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

Diego Alfonso Erba es un profesor invitado del Lincoln Institute of Land Policy (Instituto Lincoln de Políticas de Suelo), con licencia de su cargo de profesor del Programa de Graduados de Geología de la Universidade do Vale do Río dos Sinos (UNISINOS) de Brasil. Se graduó de ingeniero agrimensor en la Universidad Nacional de Rosario, Argentina, y después obtuvo dos títulos de maestría en ciencias y enseñó en varias universidades de Brasil. Su experiencia profesional inicial fue en la regularización de los asentamientos informales de Santa Fe, Argentina, y encabezó el Departamento de Sistemas de Información Geológica (SIG) de una cooperativa agrícola del sur de Brasil. También obtuvo un doctorado en agrimensura de la Universidad Nacional de Catamarca, Argentina, e hizo investigaciones posdoctorales en SIG para cuerpos de agua en el Centro de Recursos Naturales de la Universidad Shiga de Otsu, Japón; y en SIG para aplicaciones urbanas en los Laboratorios Clark-IDRISI de la Universidad Clark de Worcester, Massachusetts.

Land Lines: ¿Qué es un catastro territorial?

Diego Erba: La institución del catastro territorial no existe en los Estados Unidos, por lo menos no de la misma forma que en muchos otros países del mundo. Si bien el término “catastro” tiene más de un significado, en general hay consenso de que proviene del griego catastichon, que se puede traducir como “una lista de parcelas tributarias”.

Este tipo de lista existe en los Estados Unidos, pero el perfil de las instituciones que manejan estos datos no es el mismo que en América Latina y muchos otros países europeos y africanos, donde el catastro territorial incluye datos económicos, geométricos y legales de las parcelas de tierra, además de datos sobre sus dueños u ocupantes. Las instituciones que manejan estos datos, con frecuencia también llamadas catastros territoriales, están estrechamente conectadas con los registros de títulos o los registros de propiedades, porque sus datos se complementan y garantizan el derecho a la tenencia de la tierra. Estas conexiones tradicionales reflejan la herencia catastral histórica de los sistemas legales romano y napoleónico.

Land Lines: ¿Por qué los administradores públicos urbanos necesitan saber sobre los catastros territoriales?

DE: El catastro y el registro de propiedades deberían estar conectados por razones legales − y además con fines prácticos − y hay muchos modelos que demuestran cómo los catastros podrían o deberían estar relacionados con las instituciones públicas. Desafortunadamente, en general los catastros de las distintas regiones están aislados o no están integrados, lo cual reduce mucho su utilidad potencial como herramienta para la planificación urbana y las políticas de suelo.

Por ejemplo, los asentamientos irregulares en general se construyen en áreas públicas o de protección ambiental, o incluso en parcelas privadas, y no pagan impuestos ni están inscritos en las bases de datos de los catastros territoriales. Estas áreas se representan en la cartografía catastral como “polígonos en blanco”, como si no existiera nada dentro de ellos. La paradoja es que en general se poseen datos e información cartográfica sobre estos asentamientos irregulares, pero la información se encuentra frecuentemente en instituciones que no están relacionadas con el catastro, y por lo tanto estos asentamientos no están oficialmente registrados.

Hay una percepción creciente de la importancia del catastro como sistema de información multifinalitario: que sirve no sólo a los sectores legales y financieros de una ciudad, sino también a todas las instituciones que conforman la “realidad urbana”, como las agencias de servicios públicos, las compañías de servicios públicos e incluso ciertos proveedores privados de servicios urbanos. No obstante, esta evolución hacia un concepto nuevo, y hacia sistemas de información urbana mejorados, no ha sido sencilla, y se ha topado con resistencias en los países en desarrollo.

Land Lines: ¿Por qué es tan difícil establecer y usar un catastro multifinalitario?

DE: La implementación de un catastro multifinalitario exige en general un mayor intercambio horizontal de información entre las instituciones gubernamentales. A menudo, también exige una modificación del marco legal y el establecimiento de relaciones más fluidas entre agentes públicos y privados, para poder compartir datos estandarizados y asegurar las inversiones constantes necesarias para mantener actualizadas las bases de datos y la cartografía.

Esto parece ser un proceso sencillo, pero en la práctica no lo es, porque muchos administradores todavía consideran que “esos datos son míos” y no están dispuestos a colaborar con otros. Al mismo tiempo, algunos administradores demasiado entusiastas, convencidos del valor potencial de un catastro multifinalitario, a veces se saltan etapas y pasan de un catastro tradicional a un modelo multifinalitario, sin prestar demasiada atención a la implementación efectiva de los intercambios de información.

Aun cuando operen en forma privada, los catastros territoriales se consideran como un servicio público, así que dependen del financiamiento público y de decisiones políticas para aprobar un nuevo sistema de valuación de la tierra o la cartografía. Al mismo tiempo, este tipo de servicio público no es visible y por lo tanto no es tan interesante para los políticos, que quieren demostrar sus logros por medio de proyectos más tangibles, como un puente o una escuela nueva.

La actualización de los datos catastrales afecta el valor de la tierra y consecuentemente el monto de los impuestos sobre la propiedad, un tema que no es popular con los votantes. No obstante, los administradores gubernamentales que desean mejorar el estado tributario de su jurisdicción pueden decidir al principio de su mandato que quieren actualizar el catastro para tratar de aumentar los ingresos provenientes de los impuestos sobre la propiedad. Esto tiene un impacto político significativo al comenzar su mandato, pero es posible que de allí en más no se alteren los datos del valor de la propiedad por muchos años, resultando cada vez menos precisos en comparación con su valor real de mercado. En muchas jurisdicciones latinoamericanas, la legislación impone la obligación de actualizar el catastro en forma periódica, aunque el nivel de cumplimiento no es homogéneo.

Otro error frecuente es considerar que la solución estriba en crear un sistema de información geográfica (SIG) para manejar los datos catastrales. En el caso ideal, nos gustaría ver sistemas integrados que usan bases de datos coordinadas y estandarizadas. Sin embargo, algunas municipalidades no tienen los recursos suficientes, y aquéllas que los tienen no cuentan con empleados con la preparación suficiente como para realizar la tarea. La noción de que se puede arribar a una manera única de implementar catastros no es realmente práctica en regiones donde las diferencias entre jurisdicciones son tan significativas. Yo siempre digo que el problema con las instituciones catastrales no es de recursos físicos ni de recursos de software, sino de recursos humanos. Aun cuando existan los recursos financieros, la falta de profesionales y técnicos capacitados presenta un obstáculo significativo.

Land Lines: En este contexto, ¿es posible considerar un catastro multifinalitario para América Latina?

DE: Es posible, pero el concepto es todavía nuevo y no se comprende por completo. Hay muchos buenos catastros en América Latina, por ejemplo en algunas municipalidades de Colombia y Brasil y en algunos estados de México y Argentina. En algunas jurisdicciones, la fusión de catastros territoriales con instituciones públicas y sistemas geotecnológicos genera institutos catastrales que están mejor estructurados en términos de presupuesto y personal técnico, y por lo tanto pueden identificar mejor los asentamientos ilegales y controlar el aumento del valor de la tierra usando herramientas modernas.

No obstante, desde mi punto de vista, la región aún no cuenta con un catastro multifinalitario en plena operación. Una suposición común es que la implementación de un catastro multifinalitario exige el agregado de datos sociales y ambientales a las bases de datos alfanuméricas existentes de los catastros territoriales tradicionales, para tener en cuenta los aspectos económicos, geométricos y legales de la parcela y después conectar todos los datos con un mapa de parcela en SIG. Si bien esto es muy importante, no es esencial, porque la implementación no es tanto un problema tecnológico como filosófico. La mayoría de las administraciones municipales se resisten a combinar instituciones que tradicionalmente manejan bases de datos sociales (educación y salud), del medio ambiente y territoriales (catastros) bajo el mismo techo.

Land Lines: ¿Cómo ayuda su trabajo en el Instituto Lincoln a ampliar el nivel de conocimiento sobre los catastros territoriales?

DE: He estado trabajando con el Programa para América Latina y el Caribe desde 2002, para explorar la relación entre los catastros multifinalitarios y las cuatro áreas temáticas del Programa: grandes proyectos urbanos; valuación y tributación de la tierra; asentamientos informales y programas de regularización; y recuperación de plusvalías. Es siempre un desafío adaptar los programas de estudio educativos, pero creemos firmemente que es importante compartir los conocimientos de manera amplia en cada país y preparar a los funcionarios públicos y a los técnicos con distintos niveles de experiencia. Los participantes en nuestros programas académicos, que incluyen a administradores de catastro, planificadores urbanos, abogados y emprendedores inmobiliarios, adoptan un lenguaje y una visión común de las aplicaciones catastrales urbanas, y pueden iniciar un proceso para mejorar el sistema en sus propios países.

Nuestra estrategia pedagógica para este año incluye la diseminación de conocimientos por medio de una combinación de educación a distancia y cursos tradicionales en el aula a distintos niveles. Tenemos pensado desarrollar seminarios de capacitación, seguidos de un curso de educación a distancia adaptado a aquellos países que demuestren las condiciones necesarias para concretar esta nueva visión de un catastro multifinalitario. Finalmente, organizaremos una clase regional en el aula para los mejores estudiantes a distancia en tres países vecinos.

Este plan contrasta con los múltiples programas de capacitación ofrecidos por otras instituciones internacionales, que contemplan conceptos y el uso de herramientas que pueden no ser aplicables en países con distintos marcos legales y niveles tecnológicos. Comenzaremos este ciclo con seminarios en Chile y Perú, trabajando con la Asociación Chilena de Municipalidades y el Instituto de Economía Regional y Gobierno Local en Arequipa, Perú. Éstos y otros socios en América Latina se han comprometido a difundir y aumentar la capacidad local sobre estos temas.

Otro componente de nuestra estrategia es la difusión de materiales didácticos. Más adelante en 2006, publicaremos dos libros sobre conceptos e implementación de catastros que se pueden aplicar a la mayoría de los países. Uno de los libros describe en detalle el sistema catastral de cada país latinoamericano, y el otro conceptualiza los aspectos jurídicos, económicos, geométricos, ambientales y sociales del catastro multifinalitario, realzando la relación entre el catastro territorial y las cuatro áreas temáticas del Programa para América Latina y el Caribe del Instituto Lincoln.

En 2005 produjimos un DVD, que en la actualidad se ofrece en español y portugués. Incluye un documental sobre catastros multifinalitario y algunos segmentos grabados de clases y discusiones sobre las relaciones entre el catastro multifinalitario y asuntos urbanos complejos.

Land Lines: ¿Cuál es el objetivo a largo plazo del catastro multifinalitario?

DE: Los problemas que se han señalado aquí no deberían desalentar el esfuerzo de los administradores urbanos por reorganizar sus catastros y el marco legal de sus políticas de la tierra en sus respectivos ciudades y países. Por el contrario, deberían tratar de cambiar esta realidad desarrollando nuevas leyes que demuestren el espíritu de una política del suelo moderna. Los datos sobre ciudades latinoamericanas existen, pero están fragmentados y no están estandarizados.

La mejor manera de construir un catastro multifinalitario es integrando todas las instituciones públicas y privadas que están trabajando a nivel de parcela, y desarrollando un identificador único que defina las normas para las bases de datos alfanuméricas y cartográficas. El concepto es muy simple y claro, pero su ejecución no lo es. Para alcanzar este objetivo es necesario que los administradores, técnicos y ciudadanos comprendan el potencial del catastro para mejorar las prácticas de gestión de la tierra y la calidad de vida en zonas urbanas. Muchas veces hay soluciones simples que ayudan a resolver problemas complejos como los presentados por los sistemas catastrales.

In October 2007 Peking University Provost Lin Jianhua and I signed an agreement to establish the joint Lincoln Institute of Land Policy–Peking University Center for Urban Developmentand Land Policy. Lincoln Institute and Peking University established this joint center to provide support for education, training, and research in urban economics, land policy and management, property taxation, local government finance, and urban and regional planning. The mission of the center is to study land, urban, and fiscal policies; to disseminate results from its studies and research; and to facilitate education, training, policy analysis, and research involving scholars, policy makers, and practitioners.

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.

Sustaining local communities will require mechanisms to envision and plan for the future and to engage residents in the process. Scenario planning is an increasingly effective way to address these efforts, and Western Lands and Communities, the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy’s joint venture with the Sonoran Institute, is working to advance the necessary tools.

Scenario Planning to Address Uncertainty

Land use decisions and planning efforts are critical as communities look 20 to 50 years into the future to guide policy choices and public investments that are sustainable across economic, social, and environmental dimensions. As uncertainty increases and available resources decrease, it becomes ever more important to consider the full range of emerging conditions and to strive to ensure our ability to respond to those changes, adopt policies, and pursue investments that will be resilient across a variety of potential futures.

Key areas of uncertainty include population and demographic changes, economic trends, climatic variability and change, resource costs and availability, land markets, housing preferences, housing affordability, and the fiscal health of local governments. Simultaneous with increasing uncertainty and decreasing resources, or perhaps in part because of them, decision makers face conflicting perspectives on desired futures and on the role of government in providing services and infrastructure as well as regulation and planning.

Increased polarization means that more civic engagement and an informed and supportive public are needed to ensure stable policies and adequate investments in a community’s future. Scenario planning offers a mechanism to address these needs and issues of potential uncertainty and conflict. Fortunately, as the scope and complexity of planning and the demand for broader engagement have increased, advances in computing power and public access to technology are making new and more powerful tools available.

The Lincoln Institute has a long history of supporting the development of planning tools and publishing the results (Hopkins and Zapata 2007; Campoli and MacLean 2007; Brail 2008; Kwartler and Longo 2008; Condon, Cavens, and Miller 2009). This article covers lessons learned from the use of scenario planning tools in several projects undertaken by Western Lands and Communities (WLC), as well as mechanisms to expand their application.

Superstition Vistas

Superstition Vistas is a 275-square-mile expanse of vacant state-owned trust land on the urbanizing edge of the Phoenix metropolitan area (figure 1). State trust lands such as this site in Arizona are key to future growth patterns because the state owns 60 percent of the available land in the path of development. Colorado and New Mexico to a lesser degree face similar opportunities with their state trust lands (Culp, Laurenzi, and Tuell 2006). Creative thinking about the future of Superstition Vistas began to gain momentum in 2003, and the Lincoln Institute, through the WLC joint venture, was an early proponent of these efforts (Propst 2008).

Initial WLC objectives for Superstition Vistas scenario planning included capacity building, tool development, and opportunities to catalyze a planning process. More specifically, we sought to:

• look at the land in a bold, holistic, and comprehensive manner;
• advance the Arizona State Land Department’s capacity to conduct large-scale planning and establish an example for other state land agencies facing urban growth opportunities;
• design a model sustainable development;
• advance scenario planning tools and illustrate their use;
• catalyze and inform debates about modernizing state trust land planning and development management; and
• stimulate a larger discussion about the Arizona Sun Corridor megaregion.

WLC, along with regional partnerships, neighboring jurisdictions, the regional electric and water utility, two private hospital providers, and a local mining company, formed the Superstition Vistas (SV) Steering Committee to advance the planning effort, secure funding, and hire a consulting team. The consultants, working with the committee over a three-year period, conducted extensive public outreach and values research, assembled data on Superstition Vistas, developed and refined a series of alternative land use scenarios for the development of a community of 1 million residents, evaluated the impacts of the different scenarios, and produced a composite scenario for the site.

The Arizona State Land Department (the landowner) adapted the consultants’ work to prepare a draft conceptual plan for Superstition Vistas in May 2011 and submitted a proposed comprehensive plan amendment to Pinal County. The county is now considering the proposed amendment and its Board of Supervisors is expected to act in late 2011.

Sustainability Lessons

The scenario analysis, utilizing enhancements supported by WLC, identified the most important factors in shaping development patterns and potential conflicts among desired outcomes (figure 2). The inclusion of individual building and infrastructure costs for the alternative scenarios facilitated examining the sensitivity of varying these key factors and the cost effectiveness of four increasing levels of energy and water efficiency in each building type.

The scenarios also examined the impact of urban form on vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Scenario model outputs included land use indicators, energy and water use, VMT, carbon emissions, and construction costs. This analysis revealed the “low-hanging fruit” for sustainability improvements. The consulting team, working with the Steering Committee, identified a number of lessons that illustrate the value of scenario planning tools and can be applied to other efforts to design more sustainable and efficient urban areas (Superstition Vistas Consulting Team 2011).

1. Create mixed-use centers to reduce travel times, energy use, and the carbon footprint. Mixed-use centers along public transportation routes and close to homes and neighborhoods are one of the most effective ways to reduce travel times, energy use, and the resulting carbon footprint. Smaller homes, more compact forms of urban development, and multimodal transportation systems all create similar benefits (figure 3). However, the scenario modeling for Superstition Vistas demonstrated that mixed-use centers would be substantially more important than increased density in affecting transportation choices, energy use, and the carbon footprint.

2. Foster upfront investments and high-quality jobs to catalyze economic success. A strong local economy and a diverse balance of nearby jobs, housing, and shops are critical for a sustainable community, especially when high-quality jobs are provided at the beginning of development. Significant upfront public investment and public-private partnerships can supply critical infrastructure and have an enormous impact on shaping development and increasing the value of state trust land. State owned trust land could also provide unique opportunities for patient capital, with enhanced trust land management authorities providing access to resources for upfront capital investment and the ability to recapture these investments when the land is sold or leased later at a higher value.

3. Provide multimodal transportation infrastructure and regional connections to facilitate efficient growth. Another critical step is determining how to phase transportation improvements as the region grows and the market can support increased services. Phased components may include buses first, then Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), with rights-of-way set aside for eventual commuter or light-rail corridors. Identifying and building multimodal transportation corridors and infrastructure prior to sales for residential and commercial development should establish the cohesiveness of the entire area and enable the evolution to more capital-intensive transportation infrastructure as the community matures.

4. Design efficient buildings that save water and energy resources and reduce the community’s carbon footprint. Incorporating construction costs and return on investment (ROI) data in resource planning allows for financial feasibility and cost-benefit calculations. The consulting team modeled four levels of water and energy use (baseline, good, better, best) for each scenario and building type. Results demonstrated that investments in energy efficiency would be better spent on residential than commercial and industrial buildings. An additional finding showed that building centralized renewable power generation may be a better investment than extreme conservation.

5. Offer housing choices that meet the needs of a diverse population. Ensuring a viable community means meeting the needs of all potential residents with a broad variety of development types and prices that local workers can afford and that allow for adjustments under future market conditions.

6. Incorporate flexibility to respond to changing circumstances. A challenge for large-scale master plans that will take shape in multiple phases over 50 years or more is how to plan so the development itself can evolve and even redevelop over time. Plan implementation needs to include mechanisms to limit future NIMBY (not in my back yard) problems for necessary infill and redevelopment projects.

Procedural Lessons

The visioning process for Superstition Vistas involved planning a completely new city or region of communities in a vacant area with a single public landowner and no existing population. Given the recent economic downturn, as well as the limited capacity of the state agency to bring land to market, development of this area will likely be postponed for a number of years. Despite these particular conditions, procedural lessons learned in the project to date are relevant to other long-term and large-scale efforts, and to the expanded use of scenario planning for community decision making in general.

Agreed-upon procedures and planning processes become increasingly important as the planning and development time period grows and the number of stakeholders increases. Significant changes in participants, perspectives, and external factors, such as the recent collapse of the development economy, should be expected in any long-term, multiparty project. Such challenges need to be considered and incorporated into project tasks.

1. Design for change. Long-term projects need to accommodate changes in stakeholders, decision makers, and even political perspectives during the course of planning and implementation. Projects would benefit enormously from anticipating such changes, agreeing on mechanisms to transfer knowledge to new participants, establishing certain criteria and decisions that new stakeholders would be expected to follow, understanding how to deal with political or market conditions that will change, and building resiliency for such factors into the alternative scenarios themselves.

2. Consider governance. This is an issue for planning and implementation efforts and for the political decision-making structure of a new community. In building a new city it is important to consider how to create a governance system capable of implementing a consistent, comprehensive vision for a community that does not yet exist.

3. Incorporate new community designs into local and regional comprehensive plans. It is also critical to consider how a project at the scale of Superstition Vistas, with up to 1 million residents and a buildout plan of 50 years or more, can be incorporated into the framework of a typical county comprehensive plan. Scenarios and visions must reflect ideas and plans that local jurisdictions will be politically willing and administratively able to incorporate into their planning processes.

4. Phase development. Communities need to establish mechanisms that allow the adoption of a long-term buildout vision and then incorporate a series of flexible and adaptable phased plans to implement that vision in appropriate stages.

5. Plan for market changes. Market conditions, housing preferences, and employment opportunities will evolve, and large-scale projects with creative and compelling visions may even create their own demand. No one knows what future markets may offer, so consideration of alternative markets and adaptable community designs are critical. Projected housing mixes and estimates of development absorption need to be flexible and not based only on current preferences and trends.

6. Connect to common values. Demonstrating how development proposals connect to common visions and values that are shared and stable over time is also important. For Superstition Vistas, values such as an opportunity for healthy lifestyles and choices for residents across the socioeconomic spectrum were found to be broadly accepted. Planners also need to recognize values that are more controversial or may be transient and likely to change.

Challenges and Opportunities

The WLC experience in planning for Superstition Vistas has been successful in several respects. The community came together through the Steering Committee to develop a consensus vision that represented multijurisdictional cooperation around sustainable “smart” growth. Neighboring communities, at the request of the state land commissioner, deferred any consideration of annexation. In addition, the Arizona State Land Department developed a plan for a geographic scale, time horizon, and level of comprehensiveness well beyond anything attempted previously. However, the proposed comprehensive plan amendment for Superstition Vistas is at best a first step toward a vision for a community of up to 1 million people.

The Arizona State Land Department has been unable, at least so far, to push the envelope very far on new and more creative ways to conceptualize large-scale developments that could enhance the economic value of state trust lands and improve regional urban form. The recent collapse of land and housing markets throughout the country has also impacted this project and local perceptions of future growth potential. Since the overall effort to conceptualize and implement development plans for Superstition Vistas is just beginning, initial on-the-ground development is not expected for at least a decade. There will be multiple opportunities to build on these planning efforts to bring bolder and more comprehensive visions forward as the real estate economy recovers and the land becomes ripe for development.

Scenario planning and effective visualizations become both more important and more challenging to achieve when conducting larger and longer-term visioning exercises. Visualizations that provide compelling depictions of activity centers and higher-density, mixed-use neighborhoods can help to gain public acceptance. Effective mechanisms are also needed to convey to current participants that the planning process is imagining community characteristics and housing and lifestyle preferences for their grandchildren or great-grandchildren many years in the future.

As noted earlier, upfront investments in transportation, economic development, education, and utility services can significantly shape a community, serve as a catalyst for higher-level employment, and earn high returns. To achieve this potential, mechanisms are needed to facilitate these investments, whether on private lands or state trust lands. Continued work on the contributory value of land conservation, infrastructure investment, planning, and ecosystem services, as well as the integration of this information into scenario planning, would greatly aid efforts to address uncertainty and advance community sustainability.

Other Projects and Lessons Learned

WLC conducted three additional demonstration projects to further enhance scenario planning tools and apply them in different situations.

Gallatin County, Montana

Sonoran Institute staff worked with Montana State University (MSU) to engage local stakeholders in a workshop where each of four teams produced scenarios for concentrating projected growth within the currently developed “triangle” region of Bozeman, Belgrade, and Four Corners. This effort successfully integrated Envision Tomorrow scenario planning with housing unit projections from the Sonoran Institute’s Growth Model and demonstrated the value of ROI tools as a reality check on proposed land use and building types. The project also demonstrated the value of scenario planning to local experts.

Lessons learned include recognizing that (1) for many participants working with paper maps was more intuitive that the touch screen technology we had employed; (2) additional information on land characteristics, such as soil productivity and habitat values, should be used in preparing growth scenarios; and (3) more effective techniques are needed to visualize the density and design of different land use types, as well as to incorporate political and market realities that are not typically captured with scenario planning tools.

Products from this Montana project will include the creation of a library of regionally appropriate building types for use with ROI and scenario modeling and a report examining the costs and benefits, including sustainability impacts, of directing future growth to the triangle area of Gallatin Valley. With WLC support MSU has been able to incorporate the use of scenario planning tools in its graduate program.

Garfield County, Colorado

Sonoran Institute’s Western Colorado Legacy Area office, with support from the Lincoln Institute, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and other local contributors, utilized the Envision Tomorrow tool in a new way to advance implementation of previously adopted plans calling for mixed-use infill and redevelopment in target growth areas. This project focused on stakeholder education regarding the mechanisms necessary to implement recently adopted comprehensive plans calling for town-centered development, rather than on scenario generation for a comprehensive plan.

Examination of policy and market feasibility for redevelopment in downtown Rifle, Colorado, was one of three separate efforts undertaken. The City of Rifle project successfully utilized an ROI tool to identify financial and regulatory factors that could impact revitalization efforts and engaged the key parties necessary for implementation, including property owners, developers, realtors, planning commissioners, local officials, state transportation representatives, and local staff.

Among the lessons learned from this project was the importance of grounding bold visions with market reality. For example, previous planning efforts in Rifle had focused on six-to-eight-story mixed-use buildings, but in the current market even three-to-four-story projects are not considered feasible (figure 4c). Most attention now is given to two-story mixed-use projects and townhomes. Visualizations for an underutilized parcel in the center of town illustrated the type of one-story option that may be most feasible for initial commercial development (figure 4b). Constraints related to parking requirements and high minimum lot coverage requirements were also identified as limits on investment. In addition to pinpointing changes in Rifle’s building code, these findings spurred discussion about the role of public-private partnerships in catalyzing downtown development.

Morongo Basin, California

This area of high open space and wildlife habitat values between Joshua Tree National Park and the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center in Southern California may be impacted by spillover from regional growth. This project with the Morongo Basin Open Space Group involves an innovative effort to link results from the ongoing conservation priority-setting efforts with both a GIS tool to analyze and predict how land use patterns impact wildlife habitat and the scenario planning capability of Envision Tomorrow.

We are evaluating the environmental impacts of the current and potential alternative development patterns and location-specific planning and land use options. The tools being developed for this effort will be useful to land trusts throughout the country that are interested in engaging partners on local and regional planning issues and incorporating larger landscape conservation and wildlife habitat goals into their projects.

Open Source Planning Tools

Western Lands and Communities has recently been focusing on efforts to develop open source planning tools as a mechanism to increase the use of scenario planning. Key factors that hinder their use include: (1) the cost and complexity of the tools themselves; (2) the cost and availability of data; (3) a lack of standardization, making integration of tools and data difficult; and (4) proprietary tools that may be difficult to adapt to local conditions and may impede innovation.

Proponents of open source modeling tools believe open and standardized coding will facilitate increased transparency and interoperability between models, ultimately resulting in faster innovation and greater utilization. As a result of our work with Envision Tomorrow on the Superstition Vistas project, WLC and other members of an open source planning tools group are continuing to advance scenario planning tools and pursue the promise of open source tools that can foster sustainable communities in many more locations.

About the Author

Jim Holway directs Western Lands and Communities, the Lincoln Institute’s joint venture with the Sonoran Institute, based in Phoenix, Arizona. He was previously assistant director of the Arizona Department of Water Resources and a professor of practice at Arizona State University.

References

Propst, Luther. 2008. A model for sustainable development in Arizona’s Sun Corridor. Land Lines 20(3).

Superstition Vistas Consulting Team. 2011. Superstition Vistas: Final report and strategic actions. www.superstition-vistas.org

Lincoln Institute Publications

Brail, Richard K. 2008. Planning support systems for cities and regions.

Campoli, Julie, and Alex S. MacLean. 2007. Visualizing density.

Condon, Patrick M., Duncan Cavens, and Nicole Miller. 2009. Urban planning tools for climate change mitigation.

Culp, Peter W., Andy Laurenzi, and Cynthia C. Tuell. 2006. State trust lands in the West: Fiduciary duty in a changing landscape.

Hopkins, Lewis D., and Marisa A. Zapata. 2007. Engaging the future: Forecasts, scenarios, plans, and projects.

Kwartler, Michael, and Gianni Longo. 2008. Visioning and visualization: People, pixels, and plans.

Tao Ran es profesor en la Escuela de Economía de la Universidad de Renmin en China, y director del Centro Chino de Economía y Gobierno Público de dicha universidad. También es senior fellow no residente del Instituto Brookings. Su campo de especialización se centra en la urbanización de China y en la economía política de la transición económica, la reforma del sistema de registro de suelo y hogares, y los gobiernos locales y las finanzas públicas en la zona rural de China. Sus varias investigaciones han aparecido en las revistas academicas Journal of Comparative Economics, Journal of Development Studies, Land Economics, Urban Studies, Political Studies, China Quarterly y Land Use Policy.

El Dr. Tao recibió su PhD en economía en la Universidad de Chicago en 2002. Desde hace tiempo es fellow de investigación en el Centro de Desarrollo Urbano y Política del Suelo de la Universidad de Pekín (PKU)-Instituto Lincoln, y fue previamente un fellow Shaw de investigación en economía china del Instituto de Estudios Chinos de la Universidad de Oxford. Con fondos de PKU-Instituto Lincoln y de otras agencias, como la Fundación Nacional de Ciencias de China, lideró un equipo de investigación y comenzó una encuesta amplia sobre los migrantes urbanos y agricultores desposeídos en 12 ciudades de cuatro áreas urbanizadas principales de China: el delta del río Yangtzé (provincias de Jiangsu y Zhejiang), del delta del río Perla (provincia de Guangdong), la región de Chengdu-Chongqing (provincia de Sichuan y municipalidad de Chongqing) y el área de la bahía de Bohai (provincias de Hebei y Shandong). También está trabajando en un proyecto piloto de modelos de revitalización de pueblos urbanos en la municipalidad de Shenzhen y el delta del río Perla.

Land Lines: ¿Por qué es tan importante el estudio de economía política en China y su transición para el futuro del país?

Tao Ran: Como consecuencia de un crecimiento de casi el diez por ciento en las últimas tres décadas, China se ha convertido en la estrella brillante de la economía global del siglo XXI. La gente se maravilla de la transformación exitosa de un país del tercer mundo en la base manufacturera más grande del mundo y la segunda economía global, una evolución que sacó de la pobreza a 450 millones de personas. Sin embargo, a medida que China crece, enfrenta una brecha cada vez mayor de desigualdad de ingresos, corrupción y contaminación graves, e injusticia social que ha dejado a cientos de millones de migrantes temporales sin acceso a servicios públicos aceptables, y decenas de millones de agricultores desposeídos y mal pagados en transición a una economía urbana industrializada.

Mi investigación explora las fuentes institucionales del crecimiento rápido de China en las últimas décadas, así como las implicaciones, tanto negativas como positivas, de China —una autocracia efectiva y orientada al crecimiento, con grandes inversiones en infraestructura e industrias, exportaciones masivas de bienes manufacturados y políticas selectivas de intervención gubernamental e industrial— como un modelo alternativo para el mundo en vías de desarrollo. Creo que es esencial poder predecir lo que va a ocurrir en China en un futuro cercano, porque tendrá consecuencias importantes para el mundo en vías de desarrollo.

Land Lines: ¿Por qué cree que es importante estudiar el registro de suelo y hogares? ¿Qué nos dicen estos estudios sobre el estado actual de la estructura socioeconómica de China?

Tao Ran: China se encuentra inmersa en una revolución urbana, con un volumen masivo de migración del campo a la ciudad cada año de las últimas tres décadas. Alrededor de 200 millones de migrantes rurales están trabajando y viviendo en ciudades chinas. No obstante, bajo el persistente sistema hukou (registro de hogares), una mayoría de migrantes que están registrados en su lugar de origen se consideran “foráneos” o “población temporal” en sus nuevas ciudades de residencia. No tienen acceso a beneficios de asistencia social, viviendas públicas subsidiadas o escuelas públicas urbanas.

Sus dificultades se agravan por los patrones altamente distorsionados del uso del suelo. Normalmente, cuando los países se urbanizan, menos del 20 por ciento de los suelos de utilización nueva se usan para manufactura, dejando la mayoría del territorio para viviendas de la población migrante. Bajo el sistema actual de requisa y arriendo de suelo en China, los gobiernos locales arriendan todos los años alrededor del 40 por ciento de los suelos de utilización nueva para construir parques industriales, dejando sólo entre el 30 y 40 por ciento del área para fines residenciales.

Los sistemas vigentes del uso del suelo y del registro de hogares en China contribuyen asimismo a generar varias estructuras socioeconómicas duales. Además de la dicotomía sobradamente conocida ciudad-campo, también hay una estructura dual de residentes urbanos permanentes versus migrantes. Otra dualidad separa a los propietarios de los inquilinos urbanos, que han acumulado mucha menos riqueza. Como un 90 por ciento de los propietarios son residentes permanentes, y el 95 por ciento de los inquilinos son migrantes, estas estructuras duales crean una sociedad muy dividida.

Land Lines: ¿Qué problemas del uso del suelo enfrentará China en las próximas décadas?

Tao Ran: Muchas ciudades han construido parques industriales, o “fábricas estilo jardín”, que hacen un uso muy ineficiente del suelo. Las empresas industriales arriendan suelo a un precio extremadamente bajo y usan sólo una parte del mismo, dejando otras áreas sin desarrollar o asignadas para proyectos verdes a gran escala. Los gobiernos locales ofrecen poco suelo residencial y comercial, para poder maximizar sus ganancias, lo que produce mercados de suelo comercial/residencial con poca oferta, generando burbujas de precios en el sector inmobiliario. El rápido aumento de los precios de las viviendas urbanas y la formación de burbujas inmobiliarias a lo largo de la última década ha hecho imposible para la vasta mayoría de las poblaciones rurales migrantes poder acceder al inventario de viviendas en las ciudades. De hecho, incluso las personas que ingresan en la fuerza laboral con títulos universitarios descubren que actualmente los precios de las viviendas están fuera de su alcance. Claramente, el acceso económico a la vivienda se ha convertido en el principal desafío que hoy día enfrenta China.

Las consecuencias de la crisis financiera mundial de 2008 tuvieron un enorme impacto en China. El paquete de estímulo fiscal y financiero implementado por el gobierno central benefició principalmente a los gobiernos locales, que continuaron invirtiendo en todavía más parques industriales. Por lo tanto, la economía china ha experimentado un exceso de capacidad en infraestructura industrial y bienes de manufactura, como también burbujas más grandes en los precios de las viviendas en todos los niveles urbanos. Esta trayectoria es menos sustentable aún si se considera que China ya tiene un exceso de capacidad manufacturera y ha sufrido burbujas inmobiliarias antes de 2008. Dada la prác-tica éticamente dudosa de pedir dinero prestado a bancos del estado, y la ilusión fiscal de que la burbuja inmobiliaria continuará para siempre, las deudas de los gobiernos locales han llegado al nivel sin precedentes de 10 billones de RMB, la mitad de los cuales se acumuló después de 2009. Si no se reforman los sistemas de gobierno del suelo, el registro hukou y el financiamiento público local, la economía china se desacelerará de forma muy significativa. En el peor de los casos, la burbuja inmobiliaria explotará, lo que causará una crisis financiera y económica a gran escala.

Land Lines: ¿Cuáles son algunas de las consecuencias políticas de su investigación sobre gobiernos locales y finanzas públicas en las zonas rurales de China?

Tao Ran: China tiene que reformar sus sistemas de registro de suelo y hogares, para que los migrantes puedan acceder a viviendas económicas y servicios aceptables de educación pública en las ciudades. El suelo ha jugado un papel preponderante en el modelo de crecimiento de China en los últimos 15 años, pero también es responsable de los problemas económicos actuales. Desde mi punto de vista, un paquete de reformas centrado en el suelo y la urbanización es la mejor opción para crear un equilibrio entre las tasas de importación y exportación del país, para generar una enorme demanda interna y aliviar al mismo tiempo el problema de exceso de capacidad que aflige a muchas industrias chinas.

Yo propongo una estrategia gradual, que apunte a construir un sistema dual más equitativo. Bajo el sistema de regulación del suelo actual, la propiedad del suelo se divide entre urbana y rural; y mientras que los gobiernos urbanos tienen la autoridad para asignar áreas rurales para desarrollo urbano, los gobiernos rurales no tienen los derechos recíprocos. Esta discriminación ha privado a los residentes rurales de sus derechos de desarrollo inmobiliario, y ha llevado a la economía china por una trayectoria destructiva.

Una liberalización total, sin embargo, puede hacer explotar las burbujas inmobiliarias existentes, al ofrecer al mercado un gran volumen de suelo rural. Para reducir esta preocupación por parte de los gobiernos locales y de los propietarios de viviendas urbanas, es posible que China tenga que crear un mercado de propiedades en alquiler para los 200 millones de migrantes rurales que ya viven y trabajan en las ciudades. La mitad de ellos vive actualmente en dormitorios provistos por sus empleadores, y la otra mitad reside en viviendas construidas ilegalmente en pueblos urbanos sin buena infraestructura o acceso a servicios públicos, como educación para los hijos de los migrantes. Propongo una reforma que permitiría a las comunidades rurales en pueblos suburbanos de las ciudades que reciben a los migrantes que conviertan su suelo no agrícola en un mercado de vivienda urbano, bajo una condición: En los primeros 10 a 15 años, sólo podrían construir propiedades para ofrecer en régimen de alquiler. Después del período de transición, estas viviendas obtendrían derechos plenos y se podrían vender directamente en el mercado inmobiliario.

Land Lines: ¿Cuáles son las ventajas de este diseño?

Tao Ran: Al confinar inicialmente el suelo rural desarrollable al mercado de alquiler, se crea un colchón para el mercado inmobiliario existente y se evitan los pánicos bursátiles y que explote la burbuja inmobiliaria. La fusión posterior de estos dos mercados, sin embargo, enviaría a los especuladores una señal confiable de que los precios de las viviendas residenciales no crecerán más, y el gobierno central podría ir eliminando las regulaciones estrictas sobre el mercado inmobiliario impuestas desde 2010 para controlar la burbuja inmobiliaria. Este paquete de reformas contribuiría a un crecimiento saludable del mercado de vivienda. Más aún, el otorgamiento de derechos de desarrollo inmobiliario a las comunidades rurales –si bien restringidos durante el período de transición– abriría un canal legal para solicitar préstamos para el desarrollo inmobiliario.

Esta oportunidad generaría un auge en la construcción de viviendas en pueblos urbanos y áreas suburbanas, y estimularía la industria de la construcción, que tiene un exceso importante de capacidad. A diferencia de la burbuja de vivienda actual, este tipo de desarrollo inmobiliario es más beneficioso socialmente y económicamente sustentable. Los residentes rurales, particularmente aquellos que viven cerca de los centros urbanos, se beneficiarían directamente. Este crecimiento en el mercado de propiedades de alquiler también proporcionará viviendas asequibles para cientos de millones de trabajadores migrantes, lo que les permitiría que se asentaran en las ciudades de forma permanente. La urbanización tiene el potencial de distanciar la economía china del modelo impulsado por inversión.

Land Lines: ¿Cuál es la clave para el éxito de esta reforma?

Tao Ran: La actitud de los gobiernos locales es fundamental. Su preocupación sobre cómo generar ingresos es perfectamente legítima, y el paquete de reformas tiene que resolverla. Bajo el sistema actual, los gobiernos locales tienen demasiadas gastos, y no cuentan con ingresos adecuadas. Después de la reforma, tendrían un poder limitado de requisa de suelo, y se desharían de la gran cantidad de aranceles por arriendo de suelo y préstamos bancarios asociados con dicho poder. A largo plazo, las municipalidades deberían recaudar impuestos sobre la propiedad para generar una fuente estable de ingresos para el financiamiento público local. Dada la fuerte resistencia de los residentes adinerados y políticamente poderosos de las ciudades que han introducido programas piloto de impuestos sobre la propiedad, no es práctico esperar que este nuevo impuesto entre en vigor en poco tiempo.

Creo que otra fuente no explotada por los gobiernos locales es el suelo industrial subutilizado. De acuerdo con varios informes, el coeficiente de edificabilidad en los parques industriales es sólo de 0,3 a 0,4, aun en áreas desarrolladas de China. Si se negocia una reorganización, es posible duplicar el desarrollo del suelo y convertir parte del suelo industrial para uso residencial y comercial. Nuestras estimaciones muestran que los gobiernos locales saldrían beneficiados al renunciar a la potestad de requisa del suelo, y podrían usar estos ingresos para pagar deudas y evitar una crisis financiera.

En la etapa actual de desarrollo, ninguna reforma de la economía china será fácil. Nadie se debería hacer ilusiones sobre una solución rápida. Pero el paquete de reformas de mercado dual propuesto brinda una esperanza de alentar el consumo interno y aliviar el problema de exceso de capacidad en muchos sectores. Un factor particularmente favorable para esta reforma es el énfasis que ha puesto el nuevo gobierno en la urbanización. El primer ministro Li Keniana ha invertido muchos años en este tema y parece tener un interés genuino en lograr soluciones. Esta propuesta puede proporcionar una hoja de ruta realista para dichas reformas.

Land Lines: ¿Qué lecciones puede darnos China?

Tao Ran: El modelo chino genera crecimiento de forma efectiva. También produce varias consecuencias negativas, como el endeudamiento excesivo por el uso del suelo, los conflictos sociales debido a la requisa de suelo, daños medioambientales y burbujas inmobiliarias que suponen una carga para la población urbana. La lección china es que el gobierno es esencial para que un país crezca, pero ese mismo gobierno puede exagerar las cosas y, a largo plazo, generar distorsiones que dañan en última instancia la sostenibilidad de la economía y la sociedad.

Universal high-speed Internet access is a popular dream these days—everyone from the president to Google, Inc., has embraced it. And the tech press is full of testy critiques wondering why typical broadband speeds in the United States lag so far behind those in, say, South Korea.

Just five years ago, this wasn’t such a hot topic. Back then, the discussion—and action—wasn’t led by the federal government or the private sector. The first movers were a number of diverse but forward-thinking municipalities: cities and towns like Chattanooga, Tennessee; Lafayette, Louisiana; Sandy, Oregon; and Opelika, Alabama.

Motives and solutions varied, of course. But as high-speed connectivity is becoming recognized as crucial civic infrastructure, Chattanooga makes for a useful case study. Its journey to self-proclaimed “Gig City” status—referring to the availability of Internet connections with 1 gigabit-per-second data transfer speeds, up to 200 times faster than typical broadband speed for many Americans—started with visionary municipal initiative, built upon via thoughtful private and public coordination. Most recently, this effort has even begun to show tangible effects on city planning and development, particularly in the form of an in-progress reimagining of a long-sleepy downtown core. In short, Chattanooga is starting to answer a vital question: once a city has world-class Internet access, what do you actually do with it?

The story begins more than a decade ago, when Chattanooga’s city-owned electric utility, EPB, was planning a major upgrade to its power grid. Its CEO, Harold Depriest, argued for a plan that involved deploying fiber-optic cable that could also be used for Internet access. After clearing local regulatory hurdles, the new system was built out by 2010, and every EPB power customer in the Chattanooga area—meaning pretty much every home or business—had gigabit access. But you had to pay for it, just like electricity. And the early pricing for the fastest access was about $350 a month.

“They had very, very few takers,” recalls Ken Hays, president of The Enterprise Center, a nonprofit that since 2014 has focused, at the behest of local elected officials, on strategizing around what Chattanoogans call “the gig.” The head of Lamp Post Group, a successful local tech-focused venture firm, made a point of signing up immediately, Hays continues. But on a citywide level, “we didn’t have the excitement” that talk of gig-level access generates today. And in 2010, he adds, “there weren’t many good case studies out there.”

But broader change was afoot. The announcement of Google Fiber—the Internet search giant’s foray into building out high-speed online infrastructure—sparked new interest. And in 2013, Jenny Toomey, a Ford Foundation director focused on Internet rights, helped organize a summit of sorts where officials from municipalities like Chattanooga, Lafayette, and elsewhere could meet and compare notes. “It was still pretty nascent at the time,” recalls Lincoln Institute President and CEO George W. McCarthy, an economist who was then director of metropolitan opportunity at the Ford Foundation. But that summit, he continues, helped spark new conversations about how such initiatives can make cities more competitive and more equitable, and less reliant on the purely private-sector solutions we often assume are more efficient than government. “And over the course of two years since, this issue has just exploded,” he says.

In fact, that summit turned out to be the rare event that actually spawned a new organization: Next Century Cities, founded in 2014, now has more than 100 member municipalities. They share best practices around an agenda that treats high-speed Internet access as a fundamental, nonpartisan infrastructure issue that communities can and should control and shape.

Against this backdrop, Chattanooga was taking steps to demonstrate how “the gig” could be leveraged. The Lamp Post Group had moved into downtown space, and superlative Internet access was just a starting point for the young, tech-savvy workers and entrepreneurs it wanted to attract. “If we don’t have housing, if we don’t have open space, if we don’t have cool coffee shops—they’re going to go to cities that have all that,” says Kim White, president and CEO of nonprofit development organization River City Company.

Starting in 2013, a city-center plan and market study conducted by River City proposed strategies to enhance walkability, bikeability, green space, and—especially—housing options. More than 600 people participated in the subsequent planning process, which ultimately targeted 22 buildings for revitalization (or demolition). Today, half of those are being redeveloped, says White, and more than $400 million has been invested downtown; in the next year and a half, 1,500 apartments will be added to the downtown market, plus new student housing and hotel beds. The city has provided tax incentives, some of which are designed to keep a certain percentage of the new housing stock affordable. The city has also invested $2.8 million in a downtown park that’s a “key” part of the plan, White continues, to “have areas where people can come together and enjoy public space.” One of the apartment projects, the Tomorrow Building, will offer “micro-units” and a street-level restaurant. “I don’t think we would have attracted these kinds of businesses and younger people coming to look,” without the gig/tech spark, White concludes. “It put us on the map.”

The gig was also the inspiration for a city-backed initiative identifying core development strategies that led to the Enterprise Center pushing a downtown “innovation district,” says Hays. Its centerpiece involves making over a 10-story office building into The Edney Innovation Center, featuring co-working spaces as well as the headquarters of local business incubator CO.LAB. The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga has a project involving a 3D printer lab in the Innovation District, and even the downtown branch of the Chattanooga Public Library has been made over to include a tech-centric education space.

EPB, whose original fiber-optic vision set the Gig City idea in motion, has long since figured out more workable pricing schemes—gig access now starts at about $70 a month—and drawn more than 70,000 customers. More recently, it has also offered qualified low-income residents 100-megabit access, which is still much faster than most broadband in the U.S., for $27 a month. And its efforts to expand into underserved areas adjacent to Chattanooga have become an important component of broader efforts to challenge regulations in many states, from Texas to Minnesota to Washington, that effectively restrict municipalities from building their own high-speed access solutions.

In short, a lot has changed—in Chattanooga and in other cities and towns that have pushed for Internet infrastructure that the private sector wasn’t providing. “Most of this work right now is happening at the local level,” says Deb Socia, who heads Next Century Cities. “It’s mayors and city managers and CIOs taking the steps to figure out what their city needs.” The implications for crucial civic issues from education to health care to security are still playing out. And precisely because the thinking and planning is happening on a municipal level, it won’t be driven solely by market considerations that favor what’s profitable instead of what’s possible. “The beauty of it is,” McCarthy summarizes, “it’s a both/and argument.”

Rob Walker (robwalker.net) is a contributor to Design Observer and The New York Times.

The largest of the post-World War II suburbs were the size of cities, with populations between 50,000 and 80,000, but they looked like overgrown subdivisions. In Levittown, Lakewood and Park Forest, model houses on curving streets held families similar in age, race and income whose suburban lifestyles were reflected in the nationally popular television sitcoms of the 1950s. The planning of these suburbs was often presented in the popular press as hasty, driven by the need to house war heroes returned from the Battle of the Bulge or Bataan; any problems could be excused by the rush. But, haste was not the case. Political lobbying during the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s shaped postwar housing and urban design. The postwar suburbs were constructed at great speed, but that is a different part of their story.

Postwar suburbs represented the deliberate intervention of the federal government into the financing of single-family housing across the nation. For the first time, the federal government provided massive aid directed to developers (whose loans were insured by the Federal Housing Administration, FHA) and white male homeowners (who could get Veterans’ Administration guarantees for mortgages at four percent, with little or nothing down, and then deduct their mortgage interest payments from their taxable income for 30 years). The federal government came to this policy after fierce debates involving architects, planners, politicians, and business and real estate interests.

Herbert Hoover, as secretary of commerce (1921-1928) and then as president (1929-1933), drew the federal government toward housing policy to promote home building as a business strategy for economic recovery from the Depression. Working closely with the National Association of Real Estate Boards (NAREB), Hoover’s Commerce Department had established a Division of Building and Housing in 1921, and went on to establish and support Better Homes in America, Inc. By 1930, this coalition had over 7,000 local chapters composed of bankers, real estate brokers, builders, and manufacturers who lobbied for government support for private development of small homes to boost consumption.

In 1931, Hoover ran a National Conference on Homebuilding and Home Ownership that explored federal investment, discussing not only financing and construction of houses, but also building codes, zoning codes, subdivision layout, and the location of industry and commerce. President Franklin D. Roosevelt followed Hoover and launched numerous New Deal programs in planning and housing. The National Housing Act created the FHA in 1934; the Resettlement Administration, created by Executive Order in 1935, sponsored the Greenbelt Towns; the U.S. Housing Act (Wagner Act) created the U.S. Housing Authority to sponsor public housing in 1937. Which of these programs would be the most influential?

The RPAA and the Labor Housing Conference

Housing activists such as Catherine Bauer and Edith Elmer Wood were members of the Regional Planning Association of America (RPAA), along with planners Lewis Mumford, Clarence Stein, and Benton MacKaye. They advocated federal support for public housing through the Wagner Act. Bauer, an architectural critic and author of Modern Housing, was also executive secretary of the Labor Housing Conference, which campaigned for the design of multi-family housing with child care centers and recreational amenities. Projects such as the Hosiery Workers Housing in Philadelphia and the Harlem River Houses for African Americans in New York, designed by teams of noted architects in the 1930s, demonstrated the excellence possible for multi-family urban projects. Nevertheless, conservative Republicans refused to vote for the Wagner Act in 1935 and 1936, passing it in 1937 with severe cost restrictions, means testing for tenants, and slum clearance provisions to protect private landlords. These provisions meant that design would be minimal and residents would be poor. The Labor Housing Conference members bemoaned the final result as the “Anti-Housing Act.”

The Realtors’ Washington Committee

Many of NAREB’s members, large-scale land subdividers of the 1920s, were originally real estate brokerage firms, not homebuilders. (They left the home building to small contractors or mail order house companies.) By the 1930s, many of these subdividers realized they could enhance profits by erecting houses on some of their lots to enhance the image of community and stability they were selling. They renamed themselves “community builders.” Herbert U. Nelson, NAREB’s chief lobbyist, became executive director of the Realtors’ Washington Committee, which lobbied hard for the FHA, so that federal sources of capital and guarantees of mortgages would provide a safety net for the subdividers’ building operations. Both the Urban Land Institute (ULI) and the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) formed in the early 1940s as spin-offs from NAREB.

Beginning in 1934, the FHA insured bank loans to developers so they could purchase land, subdivide it, and construct houses on it with very little of their own capital involved. These loans of 80 or 90 percent of project cost eliminated risk and were made long before the developers had buyers. In return, the developers had to agree to submit site plans and housing plans for review by the FHA, which issued booklets offering conservative advice about architecture and site design. Meant to correct the worst abuses of corrupt builders, these manuals on small houses and on “planning profitable neighborhoods” rejected regional styles, scorned modern architecture and, according to architect Keller Easterling, instituted mediocre “subdivision products.” Kenneth Jackson has documented that the FHA’s concern for resale value also led it to refuse loans for racially mixed neighborhoods. Only all-white subdivisions, enforced by deed restrictions, would qualify.

The Realtors’ Washington Committee supported the FHA. It also lobbied against federal government funding for any other approaches to housing, including complete towns planned by the Resettlement Administration, wartime housing for workers constructed by the government that might provide competition for private efforts, and public housing in the cities. Allied with NAREB were the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the U.S. League of Savings and Loans, the National Retail Lumber Dealers Association, and others.

Housing Hearings of 1947-1948

After the war ended, demand for housing was intense. People were doubled up with relatives, friends and strangers. Veterans lived in converted chicken coops and camped out in cars. The need for shelter was only expected to grow as waves of demobilized veterans, wartime savings at the ready, married and formed new households.

Although they were deeply disappointed by some aspects of the 1937 housing legislation, Catherine Bauer and other advocates of multi-family housing in urban residential neighborhoods did not retreat. They campaigned for expanded public housing through better legislation in the form of the bipartisan Taft Ellender Wagner housing bill first introduced in 1945 and supported by such groups as the AFL, the CIO and the Conference of Mayors.

These advocates found themselves in a shouting match with NAREB lobbyists who were busy discrediting public construction of shelter as “un-American” and promoting government subsidies for private housing development. Historians Rosalyn Baxandall and Elizabeth Ewen, in their book Picture Windows, document the hearings on housing dominated by Senator Joseph McCarthy in 1947 and 1948. McCarthy hassled proponents of public housing and planned towns. Attacking one federally funded multi-family project for veterans, he claimed the government had paid for “a breeding ground for communists.” NAREB’s Herbert U. Nelson also believed public housing was communistic, whereas public support for private businesses was fine. He argued that “public credit can properly be used to help sustain home ownership and private enterprise,” and he railed against the women housing activists trying to promote affordable housing for workers. McCarthy’s committee also attacked building workers in the AFL’s traditional craft unions as incompetents who produced “slack” work and would impede the postwar housing process.

McCarthy found in developer William Levitt an ally who testified that only federal aid to large private builders, coupled with abolition of zoning codes, building codes and union restrictions, could solve the postwar housing shortage. Levitt and Sons, of Long Island, became the nation’s largest home building firm by 1952, creating its first postwar suburb of over 70,000 inexpensive houses on small lots. Levitt followed FHA restrictions on race, refusing to sell to African Americans, so Levittown became the largest all-white community in the nation. There was never an overall town plan for Levittown, which spanned two existing Long Island towns, Hempstead and Oyster Bay, in Nassau County. Levitt and Sons provided no sewers, relying instead on individual septic tanks, and built residential streets that failed to connect with county and state highways. The project was all about selling houses, not about the basics of sheltering tens of thousands of people according to professional standards of housing or urban design.

By October 1952, Fortune magazine gushed over “The Most House for the Money” and praised “Levitt’s Progress,” publishing his complaints about government interference through too-strict FHA and VA inspections and standards. With a straight face, and despite receiving hundreds of millions of dollars of FHA financing, Levitt said, “Utopia in this business would be to get rid of the government, except in its proper function of an insurance agency.”

Meanwhile, Catherine Bauer and her allies faced the same kind of opposition they had confronted on the earlier housing bill. The 1949 Housing Act did not meet their expectations, and its provisions for demolition began the neighborhood destruction pattern that would later become “urban renewal.” With each succeeding year, fewer units of new public housing construction were authorized.

The Two-Tier Legacy

In Modern Housing in America, historian Gail Radford defines the 1930s and 1940s as the time when Americans developed a “two-tier” policy to subsidize housing. Cramped multi-family housing for the poor would be constructed by public authorities, while more generous single-family housing for white, male-headed families would be constructed by private developers with government support. This policy disadvantaged women and people of color, as well as the elderly and people of low incomes. It also had profound implications for urban design. Inadequate financial resources hampered multi-family housing complexes, while material resources were wasted in single-family housing production without proper urban planning. Worst of all, federal policy mystified many working-class and middle-class Americans, who saw minimal visible subsidies helping the poor but never understood that their own housing was being subsidized in a far more generous way through income-tax deductions that grew with the size of their mortgages.

Despite the greater scope for urban public amenities suggested by New Deal legislation enabling federal involvement in town building and public housing, it was the FHA’s mortgage insurance for private subdivisions that proved to have the greatest long-term effect on American urbanization patterns. As real estate historian Marc A. Weiss has stated: “This new federal agency, run to a large extent both by and for bankers, builders, and brokers, exercised great political power in pressuring local planners and government officials to conform to its requirements.” Between 1934 and 1940, Weiss concludes that “FHA had fully established the land planning and development process and pattern that a decade later captured media attention as ‘postwar suburbanization.'” Barry Checkoway notes that accounts of subdivisions “exploding” often attributed their growth to consumer choice, but in fact consumers had little choice. The well-designed urban multi-family projects Bauer and others had envisioned were not available as alternatives to the large subdivisions of inexpensive houses constructed by the big builders who now controlled the housing market.

The distrust and anger generated by the two-tier housing solution endure today. Public policy has separated affluent and poor, white and black, male-headed households and female-headed households, young families and the elderly. Advocates of affordable housing and urban amenities often see white suburbs and their residents as the enemy, while many affluent white suburban homeowners and successful builders don’t want to deal with city problems. The two-tier solution also dampened idealism in the planning and design professions. Architects lost the chance to build large amounts of affordable multi-family housing with sophisticated designs. Regional planners lost the chance to direct the location and site design of massive postwar construction. Sixty years later, metropolitan regions are still shaped by the outcome of these old debates.

Dolores Hayden is professor of architecture, urbanism and American studies at Yale University. With support from the Lincoln Institute, she is working on a new history of American suburbia, Model Houses for the Millions: Making the American Suburban Landscape, 1820-2000.

Her new working paper, Model Houses for the Millions: Making the American Suburban Landscape, 1820-2000, is currently available from the Lincoln Institute.

References

Catherine Bauer. 1934. Modern Housing. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Rosalyn Baxandall and Elizabeth Ewen. 2000. Picture Windows: How the Suburbs Happened. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Barry Checkoway. 1986. “Large Builders, Federal Housing Programs, and Postwar Suburbanization,” in Rachel G. Bratt, Chester Hartman, and Ann Meyerson, Critical Perspectives on Housing. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. 119-138.

Keller Easterling. 1999. Organization Space. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Dolores Hayden. 1984. Redesigning the American Dream: The Future of Housing, Work, and Family Life. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.

Kenneth T. Jackson. 1985. Crabgrass Frontier. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Gail Radford. 1996. Modern Housing in America: Policy Struggles in the New Deal Era. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Marc A. Weiss. 1987. The Rise of the Community Builders: The American Real Estate Industry and Urban Land Use Planning. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Vacant land and its integration into the urban land market are topics rarely investigated in Latin America. The existing literature tends to focus only on descriptive aspects (i.e., number and size of lots). In the current context of profound economic and social transformations and changing supply and demand patterns of land in cities, the perception of vacant land is beginning to change from being a problem to offering an opportunity.

A comparative study of vacant land in six Latin American cities (Buenos Aires, Argentina; Lima, Peru; Quito, Ecuador; Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; San Salvador, El Salvador; and Santiago, Chile) was recently completed as part of an ongoing Lincoln Institute-sponsored research project. The participating researchers examined different categories of vacant land, the problems they generate and their potential uses, as well as the changing roles of both private and public agents, including governments, in the management of vacant land. They concluded that vacant land is an integral element of the complex land markets in these cities, affecting fiscal policies on land and housing. Thus, vacant land has great potential for large-scale developments that could result in improved conditions for urban areas, as well as reduced social polarization and greater equity for their populations.

The six cities in the study vary in size but share the common attributes of rapid population growth and territorial expansion. They also have comparable social indicators (high rates of poverty, unemployment and underemployment), significant deficits in housing and provision of services, and high levels of geographical social stratification and segregation. The land markets in each of the cities also have similar characteristics, although they exhibit their own dynamics in each sub-market.

Characteristics of Vacant Land

The four primary characteristics of vacant land considered in this research project are ownership, quantity, location and length of vacancy. In general, vacant land in Latin America is held by one or more of the following agents, each with their respective policies: real estate developers or sub-dividers (both legal and illegal); low-income people who have acquired land, but cannot afford to develop it; real estate speculators; farmers; state enterprises; and other institutions such as the church, the military, social security, etc.

Determining how much vacant land exists in each city depends on the definition given to the term in the respective country . Quantifying vacant land is further complicated by the numerous obstacles that exist to obtaining accurate information, thus limiting the possibility of comparing data and percentages across metropolitan areas. Finally, in several of these cities (San Salvador, Santiago and Buenos Aires) there are significant “latent” vacant areas. These are unused or marginally used buildings, often previously occupied by former state-owned companies, waiting for new investments in order to be demolished or redeveloped.

In these six cities, the percentage of vacant land ranges from under 5 percent in San Salvador to nearly 44 percent in Rio de Janeiro. If all of San Salvador’s “latent” vacant areas were included, the percentage of vacant land could increase to 40 percent of the total metropolitan area. On the whole, vacant land in the cities accounts for a significant percentage of serviced areas that could potentially house considerable numbers of people who currently have no access to serviced urban land.

The location of vacant land is relatively uniform throughout the region. Whereas in the United States vacant land tends to be centrally located (such as abandoned areas or industrial brownfield sites), in Latin America the majority of vacant sites lie in the outskirts of the cities. These areas are frequently associated with speculation and retention strategies for occupation based on the provision of services. In contrast, the length of time land has been vacant differs considerably: in Lima and Quito, vacant urban lots are relatively “new,” whereas in Buenos Aires some urban lots have remained vacant for several decades.

Policy Issues and Development Potential

An evaluation of the urban-environmental conditions of vacant land concludes that a significant number of sites could tolerate residential or productive activities. These areas currently constitute an underutilized resource and should be considered for investments in urban infrastructure to improve land use efficiency. An equally significant segment, however, has important risk factors: inadequate basic infrastructure; water polluted by industrial waste; risk of flood, erosion or earthquake; and poor accessibility. Such land is inappropriate for occupation unless significant investments are made to safeguard against these environmental problems. Some land in this category could have great potential for environmental protection, although consciousness about land conservation remains a low priority in Latin America.

The study asserts that, in general, the urban poor have little access to vacant land due to high land values, despite the fact that values do vary according to sub-market. Prices are high in areas of dynamic urban expansion that offer better accessibility and services. A large amount of vacant land in several of the cities studied is not on the market and will likely remain vacant for an indefinite period of time. It is in these areas, the researchers contend, that policies should be implemented to reduce the price of serviced vacant land to make it more accessible to the poor.

The majority of Latin American cities have no explicit policies or legal framework regarding vacant land. In those cities where some legislation does exist, such as Rio de Janeiro, it is basically limited to recommendations and lacks real initiatives. In Santiago, recent legislation has promoted increased density in urban areas, yet it is too soon to know the implications of these measures. References to the environment are also generally lacking in “urban” legislation. Vacant land could play an important role in urban sustainability. However, reaching this potential would depend on better articulation between environmental and planning actions, especially at the local level.

Another characteristic common to the areas studied, with the exception of Santiago, is that urban development policy and specific land market policies have been disconnected from tax policy. Even in those cities where there is a distinction in taxation on vacant versus built land-such as Buenos Aires or Quito-it has not translated into any real changes. Sanctions and higher taxes on vacant areas have largely been avoided through a series of loopholes and “exceptions.”

Proposals and Criteria for Implementation

Arguing for an increased government role in land markets in combination with institution-building and capacity-building among other involved actors, the study formulates a number of proposals for the use and reuse of vacant land in Latin America. An overriding proposal is that vacant land should be incorporated into the city’s overall policy framework, taking into account the diversity of vacant land situations. Land use policies to increase the number of green areas, build low-income housing and provide needed infrastructure should be implemented as part of a framework of urban planning objectives. Furthermore, vacant land should be used to promote “urban rationality” by stimulating the occupation of vacant lots in areas with existing infrastructure and repressing urban growth in areas without appropriate infrastructure.

Urban policy objectives on vacant land should also be pursued through tax policy. Some suggestions formulated in this regard are the broadening of the tax base and tax instruments; incorporating mechanisms for value capture in urban public investment; application of a progressive property tax policy (to discourage land retention by high-income owners); and greater flexibility in the municipal tax apparatus.

These policies should be linked to other mechanisms designed to deter the expansion of vacant land and the dynamic of geographical social stratification and segregation. Such related mechanisms might include the granting of low-interest credits or subsidies for the purchase of building materials; technical assistance for construction of housing; provision of infrastructure networks to reduce costs; and credits or grace periods for payment of closing costs, taxes and service fees on property.

Other proposals address the development of pilot programs for land transfers using public-private partnerships to build on government-owned land in order to promote social housing at affordable rates; reuse of some land for agricultural production; and greater attention to environmental issues, with the goal of assuring urban sustainability in the future.

The 1994 Regulatory Plan for the Santiago metropolitan area defined a goal of elevating the city’s average density by 50 percent, while 1995 reforms to the Ley de Rentas introduced a fee on non-edified land and a disincentive to land speculation.

Nora Clichevsky is a researcher with CONICET, the National Council for Scientific and Technical Research in Buenos Aires, Argentina. She is the coordinator of the six-city study of vacant land in Latin America, which met to discuss these findings in August 1998. Laura Mullahy, a research assistant with the Lincoln Institute’s Latin American Program, contributed to this article.

Other members of the research team are Julio Calderón of Lima, Peru; Diego Carrión and Andrea Carrión of CIUDAD in Quito, Ecuador; Fernanda Furtado and Fabrizio Leal de Oliveira of the University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; Mario Lungo and Francisco Oporto of the Central American University in El Salvador; and Patricio Larraín of the Chilean Ministry of Housing and Urbanism.

In the next phase of this project, the Lincoln Institute will sponsor a seminar on vacant land this spring in Río de Janeiro, with the participation of the original researchers as well as other experts from each of the cities involved.

Una versión más actualizada de este artículo está disponible como parte del capítulo 6 del libro Perspectivas urbanas: Temas críticos en políticas de suelo de América Latina.

Los sectores populares en la mayoría de las ciudades latinoamericanas se encuentran en una grave desventaja al intentar influenciar la planificación urbana y la administración de sus comunidades. A pesar de que los activistas comunitarios pueden estar bien organizados a nivel local, sus intereses no están involucrados en la toma de decisiones que pueden tener implicaciones a gran escala tanto en la administración de tierras urbanas como en los derechos humanos. Como parte de este esfuerzo actual para ayudar a líderes comunitarios y a funcionarios públicos de América Latina a ser más efectivos en la implementación de políticas de administración de tierras de carácter fundamental, el Instituto Lincoln respaldó un programa educativo innovador en octubre en la ciudad de Quito, Ecuador.

El programa “Políticas de tierra urbanas para los sectores populares” fue copatrocinado por el Instituto Lincoln, el Centro de Investigaciones CIUDAD y el Centro de Investigaciones en Diseño y Urbanismo de la escuela de arquitectura de la Universidad Católica de Quito. Este programa piloto sirvió para que por primera vez se reunieran en un foro representantes de más de 50 comunidades de bajos recursos de todo Ecuador. Se discutieron ambigüedades en torno a la formulación e implementación de políticas de tierra urbanas, así como las causas e impactos de estas políticas en el uso y regulación de la tierra. Particularmente, se prestó atención al acceso equitativo a la propiedad de la tierra, el acceso a viviendas y a la construcción de ayuda propia en las periferias urbanas.

El ministro de la vivienda y desarrollo urbano de Ecuador dio inicio a la primera sesión. Un grupo de académicos, consejeros de políticas profesionales, autoridades gubernamentales locales y nacionales, y líderes de opinión ofrecieron una variedad de talleres de planificación estratégica y presentaciones de panel. El foro contó tanto con discusiones conceptuales como prácticas sobre la legislación de tierras urbanas, donde se reconoció la evidente falta de información acerca de políticas de tierra a nivel de las bases.

Muchas preguntas subrayaron la situación de Ecuador, donde la inseguridad personal, del hogar y de la tierra frecuentemente llevó a la violencia y los desalojos. Este importante tema sirvió para resaltar la preeminencia de los derechos humanos en el debate sobre las tierras urbanas, y para reforzar la necesidad urgente de tomar en cuenta una amplia gama de políticas públicas y mecanismos de planificación. Además de incentivar redes de organización entre los pobres urbanos y alianzas con otros líderes de movimientos populares y locales, en el foro se exploraron estrategias para construir solidaridad entre los diversos sectores.

La última sesión contó con la asistencia de alcaldes de otras ciudades latinoamericanas, y se concluyó que las fuerzas que afectan a los residentes urbanos de bajos recursos en Ecuador son sorprendentemente similares a lo largo de toda la región. Una clara lección es que el acceso a la información es imprescindible si se quiere permitir que cada comunidad e individuo influencie la formulación e implementación de políticas de tierra urbanas sobre una base de participación democrática. Un inventario de casos de estudio comparativo en prácticas de uso comunitario de la tierra será incorporado en programas de seguimiento para asistir a funcionarios públicos y administradores en las futuras planificaciones y gestiones de políticas para el uso de la tierra.

El foro de Quito es un ejemplo de la meta educativa del Instituto Lincoln de proporcionar un mejor conocimiento a los ciudadanos afectados por las políticas de tierra urbanas. Uno de los resultados fue “El documento de Quito”, un resumen de las estrategias a que se llegó por consenso entre los participantes. El reto de convertir el consenso de ellos en acciones será la prueba verdadera del programa piloto. El instituto podría también colaborar con el Programa de Gestión Urbana de las Naciones Unidas para Latinoamérica y el Caribe para desarrollar una agenda común de educación, investigación y publicaciones. Los resultados ayudarían a ampliar las discusiones de problemas a nivel de las bases y a mejorar las formas en que los funcionarios públicos y los líderes populares pueden trabajar en conjunto para generaran políticas más efectivas.

Sonia Pereira es miembro visitante del Instituto Lincoln. También es abogado ambientalista, biólogo, psicólogo social y activista de derechos humanos. Su trabajo sobre protección ambiental en comunidades de bajos recursos del Brasil ha sido ampliamente reconocido. Es Citizen of the World Laureate (Universidad Mundial de la Paz, 1992) y Global 500 Laureate (Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Medio Ambiente-PNUMA, 1996).

Una versión más actualizada de este artículo está disponible como parte del capítulo 1 del libro Perspectivas urbanas: Temas críticos en políticas de suelo de América Latina.

El Programa para América Latina del Instituto Lincoln se dedica a la educación y los proyectos de investigación con universidades y gobiernos locales en toda América Central, Sudamérica y el Caribe. Estas actividades cobran mayor relevancia en la actualidad debido a los numerosos cambios políticos y económicos por los que están atravesando los mercados inmobiliarios de América Latina. Por ejemplo, la (re)democratización del continente permite que un segmento más amplio de la sociedad participe en el diseño de programas viables e innovadores para los gobiernos locales en manos de partidos políticos rivales.

Además, las reformas institucionales, y en muchos casos constitucionales, están afectando el valor de la tierra y los derechos y regulaciones de la propiedad. Los programas de ajustes estructurales diseñados para contener la inflación y superar las crisis económicas de los años 1980 están cambiando las actitudes en cuanto a la tenencia de la tierra, ya sea como inversión o como reserva de valor. En América Latina, los frecuentes cambios especulativos entre la tenencia de la tierra y otros activos financieros, según los caprichos del “ambiente económico” predominante, han sido la pesadilla de los planificadores.

Las fuerzas de la globalización y la urbanización contribuyen igualmente con las presiones significativas y variables que se ejercen sobre el uso de la tierra. Cada vez más, se ven espacios al estilo de Los Ángeles en ciertas zonas residenciales de Sao Paulo, Santiago o Ciudad de México. Aunque la pérdida de la biodiversidad de la región se conoce bien porque está documentada, América Latina también corre el riesgo de perder la diversidad del uso de la tierra.

Pese a que estos temas son comunes, América Latina dista mucho de ser una entidad homogénea. La diversidad surge claramente al analizar la tenencia de la tierra y las estructuras de los mercados inmobiliarios de los distintos países, por ejemplo:

• La glorificación de los mercados inmobiliarios en Chile contrasta con la verdadera eliminación de dichos mercados en Cuba y la segregación residencial resultante.
• México tuvo una experiencia única con las tierras comunales (ejidos) que ahora se están privatizando con repercusiones considerables para la nueva expansión urbana.
• En Brasil, los frecuentes conflictos por causa de la tierra —algunos con consecuencias trágicas para los desposeídos— pueden atribuirse a una reforma prometida hace mucho y que aún no se ha materializado.
• En Paraguay, hasta su reciente democratización, tradicionalmente las tierras eran repartidas por un partido político hegemónico, en un claro menosprecio del mercado. En Argentina, por el contrario, el estado utiliza sus considerables reservas de tierras fiscales para facilitar las inversiones extranjeras en proyectos inmobiliarios, directamente a través del mercado.
• Es probable que la pasada redistribución de tierras en Nicaragua sea la causa de la vitalidad del mercado de bienes raíces recientemente liberado y los fuertes procesos de reconcentración de tierras que están en marcha actualmente.
• Los pujantes mercados inmobiliarios de Ecuador y Venezuela a menudo han sido atribuidos a la facilidad para el lavado de dinero proveniente de Colombia, país vecino donde la regulación es más estricta.

En vista de esta diversidad, el programa para América Latina del Instituto está concentrando sus esfuerzos educativos y de investigación en la creación de una red integrada por estudiosos sumamente capacitados y autoridades responsables de formular políticas públicas.

Dado que representan países diferentes y aportan variados antecedentes académicos y profesionales, estos expertos ayudan a identificar los asuntos de mayor importancia para la región. Estos son algunos ejemplos de los temas actuales que surgen de las necesidades reales y previstas por los funcionarios públicos: La reactivación del debate sobre el funcionamiento de los mercados inmobiliarios urbanos, el estrechamiento de la brecha entre el mercado inmobiliario formal y el informal y la implementación de nuevos instrumentos de políticas de tierras.

El acceso a la tierra por parte de la población urbana de ingresos bajos es el tema que tiene mayor presencia en el ánimo y la mente de muchos investigadores y funcionarios públicos. Hay dos campos de investigación que se relacionan: 1) los mecanismos que generan la segregación residencial o la exclusión a través del mercado por parte de agentes privados o públicos, y 2) las estrategias para que “los excluidos” tengan acceso a la tierra y así puedan formalizar su “inclusión social”. En su mayoría, los programas educativos que el Instituto lleva a cabo en América Latina para abordar la gestión de la tierra y los instrumentos de intervención pública surgen directa o indirectamente de este tema.

Para muchos funcionarios públicos de la región, la reforma de la tierra es un tema delicado y la recuperación de plusvalías de los bienes raíces generados por la actuación del sector público todavía parece una idea subversiva vista con recelo. De tal modo, el Instituto Lincoln se sitúa en una posición privilegiada como facilitador neutral con capacidad para colaborar con académicos y funcionarios públicos de América Latina, y también con expertos de los Estados Unidos, para aportar una perspectiva comparativa internacional de las ideas y experiencias en cuanto a las políticas de la tierra.

Martim Smolka, miembro principal del Instituto desde septiembre de 1995, se encuentra de licencia como profesor asociado en el Instituto de Investigación y Planificación Urbana y Regional de la Universidad Federal de Río de Janeiro, en Brasil.