning. For example, all improved residential properties in the Pretoria TMLC are presently granted a 35 percent rebate.

The bill provides that different rates may be levied for different categories of property according to use, status or location-a critical point in light of the extension of municipal boundaries into rural areas. For example, it would be possible for a future local municipality (comprising various small towns, commercial farmland and tribal land) to have the following different property categories (and therefore different tax rates):

• residential properties in a formal township in town A (consisting of generally low-value properties);
• residential properties in a formal township in town B (consisting of generally high-value properties);
• residential properties in an informal (squatter) settlement;
• commercial properties;
• industrial properties;
• commercial farmland;
• tribal land.

However, a municipality will have to justify its differential rate schedule in an annually revised rates policy document presented to all taxpayers. Although municipalities may be permitted to treat ratepayers differently, they must justify this action. The bill also allows for the phasing-in of rates over a three-year period with respect to property not subject to property taxation before 1 July 1999 (e.g., tribal land). In certain instances the period may be extended for a further three years.

Tax Rates

The bill (clause 5(2)) states that municipalities may set their own tax rates. However, the Minister for Local Government, in concurrence with the Minister of Finance, may set a limit or rate cap on the amount. Apart from reducing municipalities’ fiscal autonomy, rate caps set nationally may not reflect differences in taxing capacity that exist between municipalities (see Table 2).

An alternative, and more practical, “capping” measure that has been inserted in the 10th draft (clause 5(3)(a)(ii)) is to limit the annual tax rate increases, not unlike one part of Proposition 13 in California.

Extension of Property Tax to Tribal Land

Extending property taxation to tribal land is an area of major political concern and is fraught with practical problems. “Ownership” of tribal land is not uniform, and some tribal authorities are not prepared to accept any form of local government within their area of jurisdiction, let alone any form of taxation of “their” land. Identifying the taxpayer may be problematic. Furthermore, formal ownership of tribal land seldom reflects the complex system of tenure rights of the individuals entitled to the use of that land. Even if it were possible to identify a taxpayer and establish an assessed value for (tribal) “property,” the abject poverty and inability of residents in many tribal areas to pay any tax will have to be considered. In fact, few tribal areas presently receive municipal services that could justify the introduction of a property tax.

Rates Policy

Clause 13 of the bill requires municipalities to adopt a rates policy and then levy rates accordingly. This is a welcome change. The rates policy, which is to be reviewed annually, must explain and justify the provision of exemptions, rebates, reductions and relief for the poor. This policy should significantly enhance the transparency, efficiency and accountability of municipal councils, and perhaps encourage compliance.

Valuation Quality Control

Another welcome aspect in the bill concerns monitoring valuation quality for equity and consistency across the country. However, the bill (clause 64) confers this responsibility on the Minister responsible for local government. McCluskey and Franzsen (2000) suggest that an independent and professional valuation agency, preferably at the national level, should be established for this highly technical task. Such agencies exist in Australia, New Zealand and Canada. In South Africa, this type of agency should perform the following primary tasks:

• provide technical advice to government on valuation issues and the regulation of the valuation services sector;
• set minimum quality standards and specifications necessary to meet government outcomes;
• monitor and audit the valuations submitted by valuation providers (e.g., municipal valuers) against certain minimum standards; and
• certify to municipalities (and through them to ratepayers) that the resulting valuations meet the minimum standards for a fair and consistent property tax system.

The monitoring service could well be expanded to provide valuation advice, expertise and data to municipalities. Such an agency could also undertake valuations of property for other taxes levied at the national level, such as estate and gift taxes.

Conclusion

The Local Government: Property Rates Bill should provide a solid framework for property taxation as South Africa begins to implement its new local government structure. If municipalities adhere to the principles articulated in the bill, a more uniform, equitable and efficient property tax system will play an even more important role in the future.

Riël C.D. Franzsen is professor in the Department of Mercantile Law at the University of South Africa in Pretoria, South Africa. His research on property tax reform in South Africa has been supported in part by the Lincoln Institute.

References

Budget Review 2000: Chapter 7. South Africa Department of Finance. http://www.finance.gov.za/b/budget_00/default.htm

Franzsen, R.C.D. 1999. Property taxation in South Africa. In W.J. McCluskey (ed.) Property Tax: An International Comparative Review. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 337-357.

Local Government: Property Rates Bill. 2000. 10th draft. South Africa Department of Provincial and Local Government.

McCluskey, W.J., and R.C.D. Franzsen. 2000. Some policy issues regarding the Local Government: Property Rates Bill. SA Mercantile Law Journal 12: 209-223.

In the context of entirely new fiscal policies and new approaches to property rights in central and eastern Europe over the past decade, taxes on land and buildings have taken on significant new roles—politically as adjuncts to privatization, restitution and decentralization, and fiscally as revenue-raising tools for local governments.

The Lincoln Institute is particularly interested in the complex debate over property-based taxes and in how different countries experience the transition from communism to democracy and from planned to market-driven economies. Over the past four years, the Institute has undertaken a series of educational programs to help public officials and business leaders in eastern Europe understand both underlying principles and practical examples of property taxation and valuation through offering varied perspectives and frameworks for decision making.

The Institute is also sponsoring a series of case studies to compare the implementation of ad valorem property tax systems in eastern European countries. These studies provide a unique perspective from which to review the initiation of land privatization, fiscal decentralization and land markets, as well as to compare the various legal and administrative features adopted for the respective tax systems.

Programs in Estonia

The Baltic country of Estonia was the first of the new independent states to recognize the benefits of land taxation and thus has been the focus of several Lincoln Institute programs. The Institute’s work in Estonia began in September 1993 when Fellow Jane Malme and Senior Fellow Joan Youngman participated in a conference with the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) on the design of a property taxation system. Estonia had just instituted its land tax program, and since then the Institute has continued to support programs there relating to land reform and property taxation.

The most recent education program, on “Land and Tax Policies for Urban Markets in Estonia,” was presented in the capital of Tallinn in May to nearly 30 senior-level state and city officials interested in public finance, land reform and urban development. President H. James Brown, Jane Malme, Joan Youngman and a faculty of international experts explored current issues concerning land reform, valuation and taxation. They also discussed methods of urban planning, land management and taxation to both encourage development of urban land markets and finance local governments.

Estonia is also serving as the pilot case study for a survey instrument to gather and analyze information from countries adopting new fiscal instruments for market-based economies. Malme and Youngman are working closely with Tambet Tiits, director of a private real estate research and consulting firm in Tallinn, to draft the survey, research and collect data, and analyze the results.

Other Case Studies and Conferences

A second case study examines Poland, where an ad valorem property tax law is under legislative consideration. Dr. Jan Brzeski, director of the Cracow Real Estate Institute, serves as the country research director and liaison with the Institute. Subsequent studies will survey Latvia, Lithuania and Russia. In addition, Professors Gary Cornia and Phil Bryson of the Marriott School of Management at Brigham Young University in Utah are using the Lincoln Institute survey instrument to study property tax systems in the Czech and Slovak Republics.

The Lincoln Institute was a sponsor of the fourth international conference on local taxation and property valuation of the London-based Institute of Revenues, Rating and Valuation (IRRV) in Rome in early June. The conference attracts about 300 senior level officials from central as well as local governments throughout Europe. Dennis Robinson, Lincoln Institute vice president for programs and operations, was on the conference advisory committee and chaired a session on “Case Studies in Local Taxation in the New Democracies,” at which Jane Malme and Joan Youngman discussed the Institute’s case studies on land and building taxation in transitional economies. Other participants in that session were Institute associates Tambit Tiits of Estonia and Jan Brzeski of Poland. Board member Gary Cornia spoke about his research on property taxation in the Czech Republic. Martim Smolka, senior fellow for Latin America and the Caribbean, presented a paper on “Urban Land Management and Value Capture” at another session chaired by Joan Youngman. Jane Malme also was a discussion leader for a session on “Tax Collection and Administration.”

The Institute is planning another program with OECD in December 1997 for public officials and practitioners in the Baltic countries of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania to examine policy aspects of land valuation and mass appraisal concepts for ad valorem taxation.

The Lincoln Institute’s China Program was established several years ago, in part to develop training programs on property taxation policy and local government finance with officials from the State Administration of Taxation (SAT). The Institute and SAT held a joint forum on international property taxation in Shenzhen in December 2003, and more than 100 participants attended another course held in China in May 2004. In January 2005, 24 Chinese tax officials from 15 provinces visited the United States for additional programs; many of them are developing property tax systems in six pilot cities. The Institute also supports the Development Research Center (DRC) of the State Council to research property tax assessment in China, and they jointly organized a forum in February 2005.

Economic growth and institutional reforms in China over the past two decades have created profound changes within the society. The central authorities now need to set forth new policies and procedures for modern governance to address devolution of certain authority to local governments, rapid urban and rural development, and changes in land uses and land and fiscal policies. The national government’s commitment to further modernization is most evident in the effort to develop and implement a new property taxation system.

This article describes the current system and discusses issues and challenges that must be overcome to implement a successful property tax policy in China. Given the complexity of this endeavor and the huge variation in economic development across the country, a gradualist approach, which has proved effective in China’s modernization process, may be the best way to initiate property tax reform and development.

Current Taxation System

China collects 24 types of taxes. The central and local governments share the value added tax (VAT) and business tax revenues; the former tax is the primary revenue source for the central government, whereas the latter is the most important tax for local governments. Two other important tax sources for the central government are the consumption (excise) tax and the personal income tax. Twelve taxes are related to land and property, but most do not generate significant revenues. The business tax accounted for 14.41 percent of total central and local government revenues in 2002, but only a small portion of that amount was generated from property-related sources. The reason is that business and income taxes are collected only when land or property is rented or sold, and thus do not provide a steady stream of revenue. It is hard to imagine that any of the 12 property-related taxes could play a key role in resource allocation and local government finance over the long term.

An evaluation of the current tax system reveals additional concerns.

• The tax structure is out of date. The urban real estate tax was developed in 1951 and several other taxes, including the farmland occupation tax, the urban land use tax and the housing tax, were institutionalized in the late 1980s. Given the tremendous advances in economic and institutional reform since then, China’s tax system needs to be updated to function effectively within this new context.
• Domestic and foreign entities operate under differing tax bases and rates. The Chinese government offers tax incentives to foreign entities to attract foreign direct investment that domestic investors do not receive. In addition, domestic land users pay the urban land use tax and housing tax, whereas foreign land users pay the urban real estate tax. Furthermore, structures used for commercial or industrial purposes in rural areas do not pay any land- or property-related taxes. As a result of these differing tax policies, the overall tax rate for foreign enterprises is generally 10 percent lower than that for domestic enterprises.
• Several of the taxes are redundant. For example, the business tax and housing tax are both based on housing rental income; the land value incremental tax, enterprise (corporate) income tax and personal income tax are all based on the net rental or transaction income from property.
• Land and property taxes are levied on transactions rather than asset holdings. This arrangement produces a market-dependent revenue stream and is vulnerable to fluctuations over time.
• The tax base is narrowly defined. Properties used for commercial purposes are subject to certain taxes, but residential properties are exempt.
• The tax system is not well equipped to address the complexities of emerging market development. For instance, current land and property taxes impede the development of real estate markets for mortgaging, re-renting and subleasing transactions.

The shortcomings in the current taxation system have resulted in major fiscal problems for the central government, such as declining revenue mobilization and ineffective use of tax policy to leverage macroeconomic policy (Bahl 1997). When the government conducted tax reform in 1993 to overcome some of the problems, one of the largest initiatives shifted responsibility for urban and public services to local governments.

This measure was successful in improving the central government’s fiscal condition; however, the revenue share for local governments was not increased at a level commensurate with their increased responsibility. Consequently, many local governments face increasing budgetary deficits. Figure 1 illustrates the financial deficit for local governments after the 1993 tax reform. More than one-third of county-level governments have serious budget problems and over half of the local governments directly below the provincial level have budgets that merely cover the basic operations of public entities.

Public Land Leasing

One of the means by which local governments increase revenues in the absence of an effective taxation system is through public land leasing. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the state introduced market principles into the decision-making process regarding land use and allocation by separating land use rights from ownership. This separation promotes the development of land markets, which in turn have created tremendous impacts on real estate and housing development, urban land use and land allocation. Except for a short yet dramatic drop in the early 1990s due to a macroeconomic policy designed to prevent the national economy from overheating, the prices for access to land use rights and public land leasing rates have been increasing steadily.

Despite the significant number of land leasing transactions, the government closely regulates and controls the amount of land being leased by maintaining a monopoly on land supply (Ding 2003). Most land in rural areas still belongs to the collectives, and urban construction is prohibited on rural land unless it is first acquired by the state. Land developments that occur on collectively owned rural land are considered illegal, and administrative efforts such as monitoring and inspecting have been implemented to eliminate these violations.

General land use plans and regulations to preserve cultivated land further control the amount of land available for urban development. The land use plans determine the total amount of land that can be added to existing urbanized areas through an annual land supply quota. At the same time, China’s preservation policy for cultivated land influences both land supply and the location of land available for urban development. The Land Administration Law specifies that at least 80 percent of cultivated land should be designated as basic farmland and prohibited from land development. Land productivity is the dominant factor used to delineate the boundaries of basic farmland. Since most cities are located in areas with rich soil resources, farmland protection designations commonly exist in urbanizing areas. Thus farmland protection inevitably results in urban sprawl and leapfrog development patterns requiring costly infrastructure investments and land consumption.

Financing Local Government. As a result of the government’s regulations and monopoly on selling land use rights, local authorities use the public land leasing system to increase their revenues through land use conveyance fees. For instance, Hangzhou City, the capital of Zhejiang Province with a population of almost four million, is among the top five in per capita national income and GDP. The city generated land conveyance fees of more than six billion YMB in 2002, more than 20 percent of the total municipal government revenues.

Interestingly, these fees were generated largely from selling to commercial users the right to access the state-owned land, yet commercial land development represented only 15 percent of total land uses in newly developed areas. The rest of the land was allocated to users through negotiation in which the sale price either barely covered the costs of acquiring and improving the land, or land was offered free to generate competition for businesses and investments.

Local governments can raise enormous revenues from limited-market transactions of land use rights, in part because land conveyance fees represent lump-sum, up-front land rent payments for a leasing period and in part because local governments exercise their strong administrative powers to require farmers to sell their land at below-market rates. When the government later resells the land at market rates, the price could be more than 100 times the purchase price. After considering the costs of land improvement, however, net revenues may be only ten times the total cost of the land.

Rising land prices resulting from the government monopoly allow local governments to use the land as collateral to borrow money from banks. These loans plus the revenue generated from conveyance fees accounted for 40 to 50 percent of the Hangzhou municipal government budget in 2002. In turn these revenues were used to fund more than two-thirds of the city’s investments in infrastructure and urban services.

Hangzhou City specializes in textiles, tourism, construction and transportation, and generates substantial revenue from business and value-added taxes, although the city’s share of income generated through the public land leasing system is also large. Many smaller cities and towns with fewer commercial and business resources use land leasing directly through land conveyance fees or indirectly as collateral to support up to 80 or 85 percent of their total investments in urban initiatives. These smaller cities must turn to land to generate revenues to fuel economic growth, launch urban renewal projects, and provide infrastructure and urban services that were neglected for a long time prior to the reform era. Land-generated revenue is also used to improve the overall financial environment, attract businesses and investments, and support the reform and reallocation of state-owned enterprises.

Negative Consequences. Despite the importance of public land leasing for income generation, the practice of using this tool to finance local governments may have serious consequences in the long run. The fiscal incentives that compel local governments to control and monopolize the land markets will negatively impact real estate and housing development, industrialization and land use. Furthermore, land is a fixed resource and ultimately there will be no more land left to lease for revenue.

Increasing pressure to protect the rights of farmers also makes it more difficult and costly to acquire land from farmers. As a result, local governments must increase land prices or face reduced revenues from land leasing. Finally, not only does land scarcity and farmer compensation pose a challenge to income generation, but recent policy reform now permits land owned by a collective to enter the land market directly. This change will prevent local governments from acquiring collective lands and exacting conveyance fees for these transfers.

Taxation Reform: Principles and Challenges

The fiscal deficits experienced by local governments and the problems with the resulting public land leasing system provided the impetus for the central government to restructure the entire taxation system. That reform is based on four guiding principles: (1) simplify the tax system; (2) broaden the tax base; (3) lower tax rates; and (4) strictly administer tax collection and management. The central authorities in charge of tax policy and administration offer several specific goals with respect to property-related taxes.

• Unify the tax system so that domestic, foreign, urban and rural entities are treated similarly.
• Terminate taxes at odds with efforts to foster the emergence of healthy land and real estate markets, such as the farmland occupation tax.
• Merge the housing tax, urban real estate tax, and urban land use tax into a single property tax, and treat domestic and foreign entities equally in levying this tax.
• Adopt a value-based property tax.

Considerable debate exists over the merits of the proposed property-related tax reform. Despite the lack of consensus as to the best option, the costs and benefits must be assessed to effectively guide the development and implementation of a new property tax system. In addition, several outstanding issues need to be resolved in order to implement the proposed land and property tax reform.

• What are the existing laws and statutes relevant to property rights and taxation, how will they be amended and how will new laws be developed to legislate the new system?
• What role will property taxation play in intergovernmental fiscal relations and local government financing?
• What will the objectives of property taxation be as a fiscal and land use tool?
• How should land and property taxation be tied to the concept of achieving value capture and financing urban infrastructure and services?
• How will the land and property tax system relate to and be consistent with land policy reforms such as public land leasing, land acquisition, and the development of land markets in urban and rural areas such as agricultural farming?

The implementation of a value-based tax also will require the assembly and cataloguing of massive quantities of data, which historically have not been collected systematically. Furthermore, the data that have been collected are stored in different locations and in paper format. The Ministry of Land and Resources records and handles land-related data and information, whereas the Ministry of Construction is in charge of structure-related information. Matching related records from different ministries and digitizing this data will take years if not decades and will require a huge investment of resources.

The Chinese public has limited understanding of property taxation systems, so education will be required to avoid potentially significant political resistance. Capacity building within the Chinese government also will require professional training in appraisal, evaluation, appeals and collection to achieve effectiveness and efficiency in the new tax system.

Conclusions

Despite these unanswered issues and challenges, the Chinese government appears committed to implementing property taxation reform. The application of the widely used and successful gradualist approach for implementing policy and institutional reforms will ensure that the development and institutionalization of the property tax system proceeds on course. For example, data for industrial and commercial structures is more complete and of higher quality than data for residential structures. Furthermore, newer structures tend to have better records than older structures, and records are more complete for structures in urban areas than in rural areas. Thus, applying the property taxation system first to commercial and industrial structures, newly developed land with residential structures, and urban areas will allow the system to take hold before attempts are made to implement change in the areas with greater obstacles to overcome.

References

Bahl, Roy. 1997. Fiscal policy in China: Taxation and intergovernmental fiscal relations. Burlingame, CA: The 1990 Institute.

Development Research Center. 2005: Issues and challenges of China’s urban real estate administration and taxation. Report submitted to the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Ding, Chengri. 2003. Land policy reform in China: Assessment and prospects. Land Use Policy 20(2): 109-120.

Liu, Z. 2004. Zhongguo Suizi Gailan. Beijing: Jinji Chuban She. (China’s taxation system. Beijing: Economic Science Publisher).

Lu, S. 2003. YanJiu ZhengDi WenTi TaoShuo GaiKe ZhiLu (II). Beijing: Zhongguo Dadi Chuban She. (Examination of land acquisition issues: Search for reforms (II). Beijing: China Land Publisher.)

Chengri Ding is associate professor in the Department of Urban Studies and Planning at the University of Maryland, in College Park. He specializes in urban economics, housing and land studies, GIS and spatial analysis. He is also special assistant to the president of the Lincoln Institute for the Program on the People’s Republic of China.

Una caricatura de Jack Ziegler en la revista New Yorker refleja la ironía esencial de participar en condominios, cooperativas y otros tipos de asociaciones de propietarios. Un automóvil está ingresando en un camino que conduce hasta un grupo de casas adosadas a lo lejos, con un cartel en la entrada que proclama “Bienvenido a Condoville y la ilusión de ser propietario de su propia vivienda” (Ziegler 1984).

A pesar de esta ambigüedad, aproximadamente un cuarto de la población estadounidense vive ahora en viviendas gestionadas por asociaciones, conocidas en su conjunto como comunidades de interés común (CIC). La figura 1 muestra el impresionante aumento de las CIC en las últimas décadas. Entre 1970 y 2013, la cantidad de unidades de vivienda en este tipo de comunidades pasó de alrededor de 700.000 a 26,3 millones, mientras que la cantidad de residentes se multiplicó por más de 30, de 2,1 millones a 65,7 millones.

Con su creciente popularidad, las comunidades de interés común han generado desafíos políticos y problemas legales que exigen constante resolución. Estos conflictos en general tienen que ver con preocupaciones externas de que las CIC segregan a los ricos del resto de la sociedad, o desacuerdos internos entre los propietarios individuales y los órganos de gobierno de sus asociaciones. Este artículo examina algunas de las controversias asociadas al modelo de CIC y su sistema de gobierno, y sugiere medidas para aumentar los beneficios de las comunidades de interés común, tanto para los propietarios como para la sociedad en general.

El aumento de las comunidades de interés común

La creciente industrialización que se produjo en el siglo XIX, causó contaminación, tráfico, ruido y enfermedades, lo que llevó a muchos planificadores y ciudadanos a favorecer la separación de usos residenciales, comerciales e industriales. (La zonificación como herramienta de planificación no había surgido todavía, y no sería legitimada por la Corte Suprema de Justicia de los Estados Unidos hasta 1926). Algunos emprendedores residenciales impusieron por lo tanto “servidumbres” (convenios, restricciones y derechos de acceso en predios ajenos) sobre sus proyectos de subdivisión. Las servidumbres generalmente restringían las propiedades a usos residenciales y frecuentemente creaban derechos compartidos para el uso de instalaciones y servicios comunales, a cambio de aranceles. Los compradores de lotes aceptaban estas servidumbres y, una vez que las restricciones se habían registrado, los compradores subsiguientes estaban legalmente obligados a respetarlas. El derecho consuetudinario resultó ser un vehículo efectivo para crear áreas residenciales de alto nivel, como Gramercy Park en Nueva York (1831) y Louisburg Square en Boston (1844).

Después de una desaceleración durante la Gran Depresión y la Segunda Guerra Mundial, la construcción de CIC comenzó a crecer a fines de la década de 1960, y la Administración Federal de Viviendas (FHA) reconoció el condominio como un vehículo de propiedad asegurable, seguido de leyes legislativas estatales en el mismo sentido. Los seguros hipotecarios de la FHA animaron a los emprendedores a construir condominios para la clase media, que ganaron aceptación en el mercado como consecuencia del movimiento llamado “new town” (nuevos pueblos), ejemplificado por las primeras comunidades planificadas, como Reston, Virginia (1964) y Columbia, Maryland (1967). La aprobación de la Propuesta 13 en California, una iniciativa que limitó la tributación a la propiedad en 1978, y de medidas similares en otros estados, también impulsó el crecimiento de las CIC, ya que los gobiernos locales, necesitados de fondos y bajo creciente presión para suministrar más servicios, ya no estaban dispuestos a absorber los costos de infraestructura y servicios de nuevos emprendimientos. Por esta razón, tendieron a aprobar solamente nuevos emprendimientos en forma de CIC, donde los costos estaban cubiertos por el emprendedor (y en última instancia por los propietarios).

Hoy en día, los propietarios de CIC están sujetos generalmente a una variedad de restricciones sobre sus unidades privadas, desde limitaciones sobre la diagramación y el diseño de los edificios y el tipo de materiales de construcción utilizados, hasta restricciones en las decoraciones visibles, estructuras auxiliares y el paisajismo. Frecuentemente existen controles sobre la conducta de los propietarios y el uso de la propiedad, que está normalmente limitado a ocupación residencial. También se pueden imponer reglamentos sobre ruido, estacionamiento y tráfico, junto con restricciones vehiculares. En algunos casos también se prohíben carteles políticos, distribución de volantes y actividades asociadas.

A cambio de las cuotas de asociación, los propietarios tienen acceso a infraestructura común, como calles y áreas recreativas, y a servicios privados, como seguridad, recolección de basura, limpieza de calles y remoción de nieve. En general, la CIC es administrada por un gobierno residencial privado y varios comités, que son elegidos por los propietarios y están sujetos a las leyes que rigen contratos civiles, no al derecho público administrativo y constitucional (ver recuadro 1).

————————

Recuadro 1: Modelos de comunidades de interés común

Las CIC normalmente tienen un gobierno privado elegido por los propietarios para administrar y hacer cumplir los contratos, y para promulgar reglas que beneficien los intereses de la comunidad. Aunque la forma exacta de la estructura de gobierno puede variar, los conceptos básicos son similares.

Asociaciones de propietarios
Los propietarios de cada unidad –en general una vivienda unifamiliar o adosada– poseen el título de propiedad de la misma. La asociación posee el título de las áreas comunes y otorga a los propietarios derechos de servidumbre para poder usarlas. Éstas se pueden crear por derecho común o, en algunos estados, bajo derecho legislado. Las asociaciones de propietarios constituyen más de la mitad de las asociaciones comunitarias del país.

Condominios
Los propietarios de cada unidad poseen el título de propiedad de la misma, más un porcentaje de las áreas comunes. La asociación administra las áreas comunes, pero no posee el título de las mismas. Los condominios pueden ser verticales (edificios de apartamentos) u horizontales (viviendas unifamiliares o adosadas) y se crean exclusivamente bajo leyes estatales. Los condominios representan entre el 45 y 48 por ciento de las asociaciones comunitarias.

Cooperativas
Una corporación cooperativa es dueña del edificio, y los propietarios reciben acciones en la corporación y un contrato de alquiler de largo plazo, automáticamente renovable, sobre sus unidades individuales. A diferencia de los condominios y las asociaciones de propietarios, la corporación puede transferir el control de los contratos de alquiler y las acciones de los propietarios de la cooperativa. Sólo entre el 3 y 4 por ciento de las asociaciones comunitarias está organizado en cooperativas.

————————

Beneficios económicos de las CIC

Las CIC aportan beneficios económicos sustanciales a sus propietarios y a la sociedad en general. Los residentes que compran propiedades en estas comunidades han llegado a la conclusión de que las instalaciones compartidas, como las áreas recreativas, son, un mejor valor que, por ejemplo, las piscinas personales y otras instalaciones privadas. De manera similar, aquellos que se han unido a las CIC han llegado a la conclusión de que ciertas restricciones (como la prohibición de estacionar casas rodantes en las entradas de vehículos) aumentan el valor de su propiedad.

Estas comunidades también ayudan a lograr un uso eficiente del suelo. Los costos de organizar y administrar una comunidad residencial privada son menores que los de un sistema público (Nelson 2009). Los costos de transacción y captación de rentas por medio del sistema político también se reducen. Finalmente, como está libre de restricciones legislativas y constitucionales, una comunidad privada tiene mayor flexibilidad para crear sus propias reglas y operaciones, liberándola de la necesidad de cumplir con pautas públicas cuando firma contratos con proveedores de servicios y abastecedores.

Los tribunales estadounidenses han validado estos beneficios en eficiencia al reconocer los contratos de CIC y la participación de sus propietarios en los mismos. En opinión de un tribunal: “Es un hecho reconocido que [los convenios] aumentan el valor de la propiedad subdividida y crean un incentivo para que los compradores adquieran lotes dentro de la subdivisión” (Gunnels vs. No. Woodland Community Ass’n, Tex. Ct. App, 17013 [1978]).

Preocupaciones externas: Secesión de la comunidad general

A pesar de estos beneficios, varios comentaristas han argumentado a que los servicios e instalaciones privadas de las CIC están solamente disponibles para aquellos que tienen el dinero suficiente, y que sirven para separar a los ricos del resto de la sociedad. El resto de la municipalidad donde se encuentra la CIC se ve obligado a vivir sin estos privilegios, creando un sistema permanente de dos niveles de vivienda. Los críticos también argumentan que la privatización de infraestructura y servicios aísla a los residentes de las CIC y reduce su interés en temas comunales generales.

De acuerdo a esta lógica, los residentes de las CIC están menos dispuestos a participar con el gobierno público en asuntos cívicos, y son mucho más propensos a oponerse a los aumentos de impuestos, ya que los servicios son proporcionados por la CIC y no por el gobierno municipal. Cuando las asociaciones comunitarias forman parte de los emprendimientos suburbanos, el aislamiento del centro urbano puede agudizarse. Estas preocupaciones se centran frecuentemente en el miedo a sufrir segregación económica y de clase. El ex Secretario de Trabajo Robert Reich escribió en un artículo para el New York Times, titulado “Secesión de los exitosos”: En muchas ciudades y pueblos, los ricos han retirado de hecho su dinero del mantenimiento de los espacios e instituciones públicas compartidas por todos y han dedicado sus ahorros a sus propios servicios privados… Los condominios y las omnipresentes comunidades residenciales presionan a sus miembros a realizar trabajos que los gobiernos locales con fondos escasos ya no están en condiciones de hacer bien (Reich 1991).

Libertad de elección

Esta caracterización de las asociaciones comunitarias, sin embargo, contradice los valores estadounidenses fundamentales de libertad de contrato y libertad de asociación. Es un valor compartido por todos que la gente puede gastar su dinero y firmar contratos de la manera que quiera, siempre que sus fines sean lícitos. La ley sólo interfiere con la libertad de contrato ocasionalmente, cuando se ponen en juego consideraciones políticas importantes. Los tribunales han reconocido que la libertad de contrato es un elemento importante para sostener los acuerdos de servidumbre privados: Comenzamos con el supuesto de que las personas privadas, en el ejercicio de su derecho constitucional de libertad de contrato, pueden imponer las restricciones que quieran sobre el uso del suelo transferido a otro (Grubel vs. McLaughlin, D. Va. [1968]).

Las CIC también son un reflejo de la creencia estadounidense en la libertad de asociación, ejemplificada por una larga tradición de comunidades utópicas y otras redes basadas en creencias. Los residentes de las CIC modernas podrían compartir intereses comunes, como los propietarios que viven en comunidades ecuestres o de clubes de golf. Otros residentes pueden simplemente compartir el deseo de vivir con tranquilidad o de gozar del carácter del barrio. En Behind the Gates (Detrás de las puertas), Setha Low sugiere que las CIC permiten a las “familias de clase media establecer sus paisajes residenciales con “amabilidad”, de manera que puedan reflejar su propia estética de orden, constancia y control” (Low 2004). Cualquiera que sea la razón, las asociaciones comunitarias son congruentes con la observación de Tocqueville sobre las interacciones entre estadounidenses: Los estadounidenses de toda edad, condición y disposición están constantemente formando asociaciones.No sólo tienen compañías comerciales y de manufactura, de las cuales todos forman parte, sino también asociaciones de miles de otros tipos: religiosas, morales, serias, fútiles, amplias o restringidas, enormes o diminutas (de Tocqueville 1835).

Más aún, las pruebas disponibles demuestran que los residentes de CIC están generalmente contentos con su elección. En 2014, en una encuesta realizada por Public Opinion Strategies para el Instituto de Asociaciones Comunitarias, el 64 por ciento de los propietarios dieron una opinión positiva sobre su experiencia general, y el 26 por ciento dieron una opinión neutra. Si bien el 86 por ciento de los encuestados indicaron que preferiría menor regulación gubernamental o, por lo menos, que no quería ninguna regulación adicional, el 70 por ciento opinó que las reglas y restricciones de la asociación protegen y aumentan el valor de su propiedad.

El problema de doble tributación

Si bien el auge de las CIC se debe a una variedad de factores, uno especialmente clave fue la constricción financiera de las municipalidades después de las revueltas tributarias de la década de 1970. De hecho, una narrativa distinta sobre el tema de “la secesión” es que algunos de los propietarios en comunidades de interés común creen que el gobierno municipal los abandonó a ellos.

Los propietarios de CIC pagan impuestos sobre la propiedad a la misma tasa que otros ciudadanos, aunque a título privado servicios como recolección de basura, limpieza de calles y seguridad, como parte de las cuotas de asociación comunitaria. Esto equivale a una doble tributación, porque los propietarios de asociaciones pagan por un servicio que no reciben.

Si hubiera una política de no proveer de servicios efectivamente antes de que el propietario comprara una unidad en una CIC, teóricamente el comprador podría ofrecer un precio de compra más bajo que reflejase la falta de servicios municipales y el efecto de la doble tributación. El propietario de la unidad estaría protegido, y el emprendedor absorbería la pérdida. Pero si una municipalidad reduce los servicios pero no los impuestos después de la compra de la unidad, el propietario sufre una pérdida no compensada. Este resultado sería una mala política, pues supondría posibilitar la captación de rentas al permitir que una mayoría los ciudadanos de un pueblo seleccionara a un grupo de residentes para que soporte una carga tributaria adicional sin crear costos adicionales. Esto pervierte la noción de ecuanimidad y eficiencia, y es antitética a la construcción de comunidad y confianza cívica.

Es especialmente importante que las legislaturas eviten el uso de la doble tributación como política, dado que las acciones judiciales al respecto tienen poca probabilidad de tener éxito. Los pocos tribunales que han examinado ataques contra la doble tributación han sido indiferentes a los argumentos de que viola el proceso de derecho debido, viola la cláusula de protección igualitaria de la Constitución, o que equivale a la toma de una propiedad sin compensación. Si bien la doble tributación puede ser una mala política, no es inconstitucional. Los tribunales no deberían revocar estas decisiones legislativas, porque son esencialmente decisiones políticas que el público debería rechazar en las urnas.

La cuestión de desigualdad

El argumento de “secesión de los ricos” parece estar basado en la noción de que sólo los propietarios de mayores ingresos con viviendas de mayor valor son los que viven en comunidades de interés común. Los datos disponibles, sin embargo, no apoyan este supuesto con claridad. Como se indica en la figura 2, los precios de condominios y cooperativas –que suman la mitad de las unidades en CIC del país– son inferiores a los de todas las viviendas existentes (que incluyen condominios, cooperativas y viviendas unifamiliares dentro y fuera de asociaciones comunitarias). Si bien estas estimaciones no están segmentadas en profundidad (por ejemplo, no desglosan las viviendas unifamiliares dentro y fuera de las CIC), demuestran que los valores de condominios y cooperativas concuerdan con los valores de las viviendas en general.

El acceso a viviendas a un precio asequible es un desafío importante en los Estados Unidos, pero las asociaciones comunitarias no son necesariamente la causa de estos problemas arraigados y complejos. Antes de que las CIC se hicieran populares, los gobiernos locales ya habían impuesto la zonificación en forma de requerimientos de lotes de una gran superficie mínima, lo que frenaba a los emprendedores a construir viviendas de interés social. De hecho, se ha demostrado que las CIC han reducido los costos de la compra de vivienda. Las viviendas multifamiliares, como los condominios y las casas adosadas, son más económicas que las viviendas unifamiliares, porque recortan el costo del suelo, la infraestructura y la construcción (Ellickson & Been 2005). Las cooperativas de viviendas de interés social permiten restricciones a los precios de reventa y el nivel de ingresos del propietario, asegurando que las familias de bajos ingresos tengan la oportunidad de acceder a la vivienda. Con este propósito, los emprendedores que operan bajo requisitos o incentivos municipales frecuentemente designan como de interés social ciertas unidades de condominio dentro del proyecto.

Por lo tanto, es simplista y contraproducente considerar que las asociaciones comunitarias son un campo de batalla entre ricos y pobres.También el uso peyorativo del término “comunidades enrejadas” para describir las CIC con acceso público limitado no contribuye a comprender el problema. De hecho, una cooperativa de ingresos moderados con su puerta principal bajo llave por razones básicas de seguridad caería en la definición de “comunidad enrejada”.

Principios rectores

¿De qué manera debería la crítica de la “secesión de los exitosos” afectar nuestra comprensión, aceptación y autorización de las comunidades de interés común? El tema es complejo y no se presta a elecciones binarias. Por el contrario, es cuestión de acomodar intereses contrapuestos de acuerdo a los siguientes principios:

• La aceptación del modelo de CIC ha aumentado con el tiempo. Estos tipos de modalidad de vivienda representan la libre elección de muchas personas, y la ley hace cumplir sus contratos en la mayoría de los casos.
• Los propietarios que viven en CIC deberían relacionarse con el gobierno municipal y la estructura de la CIC bajo lo que se podría denominarse como “federalismo aumentado”. Bajo esta óptica, los residentes tienen deberes contractuales adicionales hacia la CIC, pero estas obligaciones no los excusan de sus deberes y su participación en los gobiernos federal, estatal y local. Como contraparte, los legisladores deberían basar sus decisiones políticas relativas a los propietarios de CIC sobre consideraciones de ecuanimidad, eficiencia y construcción de comunidad.
• El acceso asequible a la vivienda requiere soluciones integrales. Estos temas se tienen que discutir y debatir en forma directa, y el proceso político debería determinar el curso de acción. La consideración de estos asuntos como un problema de las CIC no se justifica y no llevará a resultados efectivos.

Conflictos internos: Propietarios individuales vs. la comunidad

En su libro pionero Privatopia: Las asociaciones de propietarios y el ascenso de los gobiernos residenciales privados (1996), Evan McKenzie advirtió: Las CIC tienen una forma de gobierno privado que expresa una preferencia norteamericana por la propiedad de viviendas privadas y, con demasiada frecuencia, se convierte en una ideología de privativismo hostil. El objetivo social más importante es la preservación de los valores de la propiedad, y todos los demás aspectos de la vida comunitaria están subordinados a él. El cumplimiento rígido, intrusivo y frecuentemente mezquino de las reglas es una caricatura de… la gestión benigna, y la creencia en la planificación racional se distorsiona al poner el énfasis en la conformidad por la conformidad misma.

Los conflictos entre los residentes y las asociaciones o juntas de las CIC frecuentemente se centran en torno a dos temas: el sentido de las restricciones y los procedimientos para hacerlas cumplir (ver el recuadro 2). La disputa puede enfocarse en una gama de temas que va desde restricciones de paisajismo a la cobranza de cuotas. En efecto, el 24 por ciento de los residentes de CIC que respondió a la encuesta de Public Opinion Strategies de 2014 había experimentado un problema o desacuerdo personal importante con su asociación. De este grupo, el 52 por ciento quedó satisfecho con las resoluciones y el 36 por ciento no; en el 12 por ciento de los casos, el problema todavía no se había resuelto.

Existe sin duda el riesgo de que las asociaciones comunitarias se excedan en el contenido y cumplimiento de las restricciones, pero estas preocupaciones políticas sustanciales y de procedimiento se pueden resolver por medio de legislación y supervisión judicial.

————————

Recuadro 2: Los conflictos son buenos para los medios

Mientras que los siguientes titulares omiten las múltiples interacciones positivas entre los propietarios individuales y las asociaciones, sí señalan algunas de las interacciones difíciles que se pueden producir.

• “Padres de infante de marina demandados por un cartel de apoyo en su jardín de Bossier City [La.]”. El cartel de 90 x 180 centímetros mostraba una foto de su hijo en uniforme, antes de ser destinado a Afganistán, con una leyenda que decía: “Nuestro hijo defiende nuestra libertad” (Associated Press, 25 de julio de 2011).
• “Mujer del condado de Bucks multada por la asociación de propietarios por luces de Navidad de colores”. Los miembros de la asociación habían votado previamente permitir sólo luces blancas (CBS Philly, 2 de diciembre de 2011).
• “Ciudadano de Dallas demanda a un vecino rabino que usa su casa como sinagoga”. El demandante argumentó que el uso de su casa para una congregación de 25 personas violaba la restricción residencial (KDFW Fox4 Online, 4 de febrero de 2014).
• “Un abuelo está encarcelado por ignorar la orden de un juez en una disputa sobre la siembra de césped en su jardín”. La asociación obtuvo un fallo de US$795 contra el propietario, quien argumentó que no tenía dinero suficiente para volver a sembrar el césped que se había secado. Cuando el propietario no pagó lo que le correspondía, el tribunal lo encarceló por desacato (St. Petersburg Times, 10 de octubre de 2008).
• “Residente de la Plantación de Hilton Head disputa el arancel de puerta por cuotas impagadas”. Un propietario demandó a una asociación que impuso un arancel de US$10 para entrar en el barrio a los propietarios que estaban en mora con su cuota anual de asociación (Island Packet, 29 de agosto de 2014).

————————

Libertad de elección

Como se dijo anteriormente, los individuos ejercen su libertad de elección al comprar viviendas en CIC y aceptar sus reglas. La vida en una asociación puede no ser para todos, pero en general se deben respetar las expectativas de la gente que elige vivir en una CIC, y no deben verse frustradas por alguien que después trata de violar el contrato. Los tribunales generalmente coinciden con esta opinión, como indica esta sentencia de 1981:

Las restricciones [originales] están revestidas de una presunción muy fuerte de validez, que deriva del hecho de que cada propietario individual de una unidad la compra sabiendo y aceptando las restricciones que se imponen sobre las mismas… [Una] restricción de uso en una declaración de condominio puede tener un cierto grado de irracionalidad, pero a pesar de ello resistir un ataque en los tribunales. De no ser así, el propietario de una unidad no podría confiar en las restricciones estipuladas en la declaración… ya que dichas restricciones podrían estar potencialmente en un estado de cambio continuo (Hidden Harbour Estates vs. Basso, Fla. Ct. App. [1981]).

Hay varias situaciones, sin embargo, en las que los propietarios no tendrían ninguna libertad de elección. Primero, es posible que las únicas viviendas nuevas disponibles para los compradores estuvieran en CIC, es decir, que los emprendedores ya no construyan viviendas fuera de asociaciones. Efectivamente, un informe reciente concluyó que en 2003 el 80 por ciento de todas las viviendas en construcción en ese momento eran en asociación (Fundación para la Investigación de Asociaciones Comunitarias, 2014). Además, un gobierno municipal podría requerir que los emprendedores crearan asociaciones como condición para la aprobación de una subdivisión. (La reciente legislación promulgada en Arizona que prohíbe esta práctica es señal de que todavía ocurre.) Finalmente, algunos tribunales han sugerido que, si bien las reglas en vigor al momento de la compra se deben hacer cumplir, una regla promulgada posteriormente por la asociación o junta bajo una competencia reservada no se tiene que hacer cumplir si un propietario puede demostrar que “no es razonable”. Otros tribunales no están de acuerdo: No se debe considerar la reclamación de un propietario cuando la asociación de propietarios enmienda la declaración conforme a una cláusula registrada en la declaración de convenio inicial. Cuando un comprador adquiere una unidad en dicha comunidad, la compra se efectúa no sólo sujeta a los convenios expresos en la declaración, sino también sujeta a las disposiciones de enmienda… Y, por supuesto, un comprador potencial que esté preocupado por el gobierno de la asociación comunitaria tiene la opción de comprar una vivienda que no esté sujeta al gobierno de una asociación… Por esta razón, declinamos someter dichas enmiendas… a la prueba de “racionalidad” (Hughes vs. New Life Development Corp., Tenn.Sup.Ct. [2012]).

Directrices para la protección de la autonomía personal

Las restricciones impuestas por las asociaciones de propietarios generan una preocupación cuando amenazan la autonomía personal y los derechos individuales fundamentales de sus miembros. Las restricciones de este tipo podrían incluir la prohibición de carteles o mensajes políticos, y la restricción de ocupación a familias “tradicionales”.

Los tribunales deberían hacer cumplir las restricciones si limitan los efectos colaterales (también llamados “secuelas” o “externalidades”) de un propietario hacia el resto de la comunidad. Sin embargo, no deberían dejar cumplir las restricciones que limitan la naturaleza o el estado de los ocupantes o el comportamiento dentro de una unidad que no cree externalidades. Esta metodología se basa en la teoría de que el propósito fundamental de los regímenes de las CIC es aumentar el valor económico y fomentar los intercambios eficientes. Por lo tanto, si el propietario no genera externalidades, los tribunales no deberían hacer cumplir prohibiciones de ciertos comportamientos. Más aún, algunos valores de autonomía personal son demasiado importantes y tienen prioridad sobre las reglas usuales de contrato. Por ejemplo, no permitimos contratos de esclavitud o la venta de órganos humanos.

Según este norma, una regla que limite el ruido o prohíba fumar (debido a la propagación de olores) en unidades multifamiliares sería legítima, pero las restricciones basadas en el estado civil de los residentes no. Algunas situaciones son más complicadas: por ejemplo, las restricciones sobre mascotas. Según las directrices sugeridas, en general sería legítimo prohibir las mascotas debido al ruido potencial y la renuencia de algunos residentes a compartir áreas comunes con ellas. No obstante, en el caso de animales de servicio, la salud del propietario de la unidad puede tener prioridad sobre las preocupaciones comunitarias.

Los temas relacionados con la Primera Enmienda presentan desafíos especiales. La libre expresión –por ejemplo, los carteles políticos o sobre un tema conflictivo, la distribución de volantes, demostraciones u otro tipo de manifestación– puede causar efectos colaterales, como ruido, interferencia estética y perturbación del ambiente general de la comunidad. Al mismo tiempo, sin embargo, la libre expresión es fundamental para nuestra forma republicana de gobierno, ya sea en el ámbito mayor del gobierno público o del gobierno privado. En casos de expresión, los tribunales podrían tener en cuenta la doctrina de larga tradición que prohíbe convenios que violen políticas públicas, y rechazar las prohibiciones totales de libertad de expresión a favor de restricciones razonables de horario, lugar y modo. De esa manera, se podría permitir la expresión pero limitar, pero no eliminar, sus efectos colaterales sobre la comunidad.

Otro valor fundamental para los estadounidenses es la libertad de culto. Las restricciones a la colocación de una mezuzá en el marco de la puerta o la exposición de pesebres, figuras de santos y luces de Navidad limitan la libre expresión del culto. Ponerse a hacer equilibrios para determinar la importancia religiosa de las luces de Navidad de colores frente a las blancas, en contra de las normas de la CIC, abriría una caja de Pandora, y sería apropiado que los tribunales impusieran una norma general de adecuación razonable sobre los reglamentos de la CIC que afecten a prácticas religiosas.

Finalmente, en el desarrollo y cumplimiento de los reglamentos de asociaciones, los propietarios de las CIC tienen el derecho a esperar cierto comportamiento por parte de las asociaciones y juntas. Esta expectativa deriva de la obligación de que todas las partes de un contrato actúen de buena fe y de forma ecuánime. Por lo tanto, un propietario debería tener el derecho a procedimientos imparciales, con las notificaciones pertinentes y la oportunidad de ser escuchado; de ser tratado de la misma manera que otros propietarios en circunstancias similares; y a no sufrir prejuicios, animadversión y decisiones de mala fe por parte de la junta y sus miembros.

Conclusión

Las comunidades de interés común cubren una gran parte de la superficie residencial de los Estados Unidos, y actualmente alojan a un cuarto de la población del país. Aunque las CIC ofrecen grandes ventajas económicas a sus residentes y a la sociedad en general, estos tipos de modalidad de vivienda requieren interacciones cuidadosas entre la asociación comunitaria y el gobierno municipal, y el reglamento de la asociación puede afectar la autonomía personal de sus miembros. No obstante, hay estrategias disponibles para mitigar, si no superar, estos problemas. Estas estrategias pueden hacer que la propiedad de una vivienda en una CIC sea menos ilusoria y más real.

Sobre el autor

Gerald Korngold es profesor de derecho en la Facultad de Derecho de Nueva York y visiting fellow del Instituto Lincoln de Políticas de Suelo. Enseña y escribe sobre temas de propiedad y derecho inmobiliario.

Referencias

De Tocqueville, Alexis. 1835. Democracy in America. London: Saunders and Otley.

Ellickson, Robert C. y Vicki L. Been. 2005. Land Use Controls. New York, NY: Aspen Publishers, 3rd edition.

Foundation for Community Association Research. 2014. “Best Practices. Report #7: Transition.” www.cairf.org/research/bptransition.pdf.

Foundation for Community Association Research. 2013. “National and State Statistical Review for 2013.” www.cairf.org/research/factbook/2013_statistical_review.pdf.

Grubel v. McLaughlin Gunnels v. No. Woodland Community Ass’n, 17013, Texas Court of Appeals (1978).

Hidden Harbour Estates v. Basso, Florida Court of Appeals (1981).

Hughes v. New Life Development Corp., Tennessee Superior Court (2012).

Low, Setha. 2004. Behind the Gates: Life, Security, and the Pursuit of Happiness in Fortress America. London: Routledge.

McKenzie, E. 1996. Privatopia: Homeowner Associations and the Rise of Private Residential Governments. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press.

Nelson, R. H. 2009. “The Puzzle of Local Double Taxation: Why Do Private Communities Exist?” The Independent Review. 13 (3) (Invierno) 345–365.

Public Opinion Strategies. 2014. “Verdict: Americans Grade Their Associations, Board Members and Community Managers.” Falls Church, Virginia: Community Associations Institute.

Reich, Robert. 1991. “Secession of the Successful.” The New York Times Magazine. 20 de enero.

Treese, C. J. 2013. Association Information Services, Inc., compiled from National Association of Realtors data. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I_2LgTIYSqR4nLPRxN-HtCV-oOFK_QqN1AcO5JJTw-g/edit.

Ziegler, J. 1984. The New Yorker. 3 de septiembre.