At Capital City Farm, the first commercial urban farm in Trenton, New Jersey, more than 37 varieties of fruits, vegetables, and flowers grow on two formerly abandoned city-owned acres. The farm, run by the D&R Greenway Land Trust, is a financially self-sufficient operation that donates 30 percent of its produce to the Trenton Area Soup Kitchen and sells the rest to nearby markets. A local community development and environmental nonprofit runs a well-established youth gardening program at the farm, which has won several awards since its founding in 2016. 

There’s no question that Capital City Farm is a success story on many levels, from repurposing a trash-strewn lot to involving the local community in its development and operations. Now the city is hoping to emulate that success, working closely with local residents as it sets out to convert additional vacant lots into community gardens. The effort is part of a recently launched plan called Fight the Blight, which will include property demolition and redevelopment. 

Trenton, population 83,000, has a disproportionate number of neglected and vacant properties: 1,500 of them in a city that covers just 7.5 square miles. As the city embarks on addressing this issue, officials are sensitive to the fact that, for residents in neglected urban neighborhoods, municipal improvement efforts can be a double-edged sword. On the one hand, fixing up vacant lots and tearing down condemned buildings yields major quality of life improvements, including improving public safety and increasing community morale. But on the other hand, the sudden arrival of plans and projects developed without local input can be an unwelcome signal to residents that the future of the neighborhood is out of their hands and might not include them. 

“Trenton . . . has historically been behind the eight ball” on securing local input in revitalization efforts, said the city’s principal planner, Stephani Register. “The way we’re approaching it now is this idea of ‘let’s give the people back their power.’ If we do that, we as an administration get better participation from residents. The question is, how do you do that for communities of color who have been disenfranchised for so long because they didn’t have the right information, and the tools that are out there have been used against them.” 

An interdisciplinary team from Trenton is exploring these issues through its participation in the Lincoln Institute’s Legacy Cities Communities of Practice project. Over the past year, teams from three legacy cities (Trenton; Akron, Ohio; and Dearborn, Mich.) have met regularly to facilitate peer learning, gain insights from expert faculty on issues ranging from racial equity to fiscal health, and access resources and support to tackle entrenched citywide policy issues with place-based project approaches. Trenton’s team includes Register, mayoral aide Rick Kavin, Jamilah Harris, an analyst from the state Department of Environmental Protection, and Caitlin Fair, executive director of the nonprofit East Trenton Collaborative (ETC). 

Legacy cities like Trenton are places that have experienced population and economic decline that has left them with common infrastructure and demographic challenges. Many of them have vast areas once full of people and industry that have now been abandoned and neglected. Smaller legacy cities have many of the same challenges as larger legacy cities like Detroit or Baltimore, said Jessie Grogan, associate director of Reduced Poverty and Spatial Inequality at the Lincoln Institute. But they tend not to draw the same national attention from think tanks or large philanthropic funders, and they tend to have smaller municipal staffs and budgets. 

“These cities are kind of left to solve really complex problems on their own,” she said. “These smaller cities are in a tough spot where they have enough capacity to know what the problems are, but not enough to know what the potential solutions are or what their peer cities are doing that’s working.” The Legacy Cities Community of Practice gives them an opportunity to compare notes, get new ideas, and support each other’s work. 

Trenton, for example, is now working to engage the community in its Fight the Blight program using strategies employed in Syracuse, N.Y., and Flint, Mich., and detailed in the Lincoln Institute’s Policy Focus Report Revitalizing America’s Smaller Legacy Cities. Rather than the city taking the lead in projects like the effort to expand its community gardens, officials have turned to community organizations. Kavin said Capital City Farm has been advising the city on the youth apprenticeship aspect of the proposed community garden project. And Fair says the ETC would like to see community gardens become year-round, accessible neighborhood resources that support workforce development and a healthy community. 

“The idea is to marry [the gardens] with our youth employment program and for the city to create an opportunity for kids in the community to have a paid apprenticeship,” she said. “A goal of this initiative is to create a very public, community-oriented space that is open to everyone to use.” 

The vision is for Trenton’s new community gardens to be financially self-sustaining, providing a steady source of local jobs and local food thanks to greenhouses and hydroponic gardening that make cultivation possible during the winter months. Allowing year-round structures such as greenhouses on lots operated as community gardens required a zoning code change, which the Trenton team collaborated on and achieved by mid-2021. In the fall of 2021, the ETC began working on deciding which vacant lots in East Trenton they want to turn into community farms. 

Ultimately, the Trenton team sees the community farm project as just one way to start breaking down barriers between local government and residents and approach planning from a more holistic perspective. To that end, the city has also launched “how-to” informational sessions aimed at increasing small business owners’ access to capital and city contracts. Other sessions help homeowners figure out how to access grant money or loans to fix up their historic homes. And last year, Trenton launched an “Adopt a Lot” program that gives residents temporary access to vacant lots for their own gardens or other greenspace use. 

“With all of these programs, we’re trying to foster an environment where all local residents can have a say,” Kavin said. “Not just in their city’s planning, but also in their own future.” 

Liz Farmer is a fiscal policy expert and journalist whose areas of expertise include budgets, fiscal distress, and tax policy. She is currently a research fellow at the Rockefeller Institute’s Future of Labor Research Center.

Image: Volunteers plant seeds at Capital City Farm in Trenton, New Jersey. Credit: Capital City Farm.

Two weeks after a U.S federal agency rejected affordable housing plans from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, a coalition of housing organizations has released a blueprint showing how the two government-sponsored enterprises can better reach underserved mortgage markets.

On January 5, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) rejected three-year plans from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to comply with Duty to Serve, a federal regulation that requires the enterprises to prioritize and improve affordable housing finance opportunities in three historically neglected markets: manufactured housing, affordable housing preservation, and rural housing. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac must substantially improve their plans in all three areas, and a new blueprint from the Underserved Mortgage Markets Coalition provides a path that would likely lead to approval.

The coalition consists of 20 leading U.S. affordable housing organizations seeking to hold Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac accountable to their founding purpose: to bring housing finance opportunities to American families not traditionally served by the private market.

“I applaud FHFA for rejecting the proposed Duty to Serve plans,” said George W. McCarthy, president and CEO of the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, one of the convenors of the coalition. “If Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac adopt the modest consensus recommendations of the Underserved Mortgage Markets Coalition, that would be a win for the enterprises, FHFA, and affordable housing in the United States.”

The coalition’s blueprint outlines key recommendations for the enterprises’ Duty to Serve plans for 2022–24. By recommending specific, prioritized action steps, the coalition hopes to expand and enhance the enterprises’ performance in underserved markets. The blueprint urges the enterprises to increase certain loan purchases in all three markets, improve loan products for rural low- and moderate-income borrowers, and allow for Low Income Housing Tax Credit-equity investment in non-rural markets.

The members of the Underserved Mortgage Markets Coalition include:

• Center for Community Progress
• cdcb
• Enterprise Community Partners
• Fahe
• Grounded Solutions Network
• Housing Assistance Council
• Housing Partnership Network
• Lincoln Institute of Land Policy
• Local Initiatives Support Corporation
• National Council of State Housing Agencies
• National Community Stabilization Trust
• National Housing Trust
• NeighborWorks America
• Next Step
• Novogradac
• Opportunity Finance Network
• Prosperity Now
• RMI
• ROC USA
• Stewards of Affordable Housing for the Future

Photograph: vkyryl via iStock / Getty Images Plus.

Claudia López was elected mayor of Bogotá in October 2019, after campaigning as a Green Alliance candidate with a focus on climate change and other environmental issues. She is the city’s first female mayor and first openly gay mayor. 

Mayor López was a senator of the Republic of Colombia from 2014 to 2018 and became a prominent figure in the fight against corruption; she was the vice presidential candidate for the Green Alliance party in the 2018 presidential election. 

Prior to her political career, López worked as a journalist, researcher, and political analyst. She studied finance, public administration, and political science at the Universidad Externado de Colombia, and went on to earn advanced degrees in the United States: a master’s degree in public administration and urban policy from Columbia University and a Ph.D. in political science from Northwestern University. 

López spoke with Senior Fellow Anthony Flint by video as she was on her way to the COP26 climate summit in Glasgow in the fall; they were joined by Martim Smolka, director of the Lincoln Institute’s Program on Latin America and the Caribbean.  

Their discussion, edited for length and clarity, is the final installment of a special 75th anniversary Mayor’s Desk series, spotlighting the chief executives of cities that share a history with the Lincoln Institute. It is also available as a Land Matters podcast. 

ANTHONY FLINT: Your victory suggests that residents are ready for serious action with regard to the environment and climate change. Do you feel you have a mandate, and what are your top priorities in terms of climate? 

CLAUDIA LÓPEZ: Well, there is no doubt that I have a clear mandate from Bogotá’s people. During my campaign, I [made a public commitment] to environment and climate change issues. We have a deep social debt and a deep environmental debt that we have to pay. After the pandemic, the social debt will be harder to address than the environmental debt, because the pandemic has doubled unemployment and poverty in my city. On the other hand, on the environmental issues, I am still very optimistic that post-pandemic opportunities will increase. 

We have to adapt, that’s our mandate. In the context of Colombia, we have three general issues. One of them, and the major contributor to climate change, is deforestation. This is an issue mainly for rural Colombia, and is by far the largest contributor of Colombia to the environmental crisis and the climate emergency. The second factor is fossil fuels. Transportation is the second largest contributor of Colombia to the climate emergency. The third is related to waste management. Bogotá has a great impact in transportation, and we have a great impact in waste management.  

What are we doing? Migrating from a monodependent diesel bus system toward a multimodal system based on a metro, a regional train system, cable system, and also buses . . . [and] transforming waste management . . . into a recycling, green, circular economy, so that we transform waste into clean energy. Making the city greener. Hardening rural and green areas, that’s basically what building cities is about. What we need to do in the 21st century, I think, is the opposite. We need to take advantage of every public space that we have, making every effort not only to plant trees, not only to plant gardens, but to transform urban areas that we had before, gray areas that we had before, into green areas. 

We’re lucky that we have the legal mandate to propose a new master plan, the POT [Plan de Ordenamiento Territorial]. We can include these changes and investments, not in a four-year-term government plan, but in a 14-year city plan. We are trying to take advantage of this moment. 

AF: This year marks the centenary of the Colombian value capture tool contribución de valorización, or betterment contributions. What is your vision for building on that tradition? 

CL: I think that’s critical. The most important financial tool we have for sustainable development is land value capture. In our POT, we are including not only the traditional betterment contribution, but also many other ways to use land value capture. [Ed. note: Betterment contributions are fees paid by property owners or developers to defray the cost of public improvements or services from which they benefit.] 

We have at least seven different tools, financial tools, all related. Basically, we [determine] the value that’s going to be generated by a transformation of land use and we agree with the developer, so that the developers don’t pay us in cash, as in the betterment contribution, but pay [by] building the infrastructure and the urban and social equipment that new development will need. 

This is not about having lovely maps with marvelous plans, this is about having the money to redistribute the cost and benefit of sharing and receiving. This is actually what I think urban planning is: making sure that either through public investments or through land value capture or through private investments, we ensure an equitable and sustainable share of the cost and benefits of building the city. That’s the role of the government, and that’s what we’re trying to achieve here. 

AF: I’d like to turn now to the topic of crime, and ask you how has the problem of crime had an effect on the perception of the city and public space in the city in particular? 

CL: It has a huge impact, of course. The more crime you have in public spaces, as a fact or as a perception, the less well-being you have as a city. What makes a city safer? The first thing I think is to make the city sustainable, and that means greener, and that means more equitable. 

My top priority to make Bogotá safer is not to add cameras and technologies. It is to make sure that Bogotá has the capacity to provide fair and legal employment for our population, particularly for our youth. I think that the social roots of security are more important. 

One thing that I’m very excited and very proud that we’re building into our POT and our land use development plan is that we are including criteria for women and caregivers as criteria for urban development in our city. If you can make a city safer for women, if you can make a city safer for kids, that will be a city safer for everyone. 

Now the second thing, as important as transportation, infrastructure, and social infrastructure in the 21st century, is digital infrastructure. We are going to extend fibra óptica, the best, fastest internet, to every neighborhood in our city, to every school in our city. That’s crucial to make a more sustainable, more equitable, and safer city. At this moment in the post-pandemic time, we’re having a severe backlash in insecurity in our cities. It’s not only in Bogotá, it’s global. Unfortunately, higher unemployment and higher poverty always correlate with higher insecurity. 

AF: What are the policies that are working to make life better in informal settlement, such as upgrading or infrastructure, and what in your view needs to change? 

CL: We have at least three innovations included in our land use plan that I’m very proud of. As you know, in Latin America, roughly half of our cities has been built informally. This land use development plan is the first development plan that clearly assumes that, accepts that, and instead of doing a land use plan that is only useful for the formal city, for half of the city, this is a plan that recognizes that 45 percent of our city is informal. 

It creates an urban norm, urban rules, and urban institution to help people improve their homes in the informal city, and to improve their neighborhoods. It is including all people within the land use development plan. 

We have in Bogotá an institution called curaduría, which provides urban licensing and construction licenses. We are creating a public curaduría for the informal city. There’s no way that you can impose on half of the city an urban [standard] they don’t have any chance to meet. We [also] have the Plan Terrazas, which says, after we improve your first floor, after we improve it properly, then you can build your second floor, for example, or you can build some [space for] economic activity in your first floor. You will improve your housing, but you will [also] improve your income. For poor people, housing is not only the place they live, it’s also the place where they produce and they generate income. 

The second thing that I think is very important is that we created this caring system, particularly thinking about women. Half of the economy is informal. It’s not formal jobs with pension funds and health insurance. They don’t have care when you are sick or when you are [older]. Who takes care of the sick and elderly? It’s the unpaid women who do that: 1.2 million women in Bogotá don’t have jobs, don’t have education, don’t have time for themselves because they are caregivers. For the first time in Bogotá, we are reserving land for social infrastructure to provide institutional health care. For children, for women, for elders, for people with disabilities, so that we can relieve and free up time for women, so they can access time to rest. They don’t have a free week ever in their life. 

We’re trying to balance. I think the development in Bogotá has been incredibly unbalanced, with [much of] the advantage on the developer side. Of course, the developers need profitability, and we are trying to find the equilibrium point.  

AF: The Lincoln Institute’s work in Latin America, including Colombia, has been such a big part of our global reach. As we celebrate our 75th anniversary, could you reflect on how that presence has been helpful in the region? 

I think it has been incredibly helpful really. I [have worked] with the United Nations and with other organizations, and different governments in Latin America. There’s always a specialist or academic person or professional person who has been trained by the Lincoln Institute. There’s a huge network of people thinking, researching, innovating, putting out these debates, which is incredibly important. 

In my own experience, I cannot tell you how useful all the things that you taught me have been, on land value capture, for example, on land use development, on being aware of how land and urban value is created. Why this is a publicly created thing, and why we need to use all the instruments we have to capture that value and to redistribute it in a more equitable way to everybody in the city. To Martim Smolka, Maria Mercedes, and everybody in the Lincoln Institute, I cannot be more grateful, and the network of professionals and trainees and academic people and the research that they support on this topic, particularly in Latin America, is incredibly useful. 

This interview is also available as an episode of the Land Matters podcast.

Anthony Flint is a senior fellow at the Lincoln Institute, host of the Land Matters podcast, and a contributing editor to Land Lines. 

Image: Mayor López speaks at a climate event at the COP26 summit in Glasgow. Credit: Office of the Mayor.

Los antiguos centros industriales y fabriles, como Dayton, Ohio, y Gary, Indiana (conocidos como antiguas ciudades industriales) no tienen por qué elegir entre crecimiento económico e igualdad. El crecimiento perdura más cuando beneficia a toda la gente, según se indica en un nuevo Enfoque en Políticas de Suelo y un Resumen de Políticas adjunto, publicados por el Instituto Lincoln de Políticas de Suelo junto con el Centro de Políticas Greater Ohio. Las antiguas ciudades industriales pueden promover el crecimiento a largo plazo y, a la vez, abordar las desigualdades raciales y económicas que la COVID dejó en evidencia, mediante las estrategias planificadas en Equitably Developing America’s Smaller Legacy Cities: Investing in Residents from South Bend to Worcester (Desarrollo equitativo de las antiguas ciudades industriales más pequeñas de los Estados Unidos: Invertir en los residentes de South Bend a Worcester). En el informe se usan casos de estudio de iniciativas exitosas para guiar a los profesionales en la implementación de inversiones equitativas, tanto en proyectos físicos como en personas. Se centra en antiguas ciudades industriales pequeñas y medianas, de entre 30.000 y 200.000 habitantes. Si bien tienen muchas características en común con sus contrapartes más grandes, estas ciudades enfrentan dificultades únicas y necesitan enfoques personalizados para revitalizarse.

Como se describe en el Enfoque en Políticas de Suelo de 2017 Revitalizing America’s Smaller Legacy Cities y en la biblioteca digital de Legacy Cities Initiative, del Instituto Lincoln (legacycities.org), ya han surgido políticas y estrategias prometedoras, y en algunas antiguas ciudades industriales la población ya creció o se estabilizó. El nuevo informe nos demuestra que, para que la revitalización perdure, se requieren labores explícitas que hagan frente a las duras desigualdades sociales y económicas.

“Los dirigentes de las antiguas ciudades industriales más pequeñas están en una posición única para probar, pulir e innovar prácticas de desarrollo equitativo”, escriben las autoras Erica Spaid Patras, Alison Goebel y Lindsey Elam, del Centro de Políticas Greater Ohio, una organización estatal sin fines de lucro cuya misión es mejorar las comunidades de Ohio mediante estrategias e investigación de crecimiento inteligente. “Un compromiso férreo con la igualdad es una herramienta poderosa que puede mejorar el futuro de estas comunidades”.

Las autoras se valen de años de experiencia en labores de investigación, defensa y difusión realizadas en nombre de las 20 antiguas ciudades industriales de Ohio. Comienzan el informe explicando cómo una igualdad mayor mejora el acceso a las oportunidades y respalda las perspectivas económicas de las ciudades. Por ejemplo, al brindar capacitaciones en oficios a las personas que viven allí hace muchos años, la ciudad puede aumentar los ingresos disponibles y alentar a las empresas a contratar a residentes, para que terminen quedándose en la ciudad. Al reducir la pobreza arraigada y aumentar la participación ciudadana, se puede mejorar la salud económica de la comunidad a largo plazo.

Las autoras detallan siete estrategias que pueden establecer las bases del programa de desarrollo igualitario de una ciudad. Las estrategias se adaptan según las dificultades específicas de las antiguas ciudades industriales pequeñas y medianas, y también aprovechan sus oportunidades únicas, como la falta de presión del mercado, para que los dirigentes tengan más tiempo de elaborar bien los planes.

“Las estrategias presentadas en Desarrollo equitativo de las antiguas ciudades industriales más pequeñas de los Estados Unidos serán vitales para reconstruir antiguas ciudades industriales más igualitarias a nivel racial y económico”, dijo Akilah Watkins, CEO y presidenta del Centro para el Progreso Comunitario. “Todo dirigente municipal del país debería acudir a esta guía y atreverse a trabajar para revitalizar su comunidad en la era pos-COVID”.

From racial disparities in life expectancy to an eviction crisis that disproportionately threatens households of color, COVID-19 has magnified longstanding injustices of American society. However, many of the driving forces behind these issues, at work long before the pandemic, are less visible. Among these are a deeply flawed system of public and private finance. 

With roots in slavery, the American financial system is built in part on a foundation of exploitation. Some scholars estimate that the overall value extracted from enslaved people in the United States exceeds $14 trillion, including interest compounded over generations. For most of America’s history, the nation’s financial system actively perpetuated racial inequity, whether through redlining, regressive taxation of the poor to finance amenities for the more affluent, or other forms of racially discriminatory lending and disinvestment that persist today. 

Given the depth of the injustice, how can we create a future in which prosperity is shared by all? While a more equitable future will require systemic reforms in federal policy governing the economy, we can take big steps forward with the laws and tools available now. In particular, we can expand and improve the system of community investment—public, private, and philanthropic investment in people and places that are too often overlooked by institutions seeking only financial returns. 

The community investment field is well-positioned to redirect resources that help undo decades of structural racism in the U.S. financial system, and to contribute to an equitable economic recovery. As communities across the country begin to emerge from the depths of the COVID-19 crisis and shift toward recovery, the community investment system must deliver more capital, distribute it fairly, and achieve real progress toward a better tomorrow for residents in communities across the country. 

The Accelerating Community Investment (ACI) initiative at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy is working to deliver on these goals by bringing new partners to the community investment system. We are convening a national community of practice that will create opportunities among local and state development finance agencies (DFAs), housing finance agencies (HFAs), and community development financial institutions (CDFIs) to collaborate more closely and increase the scale of their impact in lower-income communities and communities of color across the United States. (For more background on these institutions, read our announcement on the launch of ACI.) 

Currently, the community investment field is hampered in part by a myopic focus on narrowly defined financial returns. The players in the community investment ecosystem also lack knowledge about each other’s work, and how it intersects. ACI is working to identify structural and policy barriers that limit the impact of the current system while developing new channels to deliver capital investment. 

The question at the core of ACI’s work is twofold: can we help CDFIs, DFAs, HFAs, and mission-aligned investors develop a better shared understanding of the potential for collaboration? And, if so, can we more effectively steer those collaborators toward deploying capital in ways that put residents at the center of their investment decisions? 

In the first phase of the initiative, we completed field research on the public economic development and housing finance system, conducted interviews with more than 50 state and local finance institutions, and convened a community of practice with representatives from 13 states. The goal of this community of practice is to bend the arc of public finance, economic development, and housing finance practices toward social justice. This work will open a window into the mutually reinforcing ecosystems among federal tax, economic development, and affordable housing policies and related state and local policy. 

Our community of practice has already delivered curricula that explain how to deploy capital for maximum impact in targeted places and on targeted populations, and we have worked with state partners to help them identify shared, investable priorities that reflect community voices and needs. Soon, we will bring in both capital intermediaries (CDFIs and other community-focused capital providers) and mission-aligned investors who may be interested in pursuing investment or other partnerships with cohort participants. Through a combination of survey research to examine use patterns of public finance tools and technical assistance to help partners build pipelines of investable projects, we will also study the misalignment of federal policy that governs community investment with related state and local policies, with the goal of advancing reforms. 

If we succeed, we will create a new paradigm for community investment that leads to the deployment of more capital investment in places that need it most. The project embodies a commitment to a racially just future by encouraging community investment that focuses on community needs and aspirations and involves robust engagement with residents. This approach will ensure that economic development, housing affordability, job creation, and wealth building are truly accessible to all people.  

If we want to achieve a just recovery and build a path to prosperity, there can be no going back to the way things were. Our aspirations, and the moment, demand much more. In convening and learning from the ACI community of practice, the Lincoln Institute and our partners can help low- and moderate-income communities leverage new resources for greater economic health and resilience, and begin to address the enduring impacts of systemic racism. We welcome the participation and feedback of our partners and any other interested parties, and look forward to the hard work in the months ahead. 

Robert J. “R.J.” McGrail is senior research fellow in the Office of the President at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and the principal investigator and director of the Accelerating Community Investment (ACI) project.

Image: Tiny Home Village, a transitional housing community in Albuquerque, New Mexico, opened in 2021. Credit: Courtesy of Bernalillo County, New Mexico.

Local governments around the world, no matter their size or capacity, have access to an effective land-based financing tool that can help create more climate-resilient, equitable, and sustainable cities and regions. That tool is land value capture, a policy approach that enables communities to recover and reinvest land value increases that result from public investment and other government actions. Land value capture is rooted in the notion that public action should generate public benefit—and while it is technically feasible to implement almost anywhere, it is often underutilized, says Enrique Silva, director of international initiatives at the Lincoln Institute, who deems it an “untapped source” of revenue. 

In late October, Silva hosted a Lincoln Institute dialogue with guests Barbara Scholz of the German Agency for International Cooperation (GIZ) and Rudiger Ahrend of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). The Lincoln Institute and the OECD, with contributions from GIZ, are creating a compendium to showcase the successful implementation of land value capture in 61 countries. The compendium, which will be published in 2022, will offer the first global overview of a policy approach that can fund critical infrastructure ranging from public transit to affordable housing.  

With an estimated $4 trillion needed each year to improve and expand global infrastructure, Scholz said, value capture “offers a huge repertoire of instruments” that can be customized based on local needs. It can improve the financial performance of subnational governments, facilitate access to affordable and secure land and housing, protect ecosystems, and foster equitable and climate-friendly urban development. Value capture can be especially helpful in developing countries and regions, said Scholz, noting that it has successfully been used in countries including Bangladesh, Namibia, and Ethiopia. GIZ works to promote and achieve sustainable development around the world, partnering with businesses, governments, and research organizations in more than 120 countries. 

The speakers noted challenges related to value capture, including a lack of shared vocabulary that can hamper conversations among policy leaders in different areas who are working toward the same goals. Developing a shared vocabulary “is one of the big opportunities of the compendium,” Ahrend said. “It will enable dialogues” that aren’t currently possible, he added. Noting that cities will absorb 2.5 billion more people by 2050, Scholz confirmed that GIZ hopes to use the compendium to foster dialogue about urban policies, value capture instruments, and country-specific challenges and opportunities, especially in places that are experiencing rapid growth and are vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. 

“These are tools that can be applied and built in contexts where governance institutions might not be as robust as in other countries,” Silva said. “The new compendium will help us open up opportunities to consider the extent to which land value capture can not only finance urban development, but also finance climate action and climate adaptation work. This conversation is ramping up.” 

The special 75th anniversary Lincoln Institute Dialogue series continues on December 8 with a discussion about sustainability in the U.S. West. Learn more about the Lincoln Institute’s 75th anniversary and related events.  

Katharine Wroth is the editor of Land Lines. 

Photo: Octavio Frias de Oliveira Bridge, São Paulo, Brazil. Credit: iStock/thiagogleite.