SHARE
This article is adapted from a policy roundtable report on national spatial development strategies prepared under the auspices of the Lincoln Institute, Regional Plan Association and the University of Pennsylvania School of Design. The roundtable was held in September 2004 at the Pocantico Conference Center of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. The impetus for this project developed in the spring of 2004 in a graduate city planning studio directed by Robert Yaro and Jonathan Barnett, both Practice Professors in City and Regional Planning at Penn, and Visiting Professor Armando Carbonell. With funding support from the Ford Foundation’s Institute of International Education, additional input was provided by a distinguished team of European and American planning experts hosted by Professor Sir Peter Hall at the Institute of Community Studies in London, England.
European efforts to develop policies and investments for the entire continent and for regions that cross national boundaries have been organized under the umbrella of the European Spatial Development Perspective, a set of policy directives and strategies adopted by the European Union in 1999 (Faludi 2002). Over the past generation the EU has initiated a large-scale approach to planning for metropolitan growth, mobility, environmental protection and economic development. Europeans use the umbrella term “spatial planning” to describe this process, involving plans that span regional and national borders and encompass new “network cities” spread out over hundreds of kilometers (see Figure 1). The EU is also mobilizing public and private resources at the continental scale, with bold plans and investments designed to integrate the economies of and reduce the economic disparities between member states and regions, and to increase the competitiveness of the continent in global markets.
By contrast, the United States has no strategy to anticipate and manage comparable concerns, even though the U.S. population is expected to grow another 40 percent by 2050. How can this growth be accommodated in metropolitan regions that are already choking on congestion and approaching build-out under current trends and policies? How can we improve the competitiveness and livability of our own emerging constellation of network cities? How can the U.S. reduce the growing disparities in wealth and population among fast-growing coastal regions, vast interior rural areas and declining industrial cities? How can the U.S. promote regional strategies designed to address these concerns?
Two important precedents have shaped this analysis of America’s spatial development. The national development and conservation strategies prepared by President Thomas Jefferson in 1807 and President Theodore Roosevelt in 1907 stimulated the major infrastructure, conservation and regional economic development strategies that powered America’s economic growth in its first two centuries. Other major strategies and investments promoted in the administrations of Presidents Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt and Eisenhower also had a profound impact on the nation’s growth. Some examples are the Morrill Act land grant university system, the Homestead Act, and creation of the national rail and interstate highway systems.
Economic, Demographic and Spatial Trends
Rapid population growth
The U.S. Census Bureau forecasts that the nation’s population will grow by 40 percent to 430 million by 2050, whereas most European countries are expected to lose significant numbers of residents, due to declining birth rates and limited immigration. This means we must build half again as much housing and as much commercial and retail space and the infrastructure needed to support these activities in the next half century as we have in the past two centuries.
The study of historical settlement patterns sheds light on current and future patterns. While early settlers clung primarily to the coasts and in compact urban regions, the inventions of rail transportation and later the automobile forever changed settlement patterns and allowed people to set up homes in the interior of the country and in highly decentralized metropolitan areas. Fast-growing Sunbelt states, such as Texas, California and Florida, are expected to see sustained rapid population growth, spurred by the trend of immigrant populations settling in those and surrounding states.
While most central cities will continue to grow at a moderate pace, many metropolitan regions around these urban cores are expected to experience remarkable development. As the city of Philadelphia continues to lose population, for example, its adjacent suburbs and areas further outside the city continue to grow. In general, however, the number of people living in urbanized areas as opposed to rural areas is projected to continue rising, signaling an increase in the amount of urbanized land in the coming decades.
The building out of suburban America
Since 1970 the vast majority of the nation’s economic and population growth has occurred in 30 large metropolitan regions, mostly in their sprawling outer rings. While some cities and inner-ring suburbs are now experiencing infill development and renewed population growth, many others are approaching “build-out,” which increases traffic congestion and commuting times, contributes to loss of farmland, and creates conflicts between new development and green infrastructure, such as public water supplies and wildlife habitat.
In less than three centuries, 46 million acres of America’s virgin landscape have been converted to urban uses. In the next 25 years that number will more than double to 112 million acres. If current growth and land consumption rates continue, another 100 million acres will be urbanized by 2050, at a rate seven times faster than the population will grow.
Uneven and inequitable growth patterns
While most population and economic growth has been in large metropolitan regions, other areas of the country have experienced losses. Large rural regions where resource-based economies or groundwater reserves are in permanent decline are left without the means to support even basic services. A number of large urban centers and second-tier cities also have experienced decades of decline. For example, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Detroit, St. Louis and New Orleans have lost a third or more of their populations since 1960. Even in cities where the outer-ring suburbs have grown, many inner cities and inner-ring suburbs have lost residents, tax base and economic activity, and poverty has become highly concentrated. Many of these places have high concentrations of African-Americans, Native Americans, Latinos and poor whites who will be increasingly disadvantaged as economic opportunities in these regions decline.
In contrast with the U.S., the European Union for decades has invested vast sums to promote development and redevelopment of comparable bypassed areas. These investments have produced dramatic results in revitalizing the economies of Ireland, Spain, Portugal and Greece, and formerly depressed cities and regions in Europe’s periphery. Similar strategic investments in America’s disadvantaged cities and regions could produce comparable results.
Limited infrastructure capacity
Metropolitan infrastructure of all kinds, most of it built in the last half of the twentieth century, will reach its capacity limits in the first decades of the twenty-first century. Unless new capacity is created in roads, rails, airports, seaports and other systems, the nation’s economic potential will be artificially limited. Federal transportation investments over the past decade have been largely focused on maintaining the existing infrastructure, not on expanding the capacity of these systems.
Over the last 50 years, Americans have become increasingly mobile. The increase in miles traveled per person has been most pronounced in car and aircraft travel, creating new challenges to keep various types of transportation corridors congestion-free. At the same time, congestion poses a serious threat to manufacturing and freight sectors of the economy. Experts believe that by 2020 there will be nearly a doubling of trucks on the roadways over current numbers. Significant policy measures are needed to channel more resources into high-capacity transportation systems for both individual and commercial activity.
Emergence of megalopolis
In 1961 French geographer Jean Gottman described the Boston–Washington Megalopolis. Between now and 2050, more than half of the nation’s population growth, and perhaps as much as two-thirds of its economic growth, will occur in this and seven other emerging megalopolitan regions whose extended networks of metropolitan centers are linked by interstate highway and rail corridors. Similar networks of cities in Europe and Asia are now seen as the new competitive units in the global economy. Major public and private investments are being made in high-speed rail, broadband communications and other infrastructure to strengthen transportation and economic synergies among their component centers.
The New Megalopolis
The new megalopolis is a model for cooperation among the cities and regions in the U.S. that are growing together and creating diseconomies in congested transportation networks, which in turn affect the economic vitality and quality of life of these regions. This model is based on the idea that if the cities in these colliding regions work together they can create a new urban form that will increase economic opportunity and global competitiveness for each individual city and for the nation as a whole.
These component metropolitan areas will have to cooperate in the formation of a structure that takes advantage of the complementary roles of each area while addressing common concerns in the areas of transportation, economic development, environmental protection, and equity. The new megalopolis model will contribute to improving social and economic cohesion along with a better territorial balance, and will support more sustainable development by emphasizing collaboration on important policy issues, infrastructure investments and instruments for facilitating economic growth and job creation.
To facilitate the development of megalopolitan areas, the U.S. could focus on creating a truly intermodal network linking rail, highway and air transportation. Such connections would relieve congested airports and provide greater options for freight movement. The resulting transportation flexibility would be less vulnerable to terrorist attacks and disaster. Furthermore, regional infrastructure and development focused around rail stations would shape and redirect urban growth in more efficient, less sprawling patterns.
Our current direction is building a country whose competitiveness is threatened by inefficient urban forms and declining rural communities. The new megalopolis concept points us in a different direction, one in which urban areas and their surrounding regions work together on a larger scale to address common concerns and share their complementary strengths. This new model would produce an America that is environmentally sustainable, socially equitable, and competitive in an increasingly global economy.
Six distinctive regions can be identified based on common history, geographic location and topography: the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, South, Midwest, Southwest and West. Most of the nation’s rapid population growth, and an even larger share of its economic expansion, is expected to occur in eight emerging metropolitan areas spread over thousands of square miles and located in every one of these regions (see Figure 2). These megalopolitan areas are becoming America’s economic engines: centers of technological and cultural innovation where the vast majority of immigrants who are driving population and economic growth will assimilate into the economic and social mainstream.
In Europe and Asia similar network cities are already being seen as the new competitive units in the global economy. The European Union and national governments in Europe, China and Japan are investing hundreds of billions of dollars in new intermodal transportation and communication links and other infrastructure to underpin the capacity, efficiency and livability of these regions. In all of these places, new high-speed rail networks are integrating the economies of formerly isolated regions.
Toward an American Spatial Development Perspective
An American Spatial Development Perspective (ASDP) could encompass long-range strategies to achieve five broad national goals.
The federal government could play a crucial role in this process, through collaborations with existing and emerging “bottom-up” networks of interconnected regional strategies, encompassing each of the emerging megalopoli. Ideally, the federal government would help coordinate and “incentivize” these planning efforts, but rely on local and regional initiatives to drive each region’s own strategies.
The federal government could also lead in coordinating infrastructure planning and investments for national and regional intermodal, high-speed transportation networks, as it did in promoting creation of the national rail and interstate highway systems. These investments would be made through partnerships between federal, state and regional government, and private investors. User fees, tolls and fares would cover a substantial portion of the cost of developing and managing these systems.
Regional strategies could also promote investments in major higher education and research institutions needed to maintain the nation’s competitive advantage in technology and create a lifelong learning system to help skilled workers adapt to economic change. This broad approach could also identify the important natural resource systems that sustain public water supplies, biological resources, sense of place and recreational opportunities. Future growth could be designed to reuse formerly used sites and to reclaim and restore impaired landscapes and natural resource systems.
Plans for these infrastructure systems should be closely coordinated with strategies for smaller-scale urban and regional development, to ensure that future development patterns support, and are supported by, these infrastructure investments. Federal and state governments could invest in demonstration projects to test innovative transportation, land use, environmental and other strategies.
Building and Financing the ASDP
The proposed new infrastructure systems and urban development outlined in this article could cost trillions of dollars, much of which could be financed through user fees and public-private partnerships. It should also be possible to employ modest payroll or other taxes to finance some of these investments, which would generate trillions of dollars of new economic capacity for the whole nation. The expected doubling of the national economy by 2050 would expand the gross domestic product by more than $14 trillion (in constant dollars). Redirecting even a small share of the growth of tax revenues in these strategic investments could secure the nation’s economic future.
For over a hundred years, the U.S. has financed major infrastructure projects through a “top-down” system, with major funding from the federal government complemented by state resources. Based on general public agreement of national priorities, this model financed several generations of growth and paid for one of the world’s great infrastructure systems. However, this approach is now being challenged as the needs of maintaining our aging infrastructure systems outpace federal and state funding, to say nothing of new capacity expansion. Today we witness a debate between “donor” and “donee” states over the fairness of federal transportation funds, even as the total amount of federal dollars falls far short of estimated needs. As a result, we find ourselves increasingly starved for capital for infrastructure systems.
To provide more funding for system maintenance and expansion, metropolitan regions are looking to new and innovative financing systems. Public authorities use their tax-free status to attract private dollars through bond issuances, sales and lease-back arrangements. New user fees, such as congestion pricing or high-occupancy-vehicle lanes on toll roads, link charges to those who benefit the most from new investments, creating new revenue streams. And value capture models, such as tax increment financing, allow increases in land values to finance infrastructure investments.
The federal government is advancing instruments such as TIFIA, the Transportation Infrastructure Innovation Act, to stimulate the development of these projects. However, megalopolitan areas have a critical role to play in this emerging system. They provide a vital link between state and federal government and local jurisdictions, which in many cases have the last word over land use decisions. These regional areas transcend political boundaries and capture the true economic and social geography of their communities. And they have the size, capacity and expertise to undertake complex planning strategies.
Armando Carbonell is senior fellow and co-chair of the Lincoln Institute’s Department of Planning and Development. Robert D. Yaro is president of the Regional Plan Association in New York City.
References
Faludi, Andreas, ed. 2002. European spatial planning. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and Regional Plan Association. 2004. Toward an American spatial development perspective. Policy Roundtable Report. September.
University of Pennsylvania School of Design. 2004. Planning for America in a global economy: 2004–2005. City Planning Studio Report. Spring.
SHARE
Faculty Profile: Petra Todorovich
SHARE
American cities have promising long-term prospects as hubs of innovation and growth, with expansion in technology and health sciences beginning to offset the decades-long erosion of manufacturing. Cities also remain places of vitality, offering urban design, density, and trans-port options that attract residents of all ages and backgrounds. In fact, nine of the ten most populous U.S. cities gained population over the last decade, according to the 2010 U.S. Census.
Yet the short-term prospects for cities are fraught with challenges. The recent sharp decline in tax revenues, caused by the 2008 housing market collapse and related financial crisis and economic slowdown, has made it extraordinarily difficult for state and local governments to maintain basic services, let alone plan for investments in infrastructure. Federal funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) helped local governments offset revenue declines in the past three years, but ARRA funds are no longer available for the coming fiscal year (a transition now termed “the cliff”), leaving local officials to confront the full force of revenue shortfalls.
The 2011 Journalists Forum on Land and the Built Environment: The Next City brought scholars, practitioners, and political leaders together with print and broadcast journalists to explore the theme of infrastructure for cities in the context of the ongoing economic recovery. This program is an annual partnership of the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University, and Harvard Graduate School of Design.
Two roles for infrastructure investments and related services permeated discussions at the Forum. First was the near-term role of investment in infrastructure as a fiscal stimulus aimed at turning around the economy and increasing employment. Second was the longer-term role that infrastructure plays in sustaining the transformation of municipal economies and increasing their competitiveness and livability in a globalized world.
Infrastructure and the Local Government Fiscal Crisis
The country’s need for fiscal stimulus to jump-start the economy in 2009 raised the prospect of massive infrastructure investments to help meet that need. However, the kinds of projects that could be launched quickly at the local level tended to be smaller-scale efforts, such as roadway repairs and facilities maintenance. More ambitious initiatives, such as intercity high-speed rail, failed to materialize due to spending and debt concerns and because much more design was needed before implementation could proceed.
Lawrence H. Summers, who recently returned to his professorship at Harvard after being director of the White House National Economic Council, defended the Obama administration’s stimulus plans, which he said were necessary to restore confidence in the financial system and keep the recession “out of the history books.” However, he said, “while local governments were able to use stimulus funds to cover revenue shortfalls, there were very few large shovel-ready projects.”
Moreover, the grim reality of fiscal stress is that cities cannot focus on large-scale, long-range infrastructure projects because they are struggling to cut spending and reform the delivery of local public services, noted Michael Cooper, reporter for The New York Times. Some examples of lost services include the Hawaii program that furloughs public school teachers every Friday through this school year; the San Diego boy who died choking on a gumball because a nearby fire station had been shuttered on a rotating basis; Colorado Springs’ decision to turn off a third of its streetlights each night and to auction off the police helicopter; and the California town that recalled its mayor because he revamped the city’s failing wooden pipes in its water system, but increased water fees to pay for it.
Many jurisdictions also have ongoing fiscal problems with the underfunding of pension funds and benefits. Some are worsening the problems simply by not making the required annual payments, a stopgap applied by Governor Chris Christie in New Jersey, among others. The municipal bond market faces tumult and some cities, like Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, are on the brink of bankruptcy. Fiscal deficits are growing because local governments have now expended the last of their
ARRA funds.
Adrian Fenty, former mayor of Washington, DC, said cities need to be run on a more business-like basis, moving to the politics of performance and away from the politics of patronage. Improvements are needed in both the efficiency of basic service delivery and the management of city finances. Because education is so important to the economic growth of cities, his administration gave priority to education reform—human infrastructure as well as physical infrastructure. During his term as mayor, his administration closed 20 percent of the schools and reduced administrative personnel by 50 percent. He also revamped teacher contracts, offering a merit pay system without tenure that 60 percent of the teachers opted to join.
Infrastructure Challenges: The Case of High-Speed Rail
President Barack Obama’s $53 billion high-speed rail initiative has brought the challenges of the local government fiscal crisis into sharp relief. Governors in Florida, Ohio, and Wisconsin returned the federal funding allocated to those states for intercity rail, claiming that their state and local governments could not possibly afford the resulting maintenance and operating costs, and questioning ridership projections. The high-speed rail project in California, though financed by a voter-approved bond issue, faces similar opposition because of financial burdens and local land use disputes.
Bruce Babbitt, former governor of Arizona and secretary of the U.S. Department of Interior, and a member of the Lincoln Institute board of directors, said the Obama administration’s campaign for high-speed intercity rail was a “political disaster,” and that the underlying vision needed a reassessment. He suggested that the Northeast Corridor should be the model, and that a revised plan should include a well-defined system of reliable financing—similar to the approach used to build the interstate highway system.
Paying for high-speed rail infrastructure will require a dedicated funding stream, perhaps from an increase in the gasoline tax in the states where the new rail lines would be located, and a system of value capture to engage private landowners who benefit from increases in property value as a result of such public works projects. “We don’t have the political courage to define our priorities,” Babbitt said. It will take a “national hammer” to address the nation’s infrastructure deficit without abdicating control to governors and states.
High-speed rail may live or die based on economic considerations. Petra Todorovich, executive director of America 2050, which has issued numerous analyses of high-speed rail’s potential, proposed a framework of 12 U.S. megaregions that represent collections of metropolitan areas where enhanced rail service offers the greatest potential for replacing automobile and short-haul airline travel. High-speed rail can deepen labor markets, increase agglomeration economies, and boost productivity by linking urban centers. Japan, France, and China are among the countries that have demonstrated how rail lines between major cities can foster economic synergies through the strategic location of high-speed rail stations and their connections to commuter rail and transit.
This economic payoff argument was seconded by Edward Rendell, former governor of Pennsylvania and mayor of Philadelphia, who is part of Building America’s Future, a campaign for investments in crumbling infrastructure nationwide. Rendell argued that the United States has been resting on its past investments, and that shoring up the nation’s decaying physical foundations is now an urgent priority. Without world-class infrastructure, the country will not be competitive in attracting private investment, sustaining rapid technological innovation and productivity growth, or maintaining the growth of good jobs domestically.
Infrastructure and the Future of Cities
As the recovery continues and economic growth returns, investments in new communication technology, green energy, smart urban systems, transport such as high-speed rail and mass transit, and other infrastructure will be needed to help cities fulfill their roles as the centers of innovation, culture, and productivity.
The vision of infrastructure combined with long-range planning is also a central theme in how cities can adapt to the inevitable impacts of climate change, including a possible one-meter sea level rise and associated storm surges, flooding, and increasing numbers of extreme weather events. Infrastructure in most coastal cities is so old that even a moderate storm event can do extensive damage, said Ed Blakely, public policy professor at the University of Sydney and former hurricane recovery czar in New Orleans.
Cities have been able to base their current plans on the relatively calm meteorological record of the last 200 years, but that calm is likely to erode with climate change, making much of the existing infrastructure inadequate or obsolete. Attention should not be focused on rebuilding after disasters like Hurricane Katrina, Blakely said, but on relocating, repositioning, and “future-proofing” for more resilient cities.
Infrastructure as an amenity that improves city livability is seen in New York’s High Line project, the conversion of an elevated freight line through the Meatpacking District and Greenwich Village. One of the architects on that project, Liz Diller, principal in Diller, Scofidio + Renfro, suggested that such retrofits can transform urban areas, provide a focal point for social and cultural events, and promote economic activity—though she cautioned that “architecture can’t really fix big problems.”
In spite of the current fiscal crisis, cities are expected to experience other changes that may aid their economic recovery. Among these are the fallout from the current housing crisis that is likely to spur demand for rental units and the demographic shift as the baby boom generation enters retirement age and begins to downsize housing choices.
Professor Arthur C. (Chris) Nelson, professor at the University of Utah, noted that both changes may generate more demand for urban lifestyles. For example, the current reduction in demand for owner-occupied, single-family houses at the metropolitan periphery is evident in the Intermountain West, Southwest, and South, where entire subdivisions are virtually empty. The percent of households owning homes has declined from a high of 69.2 percent in 2004 to 66.4 percent in 2011, fostering more demand for rental units that typically are located in more urbanized areas.
Demographic shifts are also related to changes in household composition. By 2030 single-person households will constitute one-third of the population, and only about one out of four households will include children, a decline from 45 percent with children in 1970 and 33 percent in 2000. These changes are likely to foster a significant adjustment in housing markets and values as aging baby boomers offer their suburban houses for sale and move to more urbanized locations with access to transit and walkable neighborhoods. At the same time, upcoming changes in mortgage markets and the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac may make mortgage financing (and homeownership) more costly and cause younger families to choose renting over owning.
Cities as Engines of Growth
Investing in infrastructure to support metropolitan regions might have an additional rationale grounded in the surprising resilience of cities themselves. The ongoing urban resurgence is visible in the income growth of highly skilled professionals, the relatively modest housing price declines and even recent increases in several prospering cities, and a concentration of innovation in urban areas, said Harvard economics professor Edward Glaeser. “We could move anywhere that suits our biophilia,” he said. “Yet we keep flocking to cities.”
Urban population growth is highly correlated with average urban incomes, education levels, and the share of employment in small firms as cities continue to draw entrepreneurs and foster productivity. If incomes everywhere were like those in New York City, the national GDP would rise 43 percent, Glaeser said. Cities will also continue to be prized for their environmental value as places of density and transit, reflecting relatively lower per capita energy use and carbon emissions than suburban and rural areas. Glaeser argued against restrictive zoning and regulations that discourage greater density and leave older, low-rise urban neighborhoods “frozen in amber.” He also stressed that public education remains the most important investment that cities can and should make to enhance their continued economic growth and quality of life.
As both the national economy and local government revenues recover, a key priority will be to balance expenditures between current services and longer-term investments. Economic growth will make it easier to finance investments in infrastructure, but investments in infrastructure are needed to increase economic growth. The challenge is to find a politically feasible way of breaking into this virtuous circle.
About the Authors
Gregory K. Ingram is president and CEO of the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Anthony Flint is fellow and director of public affairs at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
SHARE
Land trusts across the United States differ vastly in terms of age, size of protected acreage, mission, strategy, budget, and context. Audrey Rust, an acknowledged conservation leader and the 2012 Kingsbury Browne Fellow at the Lincoln Institute, is in a unique position to parse the differences between two strikingly distinct yet successful preservation efforts in the American West. She served as president and CEO of the Peninsula Open Space Trust (POST) in Palo Alto, California, for 24 years until July 2011, and she is now a board member of the American Prairie Reserve (APR) in Bozeman, Montana.
APR is one of the nation’s most ambitious new conservation efforts, aiming to assemble 3.5 million acres and create the largest wildlife complex in the lower 48 states—in Montana, the nation’s fourth largest state with the seventh smallest population (just one million as of 2012). By contrast, POST encompasses only 2 percent of APR’s projected acreage, yet is considered remarkably successful for amassing 70,000 acres of very expensive open space, farms, and parkland in a densely settled region, from San Francisco to Silicon Valley, with more than seven million inhabitants.
Despite their dissimilar profiles, these organizations share a surprising number of similarities. In this Q&A with the Lincoln Institute, Rust compares POST’s and APR’s particular histories and characteristics, based on her first-hand experience with each organization, and offers some universal lessons for all involved in the difficult and challenging work of preserving open space.
Lincoln institute: How did the Peninsula Open Space Trust begin and what is its mission?
Audrey Rust: POST is a 35-year-old, traditional land trust in a dense metropolitan region, which has grown significantly since POST was founded in 1977. It began as a private conservation partner for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, a public, tax-supported agency on the San Francisco Peninsula (figure 1). Working on the urban fringe, POST would raise private funds on behalf of the District and take on an occasional land donation project. To this day, all the territory it protects lies within a major metropolitan area.
Given POST’s densely populated location, it was essential from the beginning to immediately include opportunities for low-intensity public recreation and provide exposure to the biodiversity of the peninsula, where within a 12-mile transect one can pass through at least nine distinct ecosystems. POST works to assure a system of interconnected open lands in corridors along the San Francisco Bay, the Santa Cruz Mountains, and the Pacific Coast. No specific number of total acres is contemplated, unless a particular campaign is underway, but giving people a place to experience nature is a driving force.
Lincoln institute: How do the genesis and mission of the American Prairie Reserve compare?
Audrey Rust: Since it was founded in 2002, APR has amassed 274,000 acres but seeks to permanently protect some 3.5 million contiguous acres of short-grass prairie as a wildlife reserve in northeastern Montana—one of only four places on earth where such a conservation effort is possible (figure 2). The idea originated from research done by a group of nonprofit conservation organizations working in the northern Rockies, with science assistance from the World Wildlife Fund at the start.
APR is reintroducing plains bison that are free of cattle gene introgression and intends to develop a sustainable herd of 10,000 animals while restoring other native species including prairie dogs, black-footed ferrets, and burrowing owls. APR acquired a lot of land quickly, but it will take decades to reintroduce wildlife and foster significant growth of species populations.
Federal lands form a large part of the wildlife habitat APR is assembling. The Reserve lands are adjacent on the south to the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge and on the west to the Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument, which figures prominently in our nation’s history as part of the Lewis and Clark expedition.
Lincoln institute: What are the key challenges for POST and APR?
Audrey Rust: Funding any conservation work is always the biggest challenge. The first hurdle is identifying potential donors and getting their attention. To do that, you need a clearly articulated vision and the ability to make the project relevant to the potential donor. Validation of the mission from a third respected party is key. You also need some means for the donor to experience the relevant work and feel appropriately included, in addition to a well-developed relationship that results in an appropriate request for support made at the right time.
Lincoln institute: What are the particular funding challenges at POST?
Audrey Rust: In the San Francisco Bay Area, millions of people see and appreciate how proximity to nature enhances their quality of life, but most do not know the role POST plays in assuring this; or, if they do know, they don’t necessarily feel moved to support POST’s work financially. Competition for philanthropic dollars within the small geographic area of Silicon Valley is intense. All the major conservation organizations, plus Stanford University’s powerful fundraising machine, operate in the area.
Fundraising takes a traditional course at POST. There is a well-developed annual giving program that moves many donors to the upper capital gift levels. Many of them are willing to lend their networks to the effort, and because of the successes of the organization and the existing donor list, people feel comfortable and supported by their community when making a gift. POST’s model has also depended on finding and creating public funds and then selling land or easements to a public entity, at or below the price paid by POST, allowing the organization to return donor funds to be used again and again.
POST also faces the challenge of success. Often leadership-level donors are ready to move on to new ideas and new environmental issues, seeing that their personal impact is not as visible as it would be in starting their own new organization. Some donors feel they have done their part, and now it’s someone else’s turn. New top leadership-level donors are as difficult as ever to attract.
Lincoln institute: How do APR’s mission and goals affect its fundraising strategy?
Audrey Rust: APR faces what is often called a “pipeline” problem. As a relatively new organization—and one where the potential donor population is both scattered and at a great distance from the Reserve—finding the right people has required many false starts and unproductive gatherings. It has been difficult to expose potential donors to the project in ways that can build a philanthropic relationship. Although board members are willing, only a few have networks that have proven productive for APR. It’s difficult and expensive to assess the real interest of a potential donor, estimate his or her likely gift level, and develop an ongoing relationship with a person who is geographically removed. As yet, status is not associated with being a supporter, and the enormity of the campaign goal ($300 million to $500 million) dwarfs even million-dollar gifts. Any practical campaign would need to attract a gift of $80 million to $100 million at the top of the fundraising pyramid.
Building a productive leadership-level prospect list is only worthwhile if meetings and relationships can happen. Geography creates difficulties when there are not enough people in one area, and efforts can’t be leveraged. Time is a key element in building the needed relationships.
Because of its rare size and scope, however, APR may have singular appeal to extremely wealthy individuals who, like the Rockefellers decades ago, could create this Reserve with their philanthropy alone. This is the unfulfilled dream of every executive director. Chances are slim, but history shows it is possible. APR’s model has never looked to public funding as a way to leverage private dollars, since the leased public lands are in some measure doing just that.
Another key funding challenge for APR is the scale of the project. Impact comes in increments of 50,000 or 100,000 acres in a landscape where conservation biologists have determined that a mixed-grass prairie would need to be approximately 5,000 square miles (roughly 3.2 million acres) to be a healthy, functioning ecosystem that supports the full complement of native prairie biodiversity.
Lincoln institute: How has the leadership at both organizations handled the funding challenges?
Audrey Rust: At both APR and POST, the first president/executive director, who also served as a board member, had a solid business background but no experience fundraising or running a nonprofit organization. The second board chair of both organizations was a successful venture capitalist and was viewed as a founder. All these leaders were charismatic and well-connected. Last but not least, both founding executive directors had to contribute or lend substantial funds to the organization to keep it afloat.
APR’s founding President Sean Gerrity is still at the helm after ten years, and his passion for conservation is undiminished. The time needed for extensive travel and meeting the financial needs of the organization was more than a full-time job, however, and none of the development professionals he hired could relieve his load. On the premise that potential donors want to meet someone with a title, two years ago Gerrity made a major change in how the organization functions by hiring two managing directors who are able to carry a significant fundraising and content load. The strategy requires regular telephone or in-person meetings to stay aligned on all aspects of the organization, but it’s working. Organizing around the managing director model has allowed APR staff to travel more and develop better donor relationships. Current personnel have been in place for fewer than two years, but they are making progress.
Lincoln institute: How did you weather the fundraising challenge at POST?
Audrey Rust: When POST hired me to replace Founding Executive Director Robert Augsburger in 1986, my first mission was to raise $2 million in a few months in order to exercise an option on a key coastal ranch, POST’s first truly independent project.
I understood the local donor community and had a good deal of experience in fundraising and nonprofit management. I was completely absorbed by the work and the need to meet our financial obligations. Although travel usually wasn’t necessary to raise funds, the proximity of potential donors meant that every weekend, every farmer’s market, every local event was an opportunity to connect. We undertook one major project after another, doing good conservation work and building momentum, but I was exhausted.
To solve this problem, I also found really good staff people. My approach, however, was traditional: Get enough money in the bank to hire adequate staff and ensure one of them was a young lawyer with potential to take on additional responsibilities and leadership. I would continue doing large-gift fundraising as well as oversee key land acquisition strategy and negotiation, and others would take over more of the day-to-day work and administration. The ability to grow the staff and delegate some of the work was a major step forward for me and the organization.
Lincoln institute: What has been POST’s basic approach to land acquisition and how has that affected its financial strategy?
Audrey Rust: Both POST and APR want to connect existing public lands through acquisition of adjacent, privately held property, and both have treated local conservation entities as key allies in the task of preserving biodiversity, providing public access, and creating a larger vision of a protected landscape. Their different basic land conservation strategies, however, lead to very different funding patterns and long-term financial impacts.
POST plans to transfer all the land it protects, and most of it will go into public ownership as federal, state, and county parks or to one of the regional open space districts for its management and permanent protection. Agricultural land, protected by strict conservation easements, is sold to local farmers. POST retains the easements along with an easement endowment fund to assure their monitoring and compliance.
The first project POST undertook in the late 1970s resulted in the gift and subsequent sale (at half the appraised value) of a highly visible property adjacent to the town where a high percentage of potential donors lived. The funds resulting from this sale allowed POST to save some additional lands. However, the organization progressed slowly for nearly a decade, with no real financially sustainable land protection strategy in place.
In 1986, driven by an opportunity to purchase a 1,200-acre coastal ranch, POST optioned the property, which required owner-financing, significant fundraising, and later statewide political action. Success led to the creation of a working capital fund that allowed POST to repeat a similar strategy several times, focusing on prominent and ambitious conservation projects. Gaining a reputation for delivering on its promises, POST transitioned to raising funds in a capital campaign for a much larger inventory of property. Having working capital freed POST to focus on what needed to be done, rather than what could be done.
Lincoln institute: What were the key accomplishments and shortfalls of POST’s strategy?
Audrey Rust: POST was able to build working capital and show donors a leveraged return. Success built on success, and today POST operates with a working capital account of more than $125 million. Protected land was never at any risk of being lost due to financial issues. The type of public funds used, coupled with private gifts, provide further assurances.
Each accomplishment has given POST the confidence to move to another level in direct protection, restoration, and collaboration. Sustainable forestry, affirmative easements on farmland, conservation grazing, and exotic species removal are all now a part of its conservation arsenal.
On the other hand, a broad vision of what the future could hold was never well articulated, as POST essentially worked in an incremental fashion. Stirring the imagination of leadership-level entrepreneurial donors, the primary wealth in the Valley, became more difficult as time went on. It was also difficult for the organization to embrace the restoration and management of land being held for later transfer.
As public funds have begun to dry up, public agencies are less likely to take on the obligation of additional land ownership. POST experiences both the expense of holding the property indefinitely and the inability to sell the land to return capital to its account.
Lincoln institute: What has been APR’s basic approach?
Audrey Rust: APR faces a different situation in Montana, where the privately held ranches are far larger than any parcel in the Santa Cruz Mountains, and their owners control additional vast tracks of federally owned leased land. APR intends to hold these private fee lands and leases in perpetuity. Privately raised endowment funds will be required to ensure the management of these lands.
APR wanted to show from the beginning that it could make real progress on its large conservation vision, despite the lack of funds. APR moved quickly to acquire land and the accompanying leases using owner financing. The leadership of the organization felt putting a stake in the ground was the only way to begin to attract the money it would need to acquire the property that would make up the Reserve. Without sufficient fundraising experience or a developed prospect list, the struggle was enormous. Until recently, only minimal funds were held in reserve, making it extremely stressful to meet financial obligations, especially for debt.
Lincoln institute: What are APR’s key accomplishments and ongoing challenges?
Audrey Rust: Persistence and good work are now paying off. Critical advances include the opportunity to acquire fees and associated leases on a 150,000-acre ranch and in 2012 a very important gift from one of the organization’s largest supporters. APR also began building a high-end “safari camp” to open in 2013 that will allow them to bring leadership-level donors to the prairie, build relationships, and deepen their connection to the land.
The organization has a track record, demonstrating its ability to get things done, and can begin management practices to foreshadow future activity. Reintroducing genetically pure bison is a charismatic example. Extraordinary opportunities for acquiring key pieces of land can now be pursued. Without significant working reserves, however, APR staff and leadership are under great stress to meet their financial obligations. This creates a climate of looking for quick delivery on donations rather than developing the kind of leadership gifts the organization needs most for the long haul. As yet, plans are incomplete for assuring the permanent private protection of the acquired lands. Land that carries owner financing or is especially well priced may be purchased, even though its priority for acquisition may not be high. Raising the necessary endowment funds for the ongoing stewardship of the land has been slow.
Lincoln institute: In conclusion, what are key commonalities between these two very different organizations?
Audrey Rust: POST and APR are at different stages in their organizational growth, and their futures are based on their most obvious differences and track records. However, it is possible to identify similar key elements leading to success:
Both organizations continue to face significant challenges in funding their goals. POST has successfully transitioned to new leadership and is pursuing ever larger and more complex conservation initiatives. Its success has dominated the organization for so long that it is difficult for new philanthropists to find something to “invent” and support. It is a very well-run organization, which leaves little room for the new Silicon Valley elite to provide their trademark “we can do it better” involvement. POST needs to do more to identify and attract those very few top-of-the-pyramid donors. This challenge is especially difficult because government participation has virtually ended, and POST’s three largest donors are no longer making grants, in the $20 million to $50 million range, to this type of conservation. Further, it is difficult to point to an endgame, and, without it, the organization will lose urgency and gift support.
APR is new and exciting. The organization has sought a creative partnership with National Geographic, which produced an hour-long video called The American Serengeti, elevating APR’s mission and bringing with it the national prominence APR needs to raise large gifts in the national arena. It is during this time that key leadership donors must become involved. In all nonprofit organizations, funding pyramids are becoming more and more vertical. Campaigns such as this one often depend upon one or two donors to make gifts equal to half or even two-thirds of the total goal. Without these donors, staff members are worn out by raising money, and the cost of fundraising rises rapidly.
I am convinced that the size, scope, and ability to measure the vision held by an organization are key determinants of success. Donors and the public in general are elevated by the idea that we can change our world. Clearly articulating and promoting that vision is instrumental. POST needs to work on its messaging to better articulate its current vision. APR needs to find more venues to effectively communicate its vision and develop a critical mass of supporters.
Conservation leader Audrey Rust, the 2012 Kingsbury Browne Fellow at the Lincoln Institute, will lecture on “The Peninsula and the Prairie: Regional and Large Landscape Conservation,” at Lincoln House on May 1, 2013, at noon (lunch is free).
In the aftermath of the Great Recession, the financing of U.S. public elementary and secondary education has become particularly challenging, given the close link between school finance and property taxation. Across the nation, the sharp drop in housing prices that triggered the recession led to reductions in property tax revenues. Public schools derive more than 80 percent of their local own-source revenue from the property tax (McGuire, Papke, and Reschovsky 2015), and nearly half of total property tax dollars collected in the United States are used to finance public elementary and secondary education (U.S. Census Bureau 2014, U.S. Census Bureau 2013).
As a means of encouraging new research on these issues, the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy organized a conference on “Property Tax and the Financing of K–12 Education” in Cambridge, MA, in October 2013. The Fall 2014 issue of Education Finance and Policy features five of the conference papers along with two additional works submitted as part of the journal’s call for papers for the special issue, which underwent the journal’s peer review process. We served as guest editors, working closely with the journal’s editors, Thomas A. Downes and Dan Goldhaber. Thanks to funding from the Lincoln Institute, the special issue is available for free downloading until January 2016 from the website of the Association of Education Finance and Policy (www.aefpweb.org/journal/free-fall-2014).
Challenges for Funding K-12 Education
Using revenue data from the National Center for Education Statistics (2014), we determined that in real per pupil terms, total revenues devoted to public education fell by 6.2 percent from September 2008 to June 2012. Although comprehensive figures are not yet available for the most recent years, existing evidence points to a continued decline in financial support for public education. Data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Quarterly Summary of State and Local Tax Revenue indicate that per capita real local government property tax revenues (for school and nonschool purposes) were 2.7 percent lower at the end of fiscal year 2014 than they were at the end of fiscal year 2011. And a survey conducted by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that, in at least 35 states, real per-student state education aid was lower in fiscal year 2014 than in fiscal year 2008 (Leachman and Mai 2014).
Many school districts around the country responded to reduced revenues by laying off employees. In fact, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2013) reports that between the employment peak in June 2009 and the trough in October 2012, education employment by local governments fell by 357,400—a decline of 4.4 percent. During this same period, public school enrollment grew by 0.9 percent (National Center for Education Statistics 2013).
Current projections signal significant increases in both K–12 enrollment and cost per pupil. The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES 2013) projects that per pupil expenditures will increase from an average of $10,518 in the 2009–10 school year to $12,530 in 2021–22. The NCES also projects substantial increases in public school enrollment, although growth projections for specific states vary and are generally much higher for the southern and western states (8.9 percent and 12.7 percent from 2010 to 2021) than for the Northeast and Midwest (2.2 percent and 2.4 percent). Although public policies and priorities can change, based on current policies and revenue projections, it is unlikely that revenues in support of public education will grow fast enough to match the projected growth in student enrollment and in costs.
National data indicate that in 2011–12, 10 percent of total public education revenue came from the federal government, with the rest split fairly evenly between state and local government sources (U.S. Census Bureau 2014). Federal government programs in support of education are classified as domestic discretionary expenditures. While to date Congress has done little to rein in the growth of spending on entitlement programs, it has mandated strict limits on the growth of domestic discretionary expenditures through the Budget Control Act of 2011 and the fiscal year 2014 Congressional budget agreement. The Congressional Budget Office (2013) predicts that, relative to GDP, domestic discretionary spending will decline through at least 2023. Given these overall spending caps, along with competition from other pressing domestic needs, reductions in real per pupil federal education support appear likely.
School funding systems vary tremendously across states, and future trends in state support for public education will differ greatly across states as well. However, many state governments face several long-run structural problems that are likely to constrain future state funding for public education. On the revenue side, many states have narrow sales tax bases that exclude many services and, as a result, fail to grow proportionally to their economies. The revenue problems are exacerbated by the inability of states to collect sales taxes on many Internet and mail order purchases. In the past few years, a number of states have adopted individual income tax cuts. These tax cuts have generally been enacted with no offsetting revenue increases, or they have been funded using revenue from one-time state budget surpluses.
On the spending side, funding for K–12 education must compete with other priorities. In many states, spending on Medicaid will grow faster than state tax revenues, a trend influenced in part by the aging of the population. Many states are also facing large and growing unfunded pension liabilities. Addressing these unfunded liabilities will undoubtedly require substantial increases in state government pension contributions. Although polls indicate that voters favor increased spending on education over spending in other areas, unless state governments make politically difficult decisions to increase taxes, states’ growing Medicaid and pension obligations may crowd out spending on K–12 education (Pew Research 2011).
With diminished prospects for growth in funding from federal and state governments, local school districts will likely play an increasingly important role in funding public education. Increasing local government funding for public education will require the politically difficult step of increasing property taxes, or, if that proves impossible, the development and widespread adoption of alternative sources of local government revenue. Neither strategy will be easy to implement.
This rather bleak picture of the prospects for public education funding raises a number of research questions. For example, can state governments adopt policies that would make the property tax more publicly acceptable? What role do alternative local sources of revenue play in funding public education? Can their role be increased? Is it possible to design state education aid systems that result in a more steady flow of state aid during economic downturns? Can state policies aimed at providing property tax relief be made more effective? Can state aid systems be reformed in ways that increase the educational opportunities of all students? The Property Tax and the Financing of K–12 Education considers these and other questions.
Conclusion
Three central themes emerge from this special issue. The first is the potential for unintended consequences to arise from state legislation. Eom et al. find that New York’s prominent property tax relief program, STAR, induces voters to increase school spending and raise property taxes, thereby undercutting much of the intended property tax relief. Jeffrey Zabel finds that property tax overrides in Massachusetts have led to increased racial segregation. And Phuong Nguyen-Hoang finds that the use of TIFs in Iowa has led to modest reductions in education spending.
A second theme is the potential for state school finance and property tax policies to provide greater advantages for high-wealth or high-income school districts than for low-wealth or low-income districts. In some cases, this pro-wealthy tilt is an explicit program feature. For example, the sales price differential adjustment factor in STAR channels a disproportionate amount of property tax relief to the wealthiest school districts. Likewise, Michigan’s state aid system sends about 7 percent more state aid per pupil to the wealthiest districts. In other cases, the tilt toward wealthier districts arises in more indirect ways. Chakrabarti et al. find that high-wealth school districts are likelier to increase property tax revenues in response to cuts in state aid. Zabel notes that higher income towns are more likely to pass property tax overrides. Nguyen-Hoang finds that TIFs have a greater negative effect on school spending in low-income or low-wealth districts than in high-income or high-wealth districts. Finally, Nelson and Gazley find that well-off districts are more likely to receive revenue from school-supporting nonprofits, and their per-pupil contributions tend to be higher.
A third theme is the enduring importance of the property tax as a funding source for public education in the United States. Papers by both Nelson and Gazley and by Downes and Killeen demonstrate that non-tax revenue plays a relative minor role in the funding of public schools. And no evidence suggests that the share of revenue from student fees and charges, school-supporting nonprofits, or from miscellaneous non-tax revenues has increased during or after the Great Recession.
These findings suggest that in order to ensure sufficient funding for public education into the future, efforts should be made to make the property tax a more appealing source of revenue. These property tax improvements might include the expansion of well-designed targeted property tax relief programs, such as circuit breakers, the adoption of property tax deferral programs for taxpayers facing high property tax burdens or rapid increases in their property tax bills, and improvements in tax administration that focus on increased transparency.
Given the great diversity in school finance and property tax systems across the U.S. and the fiscal challenges ahead, the papers in this special issue cannot possibly provide insights into the full range of policies needed to assure adequate and equitable funding for public education. However, it is our hope that these papers will be thought-provoking for both policy makers and researchers, and also inspire additional research on property taxation and school funding.
Contents
Introduction to Special Issue on the Property Tax and the Financing of K–12 Education
Daphne A. Kenyon and Andrew Reschovsky
Did Cuts in State Aid During the Great Recession Lead to Changes in Local Property Taxes?
Rajashri Chakrabarti, Max Livingston, and Joydeep Roy
Michigan and Ohio K–12 Educational Finance Systems: Equality and Efficiency
Michael Conlin and Paul Thompson
The Unintended Consequences of Property Tax Relief: New York’s STAR Program
Tae Ho Eom, William Duncombe, Phuong Nguyen-Hoang, and John Yinger
Unintended Consequences: The Impact of Proposition 2½ Overrides on School Segregation in Massachusetts
Jeffrey Zabel
Tax Increment Finance and Education Expenditures: The Case of Iowa
Phuong Nguyen-Hoang
The Rise of School-Supporting Nonprofits
Ashlyn Aiko Nelson and Beth Gazley
So Slow to Change: The Limited Growth of Non-Tax Revenues in Public Education Finance, 1991–2010
Thomas Downes and Kieran M. Killeen
About the Authors
Daphne A. Kenyon, Ph.D., is an economist who is a fellow at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and principal of D. A. Kenyon & Associates.
Andrew Reschovsky, Ph.D., is a fellow at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and a professor emeritus at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
References
Congressional Budget Office. 2013. Updated Budget Projections: Fiscal Years 2013 to 2023. Washington, DC (May). www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44172-Baseline2.pdf.
Leachman, Michael and Chris Mai. 2014. “Most States Funding Schools Less Than Before the Recession,” Washington, DC: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Updated September 12. www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=4011.
McGuire, Therese J., Leslie E. Papke, and Andrew Reschovsky. 2015. “Local Funding of Schools: The Property Tax and Its Alternatives,” chapter 22 in Handbook of Research on Education Finance and Policy, revised edition, edited by Helen F. Ladd and Margaret Goertz, Routledge, 376–391.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). 2014. “National Public Education Financial Survey Data,” School Year 2010–11. http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/stfis.asp.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). 2013. “Projections of Education Statistics to 2021.” http://nces.ed.gov/programs/projections/projections2021/index.asp.
Pew Research. 2011. “Fewer Want Spending to Grow, But Most Cuts Remain Unpopular.” Center for People and the Press. February 10. www.people-press.org/2011/02/10/fewer-want-spending-to-grow-but-most-cuts-remain-unpopular.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2013. Table B-1a: Employees on Non-Farm Payrolls by Industry Sector and Selected Industry Detail, Seasonally Adjusted. Current Employment Statistics, Establishment Data. www.bls.gov/web/empsit/ceseeb1a.htm.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2013. 2011 Annual Survey of State and Local Government Finance, State and Local Government Data. www.census.gov/govs/local/.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2014. 2012 Data, Public Elementary-Secondary Education Finance Data. www.census.gov/govs/school/.
Over the past five years, the Lincoln Institute has supported the study of value capture policies and instruments in many Latin American countries. Notwithstanding the diversity of approaches and the variety of specific cases, we have identified seven substantive lessons that can help to clarify some of the confusion and misunderstandings associated with the implementation of value capture principles. Each lesson summarized below presents one or two examples drawn from the book, Recuperación de Plusvalías en América Latina: Alternativas para el Desarrollo Urbano.
Value capture refers to the process by which all or a portion of increments in land value attributed to “community efforts” rather than landowner actions are recovered by the public sector. These “unearned increments” may be captured indirectly through their conversion into public revenues as taxes, fees, exactions or other fiscal means, or directly through on-site improvements to benefit the community at large.
1. Value capture is not a new concept in Latin America. The Latin American experience with value capture has long-standing historical precedents. Public debates on the use of value capture and related instruments have been held since the beginning of the twentieth century in several countries. In the 1920s, the debate was triggered by concrete events, such as the problem of paving streets in São Paulo, Brazil, and the lack of external financing for needed public works in Colombia. In other cases, political and ideological factors have motivated national discussions. Representatives of the Partido Radical in Chile made several attempts to introduce the idea, and in the 1930s President Aguirre Cerda proposed legislation to create a national tax on plusvalías (land value increments) based on the ideas of Henry George.
2. However, its application in the urban policy agenda is still limited. Despite many reports of relevant experiences that integrate the principles of value capture, the issue is not well represented or even sufficiently acknowledged within the sphere of urban policy. In some instances, promising value capture initiatives have gained prominence in their own times, only to be forgotten later. An important example is the well-known Lander Report from Venezuela, which proposed in the 1960s that land and its increments in value should be the main source of financing for urban development projects. That report formed the basis for recommendations on urban development finance included in the proceedings of Habitat I (1976).
In other cases, interesting opportunities to use value capture as a tool for urban policy are being lost or ignored. Currently some Latin American countries are not taking advantage of potential unearned land value increments generated by major inner-city revitalization projects. While there is general acceptance of the notion of capturing increases in land values, in reality little of that increased value derived from public action has actually been recovered and redistributed.
3. Legislation often exists but is not implemented. As in many other countries in the region, the variety of value capture instruments available in Mexico, ranging from the contribución por mejoras (a special assessment or betterment levy aimed at recovering the costs of public works) to taxes on plusvalías, illustrates the discrepancy between what is legally possible and what is actually implemented. Contrary to what is often alleged, the general problem is not that the planners or local officials lack legal or practical access to these instruments but that the following conditions tend to prevail.
4. Resistance is more ideological than logical. Even when value capture legislation and instruments are understood (or in some cases because they are understood), they may not be implemented fully due to the proverbial “lack of political will.” This resistance may take the form of misleading interpretations, stereotyped rationalizations and even pure ideological “preaching.”
It is not hard to find public justification that the application of such instruments is neither timely nor appropriate, especially if the justification is based on misleading interpretations. Some such arguments are that impositions on land values are inflationary and disruptive of well-functioning markets, or that they incur unacceptable taxation of the same base twice. Such misconceptions seem to lie behind the reluctance of the Ministry of Housing and Urbanism of Chile to promote the review and resubmission to the Congress of some value capture provisions in the country’s new legal framework on urbanism.
Objections based on stereotyped rationalizations may use the following arguments:
Contradicting these arguments, however, are the development of successful participatory improvement programs in poor areas of many cities (for instance in Chile, Brazil and Peru). These programs have been technically and economically efficient and usually have strong support from the low-income population affected.
Finally, some objections are of a purely ideological nature. The resistance to the implementation of participación en plusvalías in Colombia, for example, is based on the allegation that this device, although recognized as technically well-formulated, represents one more unwanted public “interference” on urban real estate business, such as a higher fiscal burden, limitations on property rights or more regulation (Barco de Botero and Smolka 2000). This position has been replaced recently by a broad consensus among politicians, business leaders and the general public that acceptance of this instrument is a better option than the imposition of additional property taxes.
5. Value capture is gradually becoming more popular. In spite of the obstacles and political resistance, recent Latin American experience with value capture shows a growing interest in the subject and in the conditions that would justify its utilization. Value capture is attracting the attention of municipal planners throughout the region, and it is beginning to be perceived as an important urban policy initiative. This growing popularity is related to several factors occurring in the region.
First, greater administrative and fiscal decentralization requires more autonomy in redefining and obtaining alternative sources of public funds to finance the urbanization process. The need for more local resources has been reinforced by the social demands and political pressures associated with current redemocratization processes and growing levels of popular participation. Formation of extra-budget funds to finance special social programs is linked to almost all new value capture initiatives and has been one of the most attractive reasons for implementing those policies.
Second, the redefinition of the functions of the state (including privatization), together with the decline of comprehensive planning, have set the stage for the development of more flexible public interventions and direct negotiations in land use regulation and public-private partnerships. The release of public areas to the private land market, as well as better coordination between real estate and public sector interests to promote new areas in the cities, are also significant. It is worth noting that even in Cuba one finds a vigorous program through which the Office of the Historian in Havana, operating as a kind of property holding company, refinances its state-owned operations with land value increments resulting from urban renovation projects in the form of rents charged to private development “partners” (Nuñez, Brown and Smolka 2000).
Other favorable factors include the conditions imposed by the agendas of the multilateral agencies, which clearly promote the universalization of user charges and the recovery of the costs of public investments. The growing popularity of new value capture instruments can also be attributed to some frustration with the poor results obtained from the application of taxes and other traditional charges related to urban land in past decades, in terms of both revenues and urban policy objectives.
6. Pragmatism overrides ethical or theoretical justifications. A corollary to the preceding point is that the growing popularity of value capture seems to be inspired more by eminently pragmatic reasons than by ethical criteria, notions of equality, or theoretical and political justifications. Some reforms may even have been introduced without full political awareness of the process, or of its theoretical importance, as previously illustrated in the Mexicali case. The historical evidence shows that most value capture initiatives have responded above all to the need to face fiscal crises and other local problems in the financing of urban development. This is the case even in Argentina, where the need for revenues prevailed over established principles opposed to new taxes when a temporary five-percent increase in the property tax was used as one of the initiatives to finance investments in the new Buenos Aires subway system.
Nevertheless, one should not assume from the above examples that accumulation of experience is not important for the refinement of instruments and the evolution of value capture policies. A case in point is the Colombian experience with the contribución de valorización since the 1920s and the many attempts to overcome some of its limitations, especially in the past 40 years. The recently enacted participación en plusvalías is a more technically developed and politically acceptable version of an instrument targeted to capture the sometimes huge land value increments associated with administrative decisions concerning zoning, density levels and other urbanistic norms and regulations.
7. Value capture is not necessarily progressive or redistributive. It must be noted that the reference to plusvalías is in no way a monopoly of the political left. Both Argentina’s and Chile’s recent experiences show clearly the disposition toward the subject in neo-liberal contexts. In addition, the operacões interligadas (linkage operations) developed in São Paulo, and effectively applied by administrations of opposing political and ideological tendencies, put forward a convincing argument about the impossibility of labeling these instruments in advance.
Progressive local governments, on the other hand, are sometimes reluctant to apply these instruments, and may even reject the notion altogether, for three reasons. First, they may believe that such contributions would be simply a mechanism to impose additional fiscal charges with no redistributive impact whatsoever. Second, even when the resulting revenues are earmarked for the low-income population, they may be insufficient to reduce the absolute differences between rich and poor in the access to the serviced land (Furtado 2000). And third is the intergenerational argument that such charges are being imposed on newer, generally poor, residents who need services, whereas earlier generations were not charged for infrastructure services or amenities.
Thus, the progressive nature of such policies is not resolved by “taxing” land value increments or by focusing on high-income taxpayers. The “Robin Hood” image of such policies fades once it becomes clear that the part of the value actually captured in this way tends to be only a fraction, and often a small one, of what the owner actually receives in benefits. This point seems to have been well understood by many lower-income populations, like those in Lima where a successful program featuring some 30 projects used the contribución de mejoras to finance public works in the early 1990s.
This example and other strong evidence support the need to revisit the conventional wisdom regarding the tension between the principles of benefit and capacity of payment. In practice, the strategy of attracting some public intervention to one’s neighborhood (even if it means paying for its costs) is more advantageous than the alternative of being neglected. This point should, nevertheless, be taken with caution, in light of certain experiences where the contribución de mejoras has been applied in low-income areas with purposes other than benefiting the occupants-for example, to justify the eviction or force the departure of those who cannot pay for the improvements (Everett 1999).
Final Considerations
In spite of the difficulties in interpretation and resistance to implementation outlined above, value capture policies are undeniably arousing new interest and growing acceptance. Efforts to utilize value capture have grown in both number and creativity, and its virtues beyond being an alternative source of public financing are becoming better understood. Public administrations are realizing the “market value” of their prerogative to control land use rights, as well as to define the location and timing of public works. They also see that the transparent negotiation of land use and density ratios reduces the margin of transactions that used to be carried out “under the table.” As the link between public intervention and land value increment is becoming more visible, attitudes are changing to be more conducive to building a fiscal culture that will strengthen property taxes and local revenues in general.
However, there is still much to be done in two spheres: researching the complex nature of value capture policies and promoting greater understanding among public officials with regard to how it can be used to benefit their communities. More knowledge is required on certain Latin American idiosyncrasies, such as when significant land value increments are generated under alternative land tenure regimes that are outside the protection of the state, and in cases where the land represents an important mechanism of capitalization for the poor.
Beyond the traditional, structural constraints of patrimonialism, corruption, hidden interests, ideological insensitivity and the like, a considerable part of the “unexplained variance” in different experiences with value capture in Latin America can be attributed to lack of information. Toward that end of improving understanding of the principles and implementation of value capture, there remain many opportunities to document and analyze current experiences with alternative land valuation and taxation instruments.
Martim Smolka is a senior fellow and the director of the Lincoln Institute’s Latin American Program, and Fernanda Furtado is a fellow of the Institute and a professor in the Postgraduate Program in Urbanism at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro.
References
Barco de Botero, Carolina, and Martim Smolka. 2000.Challenges in Implementing Colombia’s Participación en Plusvalías. Land Lines 12 (March):4-7.
Everett, Margaret. 1999. Human Rights and Evictions of the Urban Poor in Colombia. Land Lines 11 (November):6-8.
Furtado, Fernanda. 2000. Rethinking Value Capture Policies for Latin America. Land Lines 12 (May):8-10.
Nuñez, Ricardo, H. James Brown, and Martim Smolka. 2000. Using Land Value to Promote Development in Cuba. Land Lines 12 (March):1-4.
Perlo Cohen, Manuel. 1999. Mexicali: A Success Story of Property Tax Reform. Land Lines 11 (September):6-7.
SHARE
The interactions between land and property markets and the broader economy of cities and nations are central to the Lincoln Institute’s concerns. Two key objectives of our work in this area are (1) to raise awareness about the stakes of good land policy for creating well-functioning land and property markets and for improving the performance of financial markets, labor markets, the fiscal affairs of local and national governments, and ultimately the economic health of both cities and countries; and (2) to indicate the need for high quality data and an appropriate analytical framework to aid in understanding the importance of good land policy, monitoring the effects of land policies throughout the economy and facilitating policy reforms. In November 1997, the Lincoln Institute held a conference on the theme of “Land Prices, Information Systems, and the Market for Land Information” to explore these issues.
Land Values and Land Policy
How important are the stakes of good land policy? Hee-Nam Jung of the Korean Research Institute for Human Settlements reported on the importance of land markets in the economies of five countries (see Table 1). The value of land in mature economies such as Canada, France and the United States ranged from about one-third to three-quarters of GNP during the mid-1980s, and represented from 8 to 21 percent of estimated national wealth. In the more rapidly growing economies of Japan and Korea, land values were from three to six times as high as GNP in the 1980s, and represented half or more of estimated national wealth. In the mature economies these figures illustrate the importance of land as a source of wealth, but in rapidly growing economies land has an even more significant role in determining economic welfare and a host of incentives for the performance of the economy.
In Japan, for example, booming land and property values during the 1980s served as collateral to fund credit expansion throughout the economy and, indeed, throughout the world. Land prices in Japan’s six largest cities increased dramatically from 1980 to 1991, at a compound rate of about 12 percent annually (see Figure 1). By 1990, the estimated price of land being developed for residential purposes in Tokyo was estimated to be about $3,000 per square meter, compared to figures of roughly $110 in Toronto and Paris and $70 in Washington, D.C.
Between 1991 and 1996, however, Japanese land prices fell by nearly half, taking down the Japanese economy and a host of financial institutions in its wake. The cumulative losses of the Japanese banking system associated with the collapse of the property market and associated businesses are estimated around $1 trillion, making the U.S. Savings and Loan “crisis” seem comparatively insignificant. Analysis of Japanese land policy suggests some of the causes of the boom and bust cycle in land prices: policies that have severely restricted conversion of agricultural land to urban uses; an especially complex land development system that requires exceptionally long times for approvals; and a fiscal system that places little emphasis on the taxation of land and property values.
Land prices in Korea also rose at a tremendous rate during the 1980s-over 16 percent annually from 1981 to 1991. Remarkably, in most years nominal capital gains on Korean land were greater than Korea’s GNP. Jung explained that these gains had profound implications for the distribution of wealth and income in Korea, and for economic incentives. Not surprisingly, the recent collapse of Korean property markets has had tidal effects throughout the economy. As in the case of Japan, the Korean land policy framework has been seen as highly questionable. Government intervention in land and property markets over the years has been responsible for severely distorted markets that represent a major structural imbalance in the Korean economy.
Using Land Market Data for Policy Analysis
Other speakers at the conference presented information on the importance of land market performance for a variety of stakeholders throughout the economy: consumers and taxpayers; land developers and builders of residential and non-residential properties; banks and financial institutions; and both local and central governments. In the case of Cracow, Poland, Alain Bertaud from the World Bank indicated that policies embodied in master plans and zoning regulations were highly inconsistent with the nominal objectives of the regulations, and would lead to inefficient and costly spatial patterns within the city. His paper illustrated the value of having good data on land prices, regulations and the spatial distribution of the population in order to evaluate the effects of policies involving land use, infrastructure and property taxation.
Paul Cheshire from Oberlin College and Stephen Sheppard from the London School of Economics illustrated how data on land and housing prices, land and housing characteristics, and regulations can be used to evaluate the effects of government policies such as the preservation of urban open space. Jean-Paul Blandinieres of the French Ministry of Equipment, Transportation and Housing discussed an ambitious program of the French government to establish “Urban Observatories” to collect and analyze information on land and property markets and the effects of government policies.
Data Collection on Land and Property Markets
Recognition of the costs of land policy failures or, conversely, of the benefits associated with implementing good policies, has given rise to a number of systematic efforts to collect and analyze high quality data on land and property markets within various institutional settings. Pablo Trivelli discussed land and property information systems in Latin America that serve the needs of public and private stakeholders. Perhaps the most impressive of these is an effort in Brazil called EMBRAESP, which monitors key indicators of urban property market performance along with urban legislation, land regulations and major public works projects that might have an impact on the behavior of property markets. Data and analyses from EMBRAESP are of interest to many institutions throughout Brazil. The distribution of the information is self-sustaining through contracts with major newspaper chains, sales of periodic bulletins, disks containing standard data, and special reports responding to individual demands. Much of this information can also be accessed through the Internet.
Another major data collection and analysis effort was reported by David Dowall from the University of California-Berkeley. He developed the “Land Market Assessment,” a tool for analysis of land and housing markets that has been applied in over 30 developing countries and transitional economies. At comparatively modest cost, data are collected through aerial photos and satellite images, surveys of land brokers, and secondary sources on population, infrastructure and regulatory frameworks. Dowall’s analysis of the experience with these assessments documents a number of generic policy findings, especially concerning the costs of inappropriate land policies. His work also suggests that even more cost-effective versions of the tool can be developed that will illustrate the workings of land markets and beneficial policy reforms.
Romeo Sherko, David Stanfield and Malcolm Childress from the Land Tenure Center at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, addressed the issue of designing a strategy for the creation and dissemination of land information in transitional economies, where information has historically been tightly held, thus frustrating both the evolution of property markets and opportunities for policy analysis. Their conclusions regarding the role of the public and private sectors, the scope of data collection, and pricing and dissemination strategies help to explain why land market information is often not provided or is poorly provided by either the government or the private sector. On the other hand, their analysis suggests that the benefits of good land market information are considerable. Some of these benefits were illustrated by David Dale-Johnson from the University of Southern California and Jan Brzeski from Jagellonian University, Cracow, who discussed efforts to document rapidly evolving market prices of property in Cracow and to inform property tax reform efforts.
Samu Kurri, Seppo Laakso, and Heikki Loikkanen of the Finnish Government Institute of Economic Research discussed the land price information system in Finland, suggesting that it is only now beginning to catch up with the needs of many different potential users of the data. These users include those concerned with implementation of a new property tax and macro-economic and financial sector policymakers concerned with the interaction of the Finnish property market and national economic performance. Karl (Chip) Case of Wellesley College presented findings from a preliminary analysis of 100 years of land prices in Boston, which was designed, among other things, to highlight some of the methodological difficulties of measuring land prices in a way that facilitates policy analysis and reform.
Stephen K. Mayo is a senior fellow of the Lincoln Institute.
SHARE
Education, training, research, and dissemination have been the instruments used most frequently by the Lincoln Institute to achieve its goals of expanding and making available its knowledge of land policy and taxation. Recently the Institute has begun to combine these instruments in demonstration projects, which involve the application of knowledge, data collection, and expertise to the development and implementation of policy in specific circumstances.
Several ongoing projects provide expert advice and assistance to agencies that are considering new approaches to property taxation, planning, or development. Examples include the consideration of property and land tax reform in several states, the management of state-owned lands, land market monitoring, and support for new approaches to urbanization in Latin America.
Moving forward, the scope of Institute demonstration projects will expand to include the analysis of policies as they are being applied and to document their outcomes. The aim of this expansion is to improve our understanding of the effectiveness of new policy initiatives—what works and in what conditions it does so.
Whether a policy works or not is normally defined in terms of the achievement of the policy’s intended objectives. Thus, our approach would be limited to those policies that have well-defined objectives or intended outcomes. Assessing the achievement of outcomes will be based on performance indicators that measure attainment of the policy’s objectives as well as on the change in other relevant parameters.
Perhaps most important, these demonstration projects will require the collection of baseline data before policy implementation begins so that the analysis of policy effects has a valid benchmark for comparison. Many studies of the impact of policies are severely handicapped by a lack of a good baseline from which to measure change.
When a policy intervention is successful in one application, its results are sometimes readily transferable to other environments, but that is not always the case. For example, the effectiveness of property tax policies may vary with institutional factors such as the clarity of a country’s property rights regime or the independence of the assessment appeal process from political pressure. If institutional dimensions are important determinants of policy effectiveness, more than one assessment of a policy application is needed to determine the influence of those factors. The assumption that “one size fits all” is rarely true when institutional details are an important determinant of policy performance—as they often are in land policy and taxation.
Well-documented case studies of the impact of policies can be powerful instruments in the classroom and as evidence in policy debates. Policy makers and many students often find the results of rigorous case studies to be more accessible and compelling. We anticipate that the results of the Institute’s demonstration projects will contribute valuable new material to our education and research programs.
SHARE
To enhance the Lincoln Institute’s commitment to building research capacity on international land policy issues, the Program on Latin America and the Caribbean initiated an expanded effort in 2006 to support research in that region. Since then the Lincoln Institute has issued annual public requests for research proposals that set out the criteria used to evaluate the proposals and a set of priority thematic topics, normally related to land markets, local public finance, and urban development. This year’s priorities include implementation and impacts of land use regulations; land-based instruments to finance urban development; land markets; and urban form.
Most of those who submit research proposals are affiliated with academic institutions throughout Latin America. Other applicants are typically practitioners from government entities, nongovernmental organizations, and private consultancies, as well as scholars working on Latin American themes at universities outside the region. About two-thirds of the proposals submitted and funded are from researchers having no prior affiliation with our Latin America Program, which is consistent with one objective of the research program—to widen the network of those studying land policy issues in the region.
The average size of research project funding has increased over time from around $10,000 in 2006 to about $26,000 at present. Some projects that involve extensive field work to support empirically based research have received larger amounts. Over time the program has also become more competitive, with the number of applications growing from 90 in the first year to 150 currently.
The priority topics and selection criteria are designed to encourage empirical studies, and the 18-month funding cycle allows time for data collection, analysis, and preparation of a final report. Lincoln Institute staff provide technical assistance to many researchers as they finalize their research designs and carry out their work. The participants are also invited to a methods workshop at the beginning of each research project cycle to review survey instrument and sample design, multivariate statistical analysis, experimental methods, and the use of geographic information systems.
At the end of each research project cycle all participants discuss each others’ draft papers at a research seminar. Both the methods workshop and research seminar are highly valued by the researchers, and the events have been offered in Colombia, Argentina, and Costa Rica to facilitate access from different parts of the region. Other training courses offered by the Latin America Program, such as those on urban economics and land market analysis, are also often relevant for those carrying out these research projects.
Selected final research reports are posted as working papers on the Lincoln Institute Web site. Currently 33 final papers are available and another 15 are in process. Many of these papers are downloadable in both English and either Spanish or Portuguese. In addition, seven of the completed research papers have been summarized as Land Lines articles, making their results accessible to a wide audience. This April issue presents one such report on home values in Mexico, and announces the completion of a CD-ROM that compiles more than 80 Land Lines articles that have been translated into Spanish under the title Perspectivas Urbanas.
This research program complements another long-standing Latin America Program initiative that provides support for students working on dissertation and masters theses. The graduate student program is also competitive and based on open requests for proposals. In the past two years, the Lincoln Institute has taken steps to increase the coordination between these two research support initiatives, particularly by coordinating the priority topics and harmonizing the selection criteria. By supporting both emerging graduates and more experienced researchers, these initiatives are developing an extensive network of capable analysts who can advance knowledge about land policy and its consequences in Latin America.
The request for research proposals in 2010 will be posted on the Lincoln Institute’s Web site and distributed electronically by email to those in the region who have registered on our Web site. See page 28 of this Land Lines issue for additional information.
SHARE
