SHARE
Una versión más actualizada de este artículo está disponible como parte del capítulo 2 del libro Perspectivas urbanas: Temas críticos en políticas de suelo de América Latina.
Uno de los más formidables retos para los líderes políticos y sociales de este siglo radica en poder crear condiciones económicas e institucionales que conduzcan a una gestión ambiental urbana eficaz, y que al mismo tiempo estén comprometidas a consolidar la democracia, promover la justicia social y erradicar la pobreza urbana. Este desafío de promoción de la inclusión socioespacial resulta todavía más significativo en los países en vías de desarrollo y con economías en transición, dada la complejidad de los problemas resultantes de la urbanización intensiva, la degradación ambiental, las crecientes desigualdades socioeconómicas y la segregación espacial. Merece especial atención el debate sobre las condiciones jurídico-políticas del desarrollo y la gestión ambiental urbana.
La discusión sobre ley e ilegalidad en el contexto del desarrollo urbano ha cobrado impulso en años recientes, especialmente desde que el Programa Hábitat1 de la ONU destacó la importancia fundamental del Derecho Urbanístico. En los talleres de trabajo facilitados por el Grupo Internacional de Investigación sobre Legislación y Espacio Urbano (IRGLUS) de los últimos ocho años, los investigadores han señalado la necesidad de realizar un análisis crítico del papel de las instituciones y de las estipulaciones jurídicas en el proceso de urbanización. Según lo sugiere la Campaña Mundial de Gobernabilidad Urbana del Centro de las Naciones Unidas para los Asentamientos Humanos (CNUAH)2, la promoción de la reforma jurídica ha sido considerada por organizaciones nacionales e internacionales como una de las condiciones principales para cambiar la naturaleza excluyente del desarrollo urbano en países en desarrollo y en transición, y para confrontar eficazmente el problema cada vez mayor de la ilegalidad urbana.
Las prácticas ilegales han proliferado de formas variadas, especialmente en el contexto cada vez más extenso de la economía informal. Un número creciente de personas han tenido que ponerse al margen de la ley para poder tener acceso a tierra y viviendas urbanas, y se ven forzadas a vivir sin seguridad de tenencia en condiciones muy precarias, generalmente en zonas periféricas. Este proceso tiene muchas repercusiones serias —sociales, políticas, económicas y ambientales— y requiere confrontación por parte del gobierno y de la sociedad. Generalmente se reconoce que la ilegalidad urbana debe entenderse no sólo en términos de la dinámica entre sistemas políticos y de mercados del suelo, sino también en función de la naturaleza del orden jurídico en vigor, sobre todo en lo que se refiere a la definición de los derechos de propiedad inmobiliaria urbana. La promoción de la reforma urbana depende principalmente de una reforma comprensiva del orden jurídico, que modifique los reglamentos de los derechos de propiedad del suelo y el proceso general de desarrollo, legislación y gestión del suelo urbano. Se ha concedido especial importancia a las políticas de regularización de la tenencia, dirigidas a promover la integración socioespacial del pobre urbano, tales como las propuestas por Campaña Mundial de Tenencia Segura del CNUAH.
Comparación entre enfoques conservadores e innovadores
Este complejo debate jurídico-político tiene serias repercusiones socioeconómicas en el mundo entero, y debe considerarse bajo tres enfoques político-ideológicos, conservadores pero influyentes, del derecho y la reglamentación jurídica.
En primer lugar, la función de la ley en el desarrollo urbano no puede cifrarse a los términos simplistas propuestos por quienes sugieren —a pesar de los resultados históricos— que el capitalismo de por sí permite distribuir ampliamente la riqueza, y quienes defienden un estilo “no intervencionista” a la regulación estatal para controlar el desarrollo urbano. Considerando que la globalización es sin duda irreversible y en cierto modo independiente de la acción gubernamental, no hay justificación histórica para la ideología neoliberal que supone que al maximizarse el crecimiento y la riqueza, el mercado libre también optimiza la distribución de ese incremento (Hobsbawn 2000).
Varios indicadores de la creciente pobreza social, especialmente los que guardan estrecha relación con las condiciones precarias del acceso al suelo y a la vivienda en áreas urbanas, demuestran que, incluso si el mundo se ha enriquecido como resultado del crecimiento económico y financiero mundial, la distribución social y regional de esta nueva riqueza dista de ser óptima. Aún más, el desarrollo industrial exitoso de muchos países (por ejemplo Estados Unidos, Alemania o incluso Brasil y México) se logró adoptando medidas de regulación y rechazando la aceptación incondicional de la lógica del mercado libre. Quizás más que nunca es de importancia capital redefinir la acción estatal y la regulación económica en países en desarrollo y en transición, especialmente en lo que se refiere a la promoción del desarrollo urbano, la reforma del suelo, el control del uso del suelo y la gestión de la ciudad. No se puede pasar por alto el papel central de la ley en este proceso.
En segundo lugar, el efecto de la globalización económica y financiera sobre el desarrollo de los mercados del suelo ha presionado a los países en desarrollo y en transición para que reformen sus leyes nacionales del suelo y homogenicen sus sistemas jurídicos a fin de facilitar la gestión internacional de los mercados del suelo. Este énfasis en una reforma globalizada orientada al mercado de la tenencia de la tierra y del derecho, con la resultante “americanización de las leyes comerciales y la expansión de bufetes anglo-estadounidenses mundiales”, se basa en un enfoque del suelo “puramente como un activo económico que debería estar a la disposición de cualquiera que pueda aprovecharlo para lograr los más altos y mejores beneficios económicos”. Este punto de vista está encaminado a facilitar las inversiones extranjeras en el suelo, más que a reconocer “el papel social del suelo en la sociedad” y que dicho suelo es “parte del patrimonio social del Estado” (McAuslan 2000).
Un tercer y cada vez más influyente punto de vista se ha basado mayoritariamente, y a veces imprecisamente, en las ideas del economista Hernando de Soto. Él defiende la noción de que se puede resolver el problema de la pobreza global si se incorpora la creciente economía extralegal informal a la economía formal, particularmente en áreas urbanas. En su opinión, los pequeños negocios informales y viviendas marginales de los pobres son esencialmente activos económicos (“capital muerto”), que deberían ser revitalizados por el sistema jurídico oficial y convertidos en un capital líquido que permita a sus dueños el acceso al crédito formal y la posibilidad de invertir en sus viviendas y negocios, y de esa manera fortalecer la economía como un todo. Ahora bien, en vez de cuestionar la naturaleza del sistema jurídico que generó la ilegalidad urbana en primer lugar, varios países han propuesto la total —y frecuentemente incondicional— legalización de los negocios informales y el reconocimiento incondicional de títulos de propiedad absoluta para los habitantes urbanos de algunos asentamientos informales como método “radical” para transformar las economías urbanas.
Contrario a estos enfoques conservadores, varios estudios recientes han señalado que, en ausencia de planes urbanos bien estructurados, coherentes y progresistas, el enfoque del (neo)liberalismo jurídico no hará más que agravar el ya serio problema de la exclusión socioespacial. Tanto legisladores como organismos públicos deben tomar conciencia de las muchas y a veces malignas repercusiones de sus propuestas, especialmente las relativas a la legalización de los asentamientos informales. El tan esperado reconocimiento de la responsabilidad del Estado por suministrar derechos de vivienda social no puede reducirse al reconocimiento de los derechos de propiedad. La legalización de actividades informales, particularmente a través del reconocimiento de los títulos individuales de propiedad, no garantiza automáticamente la integración socioespacial.
Y si no se formulan dentro del ámbito de políticas socioeconómicas comprensivas y no se asimilan a una estrategia ampliada de gestión urbana, las políticas de legalización de la tenencia podrían tener efectos indeseados (Alfonsin 2001), entre ellos: nuevas cargas financieras no intencionales a los pobres urbanos, poco efecto en la reducción de la pobreza urbana, y, lo más importante, el refuerzo directo de los poderes económicos y políticos que han sido los causantes tradicionales de la exclusión socioespacial. Las nuevas políticas deben integrar cuatro factores principales:
La búsqueda de soluciones jurídico-políticas novedosas de tenencia para los pobres urbanos debe integrar la promoción de la tenencia individual con el reconocimiento de los derechos sociales de vivienda, incorporar esa dimensión siempre olvidada del papel de la mujer e intentar reducir los impactos de tales soluciones en el mercado del suelo, para que los beneficios de las inversiones públicas estén a disposición de los pobres urbanos y no de los promotores inmobiliarios privados. Perseguir esos objetivos es de fundamental importancia dentro del contexto de la promoción de una estrategia de reforma urbana más amplia y de carácter inclusivo (Payne). Varias ciudades, como Porto Alegre, Ciudad de México y Caracas, han tratado de materializar planes urbanos progresistas con la reforma de sus sistemas jurídicos tradicionales. Entre las medidas significantes que se han tomado para democratizar el acceso al suelo y a la propiedad, figuran normas y regulaciones de naturaleza menos elitista, zonificación residencial especial para los pobres urbanos y cambios en los mecanismos fiscales de captura de plusvalías del suelo, para tornarlos menos regresivos.
Para ampliar el debate
Dentro del contexto de estos acalorados debates sobre Derecho Urbanístico, el Instituto Lincoln prestó su apoyo a tres conferencias internacionales recientes:
Ley y gobernabilidad urbana
En vista del énfasis relativamente nuevo en establecer vínculos entre los estudios urbanos y los estudios jurídicos, es necesario que la dimensión jurídica del proceso de desarrollo urbano se convierta en el centro de la investigación de una forma más explícita. Para ello se requiere un abordaje más coherente al lenguaje, de manera que conceptos claves, como los derechos de propiedad, puedan discutirse adecuadamente tanto en términos políticos como jurídicos. La mayoría de los artículos presentados en esta conferencia de IRGLUS se centraron en la regularización del suelo. La regularización se ha convertido en la respuesta política más frecuente al problema general de los asentamientos ilegales, pero el término es usado de muchas maneras y con diferentes significados por diferentes organismos e investigadores. Para implementar la dimensión física de las políticas de regularización se impone actualizar infraestructuras e introducir servicios, como también destacar puntos de sensibilidad cultural. Por ejemplo, para que las políticas de regularización aporten seguridad de tenencia, se deberá prestar más atención al impacto del proceso sobre la mujer.
Los participantes también señalaron los efectos de las políticas de regularización en los mercados de suelo formales e informales. Algunos perciben la regularización como un “mercadeo” de los procesos operativos de los antiguos asentamientos ilegales. Un punto de preocupación fue la posibilidad de “elitización” (gentrification) la cual en este caso no se refiere a restaurar y cambiar el uso de las edificaciones, sino más bien al proceso mediante el cual grupos de medianos ingresos “invaden” asentamientos recientemente regularizados para fines residenciales u otros, hasta desalojar a los inquilinos originales. No hay duda de que al definir las políticas de regularización, es importante considerar una amplia gama de aspectos económicos y políticos. En particular, hay que incluir a los habitantes de los asentamientos ilegales en la vida económica y política de la ciudad, para así evitar mayor segregación socioeconómica y sus peligros asociados.
Dar respuestas adecuadas a los problemas complejos de los asentamientos ilegales es difícil, aparte de que las soluciones particulares no siempre funcionan en todos los casos. A la hora de la verdad, el éxito de un programa de regularización depende de acciones gubernamentales y de costosos programas y reformas jurídicas. Sin embargo, hay una brecha significativa entre las preguntas planteadas y la práctica real. Debido a la urgencia de adelantarse a los procesos de los asentamientos ilegales, los organismos públicos se están concentrando en la cura, y no en la prevención.
¿Cómo pueden los gobiernos municipales detener el proceso de los asentamientos ilegales? Aportando soluciones más eficaces de suelo y vivienda. Los participantes de la conferencia defendieron la legitimidad de los programas de tenencia, pragmáticamente en algunos casos, como un derecho fundamental en otros. Dado el enfoque de direccionamiento “desde arriba” que suele aplicarse a este asunto, se debe ampliar el círculo de participantes con capacidad decisoria para que incluya la voz de los pobres urbanos.
Conferencia del CNUAH/CEPAL
América Latina fue la única región que elaboró un plan de acción para el programa Hábitat II, señal de que, a pesar de las diferencias fundamentales de tipo lingüístico, histórico y cultural de la región, existe un plan común que debería facilitar la colaboración. La estructura urbana de la región está pasando por cambios profundos como resultado de varios procesos combinados, entre ellos:
Todos estos problemas han empeorado debido a la expansión de la globalización económica, las políticas de liberalización inapropiadas y los esquemas de privatización carentes de regulación. Pese a su rápida integración al creciente mercado global, América Latina ha experimentado una explosión de pobreza social en la última década. Las proyecciones del Banco Mundial sugieren que, de no confrontarse este problema, 55 millones de latinoamericanos podrían estar viviendo con menos de US$1 al día en la próxima década.
La Declaración de Santiago producto de esta conferencia estableció la meta de un plan ambiental urbano para poner en marcha diálogos político-institucionales y gestiones conjuntas. El objetivo es crear las condiciones necesarias para salvar los obstáculos de gobernabilidad política que siguen oponiéndose a los esfuerzos de las dos décadas pasadas para promover reformas económicas y democratización en la región. A fin de desarrollar una estructura urbana más competitiva y eficiente, tal plan de acción regional debe:
Como parte de una estrategia de reforma urbana más amplia, debe prestarse atención urgente a la necesidad de suministrar condiciones habitacionales mejores y más accesibles para los pobres urbanos. Dada la reciente disminución de las inversiones públicas habitacionales en la mayor parte de América Latina, es crítico comenzar ya a proporcionar nuevas unidades habitacionales, mejorar las existentes y regularizar los asentamientos informales.
Igualmente, la Declaración de Santiago adelantó una variedad de propuestas, entre ellas nuevos marcos normativos para políticas urbanas y habitacionales; políticas de organización territorial y mecanismos de control del uso del suelo; y políticas públicas para integración social e igualdad de los géneros. Sin embargo, no confrontó el hecho de que muchos de los problemas sociales, urbanos y ambientales de la región son consecuencia de los sistemas jurídicos nacionales de carácter conservador, elitista y mayormente obsoleto que siguen vigentes en muchos países. Cualquier propuesta para un nuevo equilibrio entre estados, mercados y ciudadanos para apoyar el proceso de reforma urbana, requiere no sólo cambios económicos y político-institucionales, sino también una completa reforma jurídica, especialmente la gestión jurídico-política de los derechos de propiedad.
Conferencia de Derecho Urbanístico de Brasil
La constitución brasileña de 1988 introdujo un capítulo pionero sobre política urbana al consolidar la noción de la “función social de la propiedad y de la ciudad” como el principal marco conceptual para el Derecho Urbanístico brasileño. Si bien es cierto que las constituciones brasileñas desde 1934 establecían nominalmente que el reconocimiento del derecho individual de propiedad estaba condicionado a la realización de una “función social”, hasta 1988 no se había definido claramente este principio ni se había podido ejecutar con los mecanismos de observancia en vigor. La Constitución de 1988 reconoce el derecho individual de propiedad en áreas urbanas únicamente si el uso y desarrollo del suelo y de la propiedad satisfacen las estipulaciones con sesgo social y ambiental del Derecho Urbanístico, especialmente de los planes maestros formulados en los ámbitos municipales. Como resultado, se ha decretado un sinnúmero de leyes municipales urbanas y ambientales para apoyar una amplia variedad de políticas y estrategias de gestión urbana progresista.
Algunas de las experiencias internacionales más innovadoras de gestión urbana están teniendo lugar en Brasil, como el proceso del presupuesto participativo adoptado en varias ciudades (Goldsmith y Vainer, 2001). La inminente aprobación de la Ley Nacional de Desarrollo Urbano (el llamado “Estatuto de la ciudad”) debe contribuir a consolidar el nuevo paradigma constitucional de planificación y gestión urbana, especialmente por el hecho de reglamentar instrumentos de observanción constitucional tales como edificación obligatoria, transferencia del derecho de construir, expropiación mediante tributación progresista y derechos de prescripción adquisitiva.
Proceder a ese cambio en el paradigma jurídico es de importancia fundamental. La tradición incipiente de estudios jurídicos urbanísticos en Brasil tiende a ser esencialmente legalista, pero refuerza las nociones tradicionales del derecho individual de propiedad especificadas en el Código Civil de 1916. Este Código obsoleto considera el suelo y los derechos de propiedad casi exclusivamente en función de las posibilidades económicas ofrecidas a los propietarios individuales, sin dejar mucho campo para una intervención estatal con sesgo social, dirigida a conciliar los diferentes intereses existentes sobre el uso del suelo y de la propiedad. Tan importante es decretar nuevas leyes como lo es consolidar el marco conceptual propuesto por la Constitución de 1988, y de esa manera sustituir las estipulaciones individualistas del Código Civil, las cuales todavía sientan las bases para una interpretación judicial conservadora sobre el desarrollo del suelo. Gran parte de la resistencia ideológica a las políticas urbanas progresistas que sostienen grandes grupos conservadores de la sociedad brasileña tiene su origen en el Código, que no considera el papel de la ley y la ilegalidad en el proceso de desarrollo urbano y de gestión urbana.
Los artículos presentados en esta conferencia exploran las posibilidades jurídicas, políticas e institucionales creadas por el nuevo marco constitucional para ejecutar acciones estatales y sociales en el proceso de desarrollo urbano y control de uso del suelo. Los participantes recalcaron que la discusión de leyes, instituciones jurídicas y decisiones judiciales debe estar respaldada por un entendimiento de la naturaleza del proceso legislativo, las condiciones de cumplimiento de la ley, y la dinámica del proceso de producción social de ilegalidad urbana.
Los participantes también advirtieron que si el tratamiento jurídico del derecho de propiedad se saca del ámbito restrictivo del Derecho Civil, de forma que pueda ser interpretado a partir de los criterios más progresistas del redefinido Derecho Urbanístico público redefinido, entonces las posibilidades ofrecidas por el Derecho Administrativo brasileño tampoco son satisfactorias. Las estipulaciones existentes y en vigor, limitadas y formalistas, carecen de suficiente flexibilidad y competencia para manejar y garantizar la seguridad jurídica y las relaciones político-institucionales que están transformándose rápidamente en varios niveles: dentro del entorno estatal, entre niveles gubernamentales, entre Estado y sociedad, y dentro de ésta. Las nuevas estrategias de gestión urbana se basan en ideas tales como plusvalías, asociaciones público-privadas, operaciones “urbanas” e “interligadas”, privatización y terciarización de la prestación de servicios públicos y presupuesto participativo; el problema es que dichas estrategias carecen de un soporte pleno del sistema jurídico. Además, la nueva base constitucional del Derecho Urbanístico brasileño todavía requiere consolidarse como el primer marco jurídico para la gestión urbana.
Conclusión
Todavía quedan sin contestar muchas preguntas importantes sobre ley e ilegalidad urbana, y antes de que puedan contestarse adecuadamente, se necesitarán muchos más trabajos, investigaciones y debates. Sin embargo, formular las preguntas correctas es a veces tan importante como dar las respuestas acertadas. Por esa razón, el debate de la dimensión jurídica del proceso de desarrollo urbano y de gestión urbana continuará explorando las interrogantes para América Latina y el resto del mundo.
Notas
1) Programa Hábitat: Plan de acción global adoptado por la comunidad internacional en la Conferencia Hábitat II en Estambul, Turquía, en junio de 1996
2) CNUAH: Centro de las Naciones Unidas para los Asentamientos Humanos (Hábitat). Consulte los sitios www.unchs.org/govern y www.unchs.org/tenure para obtener información sobre la Campaña Mundial de Gobernabilidad Urbana y la Campaña Mundial de Tenencia Segura del CNUAH.
Referencias
Alfonsin, Betania de Moraes. 2001. “Politicas de regularizacao fundiaria: justificacao, impactos e sustentabilidade”, in Fernándes, Edésio (org) Direito Urbanistico e Politica Urbana no Brasil. Belo Horizonte: Del Rey.
de Soto, Hernando. 2000. The Mystery of Capital. London: Bantam Press.
1989. The Other Path. London: I.B.Tauris & Co.
Fernandes, Edésio. 1999. “Redefinición de los derechos de propiedad en la era de la liberalización y la privatización”, Land Lines (noviembre) 11(6):4-5.
Goldsmith, William W., and Carlos B. Vainer. 2001. “Participatory budgeting and power politics in Porto Alegre”. Land Lines (January) 13(1):7-9.
Hobsbawn, Eric. 2000. The New Century. London: Abacus.
McAuslan, Patrick. 2000. “From Greenland’s icy mountains, from India’s coral strand: the globalisation of land markets and its impact on national land law”. Trabajo presentado en la Conferencia de Derecho Urbanístico de Brasil.
Payne, Geoffrey. “Innovative approaches to tenure for the urban poor”. United Kingdom Department for International Development.
Sobre el autor
Edésio Fernandes, abogado brasileño, es profesor de la Unidad de Planificación para el Desarrollo del University College de Londres. También se desempeña como coordinador de IRGLUS (Grupo Internacional de Investigación sobre Legislación y Espacio Urbano). Fernándes desea expresar su agradecimiento a los participantes del taller de trabajo del IRGLUS en Cairo quienes compartieron sus notas, especialmente Ann Varley, Gareth A. Jones y Peter Marcuse.
SHARE
Scholars and practitioners involved with the regularization of low-income settlements in Latin America shared their experiences in a forum sponsored by the Lincoln Institute last March and hosted by the City of Medellín and its regularization office, PRIMED (Integrated Program for the Improvement of Subnormal Barrios in Medellín). Participants included representatives from PRIMED, Medellín city officials, and observers from multilateral institutions including the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), the World Bank, AID and GTZ (Germany).
Twelve major presentations reported on the most significant case studies from eight countries: Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Mexico, Perú and Venezuela. The forum proved to be a landmark meeting whose findings, summarized below, are expected to have important implications for Latin American policymakers.
Comparative Perspectives on Regularization
Several different approaches to regularization are illustrated in the country case studies. The two primary approaches are juridical regularization, i.e., legal land entitlement procedures to convert from de facto to de jure property ownership, as in Perú, Ecuador and Mexico; and physical regularization (urbanization), including the extension of infrastructure into irregular settlements, as in Colombia, Venezuela, Brazil and other countries. A third approach, which has been emphasized only recently, puts priority on the social and civic integration of low-income settlements and their populations into the urban fabric by a combination of measures.
While most countries have elements of all three forms of regularization, they usually focus on one direction or another. In Mexico all three approaches are used simultaneously. In most other countries the emphasis depends on the relative strengths of the actors, organizations and politics on the one hand, and on the way the regularization problem is conceived (“constructed”) by federal and local authorities on the other.
Juridical Regularization: Land Title Programs
The regularization of land titles has become accepted practice by governments, international agencies and NGOs alike. (see Figure 1.) In fact, the question “Why Regularize?” that was raised at the beginning of the forum seemed to catch everyone by surprise. Yet, posing this question goes to the heart of the matter about who defines the problems regarding land tenure and who establishes policies in favor of regularization. Most of the legal titling programs examined in the case studies were lengthy and expensive, and, by the time they came on-line, did little to significantly affect the level of security or to systematically provide services in the settlements.
Figure 1 Common Arguments in Favor of Land Regularization
As far as the poor are concerned, however, several of the arguments in favor of regularization would appear to be spurious. Established households generally have de facto security and rarely prioritize the need for full legal title, the latter being a need more associated with middle-classes value systems. Moreover, once settlements are well-established, home improvements and consolidation occur at a rate that is closely tied to available resources, not to title security. As for the introduction of services, most providers follow their own internal rules for timing and procedures; rarely is legal title an important criterion.
Furthermore, low-income households do not like falling into debt and are uneasy about entering formal credit systems, even though NGOs and governments are moving towards micro-credit support. In short, where low-income groups want regularization of tenure it appears to be because the state wants them to want it and then constructs demand accordingly.
One may conceive of tenure regularization as both an end in itself and a means to an end. Regularization as an “end” emerged clearly in the Lima case, where access to land and land titling programs substitute for a systematic housing policy. The most recent round of land titling (since 1996) even includes a retitling of previously regularized lots as an arena of political patronage serving the central government at the expense of the city’s political leaders. (1) A similar situation prevailed in Mexico with the multiplex regularization agencies created during the 1970s. In both countries the commitment to tenurial regularization is clearly indicated by active programs, usually providing a large number of titles each year at low cost.
Elsewhere, regularization may also be an “end,” but it is of secondary importance. In Colombia, Brazil, El Salvador and Ecuador, for example, titling is at best only a minor part of the physical regularization package. Even so, the absence of legal tenure and the need for regularization may be used to good political effect by regulating the flow and order of infrastructure provision.
Regularization of titles as a means to an end is promoted widely by international agencies as part of the World Bank’s New Urban Management Program. Mexico is a good example of the process whereby land titling is a prerequisite to urban land management, planning and public administration. Regularization incorporates the population into the system of land registry, tax base, planning controls, construction permissions, consumption charges, and recovery of services and infrastructure. Regularization becomes the means to urban sustainability and management, and this more than any other reason explains its widespread espousal and adoption today.
One notable feature in several case studies was the apparent reluctance to regularize on private lands unless the initiative had the support of the original landowner. As a result, the settlements most likely to be regularized are those occupying public land or land whose ownership is unchallenged. With the exception of Mexico, governments are reluctant to expropriate in the social interest. Several countries have a system of land occupancy rights that permits transfer of ownership after a certain number of years of proven and appropriate use. In Brazil this usucapión system has been extended recently to allow for title transfer on privately owned urban lots of less than 250m2 that have been occupied continuously for five years.
Issues in juridical regularization programs:
Physical Regularization: Urbanization and Infrastructure Provision
The second principal arena of regularization reported by many of the case studies at the forum focused on the physical regularization process in different forms of irregular settlements. In Medellín, for example, approximately 12 percent of the total population is estimated to live in fast-growing barrios, which are often built on steep slopes like their hillside counterparts in Rio or Caracas. There are undoubted problems and dangers in these areas, but most of the participants who visited the PRIMED settlements were more encouraged by their level and rate of consolidation than the local officials appeared to be. (The discussion did not address upgrades and interventions in inner-city tenements-conventillos, vecindades, cortiços.)
It is impossible to do justice to the many innovative programs that were described at the forum, but one major success story is the Favela/Bairro program in Rio de Janeiro. This project is predicated on close collaboration with local residents to open up favela streets to vehicular access in combination with service installation. However, it is important to recognize that its success has only been possible at considerable cost: the total expenditure between 1994 and 1997 has been US$300 million, in large part provided by the IDB. This raises important questions about the replicability of such programs.
Issues in physical regularization programs:
>
Regularization as a Means of Social Integration
It became apparent in the deliberations that an increasingly explicit goal of regularization is to achieve social integration by bringing low-income populations into the societal mainstream and into the urban fabric. This is most frequently observed in reference to the “rescue” of low-income populations and other marginal groups and their incorporation into the urban citizenry. This was one of the important goals in Brazil’s favela/bairro program, which, in part at least, aimed to break up the drug and delinquent youth gangs and to rescue the local population from their influence.
A potential problem with this approach is that concepts of “good citizen” and the societal mainstream are social constructions that are often highly value-laden and may derive from within a particular class and dominant power group. Regularization to achieve integration into the wider set of social opportunities such as public education and health care is one thing; regularization for social convergence and conformity is another. However, this theme remains incipient in the literature, and the whole notion of citizenship with its bundles of rights and responsibilities is part of an agenda still largely unconsidered.
Conclusion
This international forum emphasized the need to be aware of the different underlying rationales for juridical and physical regularization in individual countries, and to be aware that they are closely tied to the political and planning process. In order for regularization to work well there has to be genuine political commitment such that all departments and officials who intervene do so with greater integration, cooperation and empowerment. Policymakers should also think imaginatively about alternative, “parallel” ownership systems and opportunities for genuine public participation in decisionmaking at all stages in the regularization process.
Important, too, are financial commitment and sustainability. Unless regularization is tied to medium- and long-term cost recovery through taxes, user charges and deferred assessments, programs will continue to depend on major external funding and subsidies, which will severely limit the extent and scale of their application.
An exciting last session of the forum allowed participants to reflect on future directions for research and policy analysis on land market regularization. Five major areas emerged. First, we recognized the need to identify the various actors and interest groups involved in promoting irregular or illegal land development in the first place, and to make explicit the differences between land invasions, owner subdivisions, company subdivisions and other actions. The point here is that irregularity is produced by various actors and interests groups as a for-profit business, and is not just a result of dysfunctional urbanization.
Second, we discussed moving away from dualist thinking and breaking with the idea of conceptualizing the land market in terms of the formal and informal city, the parallel city, or normal and subnormal barrios, all of which implicitly assume that the poor are locked into a separate land market. In fact, there is a single land market that is segmented, not separated, along a continuum in terms of access and affordability.
Third, we need to confront the issue of financial replicability and the ways in which finance might be leveraged through cross-subsidies, plusvalia, valorization charges, tax-and-spend, progressive consumption charges, and other mechanisms. Fourth, we need to be less gender-blind. It is important to think more imaginatively about regularization priorities with respect to gender and to explore innovative titling schemes that address the need for women’s settlement and housing rights.
Finally, we need to be much more precise in our terminology, and, more importantly, to recognize that there is a “social construction” embedded within language. The terms adopted in any society are revealing about how that society views and diagnoses housing and related social issues. Terminology may lead to punitive or patronizing policy solutions; it may even “criminalize” local populations. Most of the differences and variations in the case studies stem from the way each society constructs its understanding of the housing problem and how it presents that vision to its people-through its terminology, through its laws, procedures and policies, and through the bureaucratic and administrative organization of the state itself.
1. Julio Calderon, “Regularization of Urban Land in Peru,” Land Lines, May 1998.
Peter M. Ward is professor of sociology and of public affairs at the University of Texas at Austin and a faculty associate of the Lincoln Institute. Among his many books is Methodology for Land and Housing Market Analysis, coedited with Gareth Jones and published by the Lincoln Institute in 1994.
Value capture is an increasingly popular concept that seeks to capture for public benefit all or part of the increments in land value resulting from community, rather than private, investments and actions. Yet, based on the Lincoln Institute’s experience in sponsoring many educational and research programs dealing with value capture policies in Latin America, it is also quite controversial.
This article addresses some of the contentious and persistent issues that have engaged participants in the ongoing debate over value capture, ranging from basic concerns, such as the proper understanding of the legal basis for land property rights, to larger political questions raised by new or higher charges on real estate property. Technical issues also are involved, such as distinguishing land value increments (or plusvalías) attributed to specific public investments or planning decisions from other more general sources or factors that influence land markets, as well as pragmatic challenges that arise in selecting the right instrument for the right circumstances at the right time.
To gain a better understanding of value capture, one cannot rely simply on technical arguments or expert authorities. At the same time, one cannot dismiss the issue on purely political grounds by attributing the main obstacles to the implementation of value capture policies to well-positioned interest groups. Rather, a considerable share of the “unexplained variance” in the application of value capture seems to be the result of inadequate information or misunderstanding held by major stakeholders in the debate.
Figure 1 summarizes 10 contentious value capture issues; items 1, 2 and 3 are discussed briefly below.
Unfair Charges for the Poor
Although support for direct subsidies or grants to the poor is waning in Latin America, many still believe that the poor should not pay for urban services, or should be exempted from taxes and other charges on their land, as is required by many of the more progressive value capture policies and laws.
A common argument in favor of exempting the poor from such charges raises an intergenerational dilemma: since wealthy residents for many years have enjoyed urban services that they did not pay for, why should the poor be charged now for services that they need and deserve? Another argument centers on the idea that most land value increments in poor areas have in fact been generated by the poor themselves, through sweat equity or private schemes to access basic services in their areas, not through public intervention. Some recognize that urban upgrading programs simply bring poor settlements to the first stage of the urbanization process, which is a bare minimum for participation in regular land markets. Others believe that even a socially neutral value capture instrument may produce a regressive result, perpetuating the disparity between the rich and the poor in the context of inequitable access to urban facilities and services, as is the case in most Latin American cities (Furtado 2000).
On the other end of the spectrum are those who argue that value capture payments are part of the poor sector’s claim to full citizenship, including the right to demand attention from the government. There are many examples where the poor have been eager to pay for receiving services (such as water systems, public lighting and flood control) since the cost of not accessing them is perceived to be higher than the actual payment. This was the case in Lima, Peru, in the early 1990s when more than 30 poor communities participated in a public service program that included payment for the cost of the services provided.
A more theoretical and perhaps less intuitive argument considers the capitalization effect of any charge on land prices. That effect is the reduction (or increase) of the current market price of land by the capitalized or discounted sum of the costs (or benefits) affecting the future earnings the property is expected to generate. To the extent that value capture charges on regularized or upgraded areas are integrated in the expectations regarding the future burden imposed on unserviced land bought from illegal or pirate subdividers, they would tend to be capitalized in the price that buyers would be willing to pay or the subdivider was able to charge (Smolka 2003). Although the poor would end up paying the same amount over time, the money would go to the local public treasury rather than the subdivider’s pocket.
Incidently, a common but mistaken view holds that such charges (value capture or land value taxes) are inflationary or increase the market price of land. Although the capitalization effect is complicated, most people can understand a situation comparing two otherwise identical apartments, where the one located in a building with a higher condo fee would get a lower rent in the marketplace than the apartment with a smaller fee. The same line of reasoning may be used to explain why there is no double taxation between value capture and the property tax. The relevant land value increment resulting from some public intervention accumulates or adds to an observed base market price that already is net of the capitalized effect of any anticipated future benefits or burdens, including the property tax.
Acquired Rights When Changing Land Uses
Although few would argue that expectations play a crucial role in determining land prices, it is widely considered unfair if price compensation falls below current market prices. This idea is now beginning to change, as reflected in recent legislation. For example, Law 388 of 1997 in Colombia allows for public acquisition of land at fair market prices, but not including the increment of land value resulting from previous public investments or changes in regulatory land uses (see article by Maldonado and Smolka, page 15). The same principle is stated in Brazil’s new City Statute (Law 10.257 of 2001) when land expropriation is used as a sanction against a landowner who is not complying with social uses of the land. Many lawyers agree that expectations do not create rights; therefore, expectations not realized should not be compensated. The social unrest around public land acquisition that led to the postponement of Mexico City’s proposed new airport mega-project vividly illustrates this problem.
It is hard for the typical landowner who in good faith bought a piece of land with the expectation of using its development potential to understand why he should not be compensated for the loss of that land at the current market price or at least the acquisition price, even if the development rights had not been exercised. However, the result often depends on the extent to which the new policy is actually implemented. In practice, prices reflect expectations regarding the (usually weak) enforcement of existing legislation, including legal variances or loopholes in the relevant fiscal and regulatory environment. This has been the case in most court decisions regarding fair compensation on public land acquisition processes and on claims from landowners (or developers) on whom local administrations impose plusvalías charges. A more pragmatic argument is that rights may indeed be restricted by a new legislation or zoning code, as long as it is accompanied by adequate transition rules to protect the rights of those who had previous legitimate claims. Others defend the transition process as an indispensable step toward allowing the market to gradually absorb such changes.
Economists struggle to convey the importance of expectations in determining the structure of current observed land prices. How the future affects current land prices is in fact harder to express to the general public than the notion that current prices reflect rights as realized in comparable properties in the past. In Latin America expectations associated with land uses are not always related to zoning or building codes, but rather to land speculation. It may be of interest to note that whereas speculation in Latin America is associated with long-term retention of land, in North America it is associated more with rapid turnover of properties. The phenomenon of land retention for future development, with the consequent private appropriation of unearned increments in land values, has stymied urban planning and development ever since cities began expanding rapidly over many decades.
Asymmetrical Compensation for Wipeouts
The debate over value capture (i.e., capturing land value increments, windfalls or plusvalías) inevitably raises the question: What about the wipeouts (minusvalías)? The common perception is that governments are more eager to approve legislation to capture land value increments than to provide legal protections for citizens against takings or arbitrary compensation for equally predictable losses (minusvalías). The Latin American record has shown, however, that the balance between the plusvalías captured and the minusvalías paid for is clearly negative. The amount paid in compensation to landowners surpasses by far the small and sporadic gains the public has been able to recover from the direct benefits it generates for private properties.
All rents, and land prices for that matter, are in essence nothing more than accumulated plusvalías, or land value increments, over time, echoing Henry George’s argument for full confiscation of land rents. Thus, the alleged minusvalías are considered incidental and just part of a value to which individual rights are not (or should not be) absolute. The debate on this asymmetry bears directly on the proper definition of wipeouts and on how those losses are understood, which raises the issue of development rights. While some are willing to restrict the compensation for land and building improvements that the owner may lose, others argue that development rights are permanently built in as an inherent attribute of the land.
In practice it is not easy to make these arguments. What may be valid in the aggregate does not necessarily hold true for the part, since individual landowners consider it a loss in land value when, for example, a walled expressway cuts across their back yard or a viaduct blocks their view and produces noise and pollution. The average citizen is not easily convinced by the above arguments. The quest for symmetrical treatment is too socially and culturally sensitive to be ignored.
Transfer of development rights (TDRs)—an instrument originally conceived for compensating minusvalías from historical, architectural, cultural or environmental preservation ordinances for plusvalías somewhere else—has now been extended to mitigate other legitimate claims for minusvalías compensation. Some argue that regular compensation for wipeouts is a guarantee, making it easier to accept payments for windfalls. Under the equity principle, planning decisions including zoning schemes are recognized as potentially unfair with regard to the distribution of values in land markets. However ingenious the TDR instrument may appear, it does not help clarify the issues at stake. On the contrary, it adds to the debate since it simultaneously recognizes the right for minusvalías to be compensated and sanctions the right of individuals to plusvalías, reintroducing the question of private appropriations of community values.
Final Comments
The complex debates over value capture policies and instruments in Latin America indicate that much remains to be researched and learned. If the issues do not necessarily have a single answer, the arguments discussed here demonstrate that a significant portion of the resistance to such ideas may be attributed to misconceptions and insufficient information. Although the positions taken by different groups are not as clear-cut or coherent as expected, perceptions and attitudes do change, as the accompanying article indicates.
Martim O. Smolka is a senior fellow and director of the Lincoln Institute’s Program on Latin America and the Caribbean. Fernanda Furtado is a fellow of the Institute and a professor in the Urbanism Department at the Fluminense Federal University in Niteroi, Brazil.
References
Furtado, Fernanda. 2000. Rethinking value capture policies for Latin America. Land Lines 12 (3): 8–10.
Smolka, Martim O. 2003. Informality, urban poverty and land market prices. Land Lines 15 (1): 4–7.
Figure 1: Contentious Propositions and Commentaries on Value Capture
Proposition Commentary
1. It is unfair to charge the urban poor who benefit from regularization or upgrading programs. Evidence shows that expectations regarding publicly funded future upgrading programs lead to higher markups or premiums on current land prices in irregular or illegal settlements. Charging for such benefits would simply switch the recipient of a payment burden that is already being imposed on the poor from the subdivider to the government collecting the charge.
2. Urban land policy must take into account previous development rights, for they are acquired rights. Although expectations are an important part of land market prices, they do not create rights. Zoning designations or development rights, when not realized, are not acquired rights and therefore they can be taken without compensation.
3. Minusvalías are not compensated for; the asymmetry between plusvalías and minusvalías is unfair. Minusvalías are the exception in Latin American cities where land value increments are much higher than the cost of servicing land. In practice, however, public compensation to private owners usually far surpasses collection through value capture policies.
4. Land value capture policy is “communist.” Paying for “free rides” is certainly not a communist idea. One is reminded of mainstream economic theories regarding the merits of a system where individuals and social costs and benefits converge at the margin.
5. Value capture over and above the property tax implies double taxation. In effect, observed land prices to which land value increments apply are already net of the capitalization effect of property tax on land values.
6. Value capture distorts the functioning of the land market. In actuality, it’s the opposite: uncontrolled land value increments distort the behavior of agents. The presence of plusvalías is as distorting a factor for urban development as inflation is for economic development in general.
7. Private appropriation of land value increments is no more objectionable than similar windfalls obtained in capital markets. There is a fundamental conceptual difference. In capital markets equity and bonds are issued against productive investments as collateral for increases in productivity in individual businesses. In the land market, by contrast, land value increments result from the community effort, not individual effort.
8. Value capture is technically impractical because it is impossible to measure the land value increment. With the technical resources available today it is ludicrous to think it “can’t be done.” Ingenious and practical solutions have been developed in Cartagena, Colombia, and Porto Alegre, Brazil, for example.
9. Value capture is overwhelmingly rejected by the citizens, and therefore is politically impractical. The privileged few are the main source of rejection, not the poorer majority of the population who often are charged higher prices in order to access public services through informal arrangements.
10. The amount that can be collected with supplementary value capture instruments is a negligible amount in the public budget. Because of limited collection of the property tax in Latin America, value capture resources can assume an important role in financing urban development. Besides, use of value capture brings to light plusvalías, which has traditionally been a key source of corruption, and thus contributes to a healthier fiscal environment.
SHARE
Thomas A. Jaconetty is the chief deputy commissioner of the Board of Review (formerly the Board of Appeals) of Cook County, Illinois. During the past 24 years he has been involved in the disposition or review of taxes on more than 600,000 parcels of real estate. He is a member of the International Association of Assessing Officers (IAAO); the Chicago, Illinois State (ISBA) and American Bar Associations; the Justinian Society of Lawyers; and many other professional associations. He has served as a member and chair of the ISBA State and Local Taxation Section Council and contributed to the Illinois Department of Revenue’s Recodification Project.
A certified review appraiser and formerly an arbitrator for the Circuit Court of Cook County, Jaconetty has authored numerous articles and chapters for legal and taxation publications, edited three books and is working on a fourth. He has lectured at or moderated many educational programs on property taxation and assessment administration, and has published over a dozen articles on those topics. In 1998 he was appointed to the Planning Committee of the National Conference of State Tax Judges, and he served as conference chairman for the past two years.
Land Lines: How did you first become involved with the Lincoln Institute?
Thomas Jaconetty: I was familiar with the Institute’s work through its presentations at the annual conferences of the International Association of Assessing Officers (IAAO) and various other educational seminars. In 1994 the chairman of the National Conference of State Tax Judges, Ignatius MacLellan of the New Hampshire Board of Tax and Land Appeals, invited me to attend the conference after reviewing articles I had written on “Highest and Best Use” and “Valuation of Federally Subsidized Housing.” I found the experience invigorating, challenging and intellectually stimulating. The conference was and continues to be the best seminar in which I am involved each year, and I attend quite a few.
LL: As the past chairman, how do you see the role of the National Conference?
TJ: For 25 years the conference has functioned as a clearinghouse of ideas for officials exercising judicial or quasi-judicial powers over tax cases for statewide or regional jurisdictions. Noted authorities in the field, state tax court judges and officials of established tax courts are drawn together in an informal, collegial environment. The conference encourages improved decision making, the exchange of data and resources, the analysis of complex legal issues, and an avenue for a free-flowing interchange of ideas. The personal and professional relationships are open, friendly and dynamic, and there is plenty of room for divergent opinion, eclectic thought and agreement to disagree.
The Planning Committee of about 15 regular participants develops annual programs, and the rest of the members are actively involved with making presentations, offering suggestions, working on committees, attending the sessions and contributing to the overall educational experience. The annual fall conference is the most significant opportunity for formal interaction, but ongoing discussions are supported by the use of e-mail, the Lincoln Web site and the members’ professional involvement in other organizations.
LL: Why is it important for tax adjudicators to have this forum?
TJ: We are surrounded by ever-changing ideas and theories that we must balance against time-honored principles of taxation, complex economic relationships and the expectations of government. Each state has individual statutes and case law, but there is a high level of commonality among basic tax principles and a finite number of responses to factual situations. In spite of the many recurring and vexing issues that confront us, regular communication offers an opportunity to encourage consistency and consensus on the one hand and divergent opinion and reasoned dissent on the other. Members actively seek suggestions, advice and even help from their colleagues, who eagerly and generously respond.
LL: How have you seen the National Conference evolve during the years of your involvement?
TJ: Actually, there has been a remarkable level of consistency. There has been a core group of representatives from about 15 states and another dozen or so that change over time. Many members predate my involvement and others are very new. The most significant changes have been the enhanced communication offered by e-mail and the willingness of the group to probe into ethical, theoretical, decision-making and policy-based questions. There also has been a noticeable increase in volunteerism and in the number of women who are active participants.
I think there is a growing awareness that the deference given to any fact-finding agency (such as the state tax courts from whence our members come) creates a complementary responsibility to evaluate tax controversies within a framework that addresses all of the pertinent legal, valuation, philosophical and public policy issues. From all of that we hope to attain “justice,” which James Madison argued “is the end of government.”
LL: What do you see as the greatest challenges to the conference?
TJ: Remaining timely and relevant, and maintaining a cutting-edge outlook. Not every ascendant theory is always supportable or reasonable, but we seek to remain receptive, open and flexible while respecting the basic principles of state and local taxation that have stood the test of time. As issues become more complex and multi-jurisdictional, there is always a tug-of-war between local control and innovation versus national consistency and uniformity. This era of enormous budgetary constraints on state and local agencies places a premium on knowing where to go for expertise.
We face new challenges and are learning every day, and the conference presents the opportunity to encourage that growth. As John Quincy Adams said, “To furnish the means of acquiring knowledge is . . . the greatest benefit that can be conferred upon mankind.” We are also working to increase our membership and recruit more participation from states not currently represented. The optimum goal is to have around 55 to 60 active participants at any one time.
LL: What role does the Lincoln Institute play?
TJ: It is the heart and the soul of the conference. Especially in these trying economic times, without the Institute’s support many of our members would not have the local funding and financial wherewithal to attend the conference. And, without the organizing ability of the Institute staff, there would be no conference. The Lincoln Institute is uniquely qualified to create the healthy intellectual environment that brings the tax policy, legislative, academic, practitioner and administrative points of view before those very persons who decide the cases and, in so doing, “make the law.”
LL: You alluded to policy. Should judges and tax adjudicators be involved in considering public policy?
TJ: I can only suggest my own view. How judges and adjudicative bodies rule is almost inevitably a reflection of what they learn, know, believe, have proven before them, sense and comprehend, as well as what appears to be just. Everything must be taken against the backdrop of the purposes of the law and the ends that the law seeks to achieve. The more informed, eclectic, analytical and open the decision maker, the better the outcome.
The valuation of contaminated property (brownfields) and subsidized housing are two real property tax areas that immediately come to mind. These are technical issues, but they require an appreciation of the larger context and policy implications, as well as the proper balance between legislation and its interpretation.
The Lincoln Institute has had a significant and salutary impact on the development of sound tax policy. Henry George, whose writings inspire the Institute’s work, addressed these issues in The Land Question “[Taxation] must not take from individuals what rightfully belongs to individuals.” In Progress and Poverty he stated, “It is the taking by the community, for the use of the community, of that value which is the creation of the community.” But, as an exercise of power, it “must not repress industry . . . check commerce . . . [or] punish thrift . . .”
LL: What are some of the major tax issues facing tribunals today?
TJ: On the real property taxation side there is the taxation of contaminated property; the use and misuse of the cost approach; valuation of subsidized housing; the effect of low-income housing tax credited property; and the changing face of charitable and nonprofit entities. There are so many other issues: the application of traditional sales, use, gross receipts and income tax principles to an ever-expanding and global economy; related questions of nexus jurisdiction and extraterritorial power; the impact of e-commerce; the clash and interrelationship of the due process and commerce clauses; local autonomy challenged by movements to adopt model acts.
Other more general concerns include alternative dispute resolution; pro se litigants; ethics (appraiser, assessor, judicial); regulation versus deregulation; court management; and the role of policy in decision making. Added to these are the routine daily determinations that must be made by tribunals and agencies that form the grist of the taxation process, which is the lifeblood of government—that which Oliver Wendell Holmes characterized as “what we pay for civilized society.”
LL: How does the National Conference of State Tax Judges interact with other professional associations?
TJ: Many members of the conference are active at the state and local level with continuing legal education (CLE), appraisal or assessment organizations, such as seminars offered with the Appraisal Institute. Others take part in presentations sponsored by local directors of revenue or bar-related symposia on tax issues. Some sit on advisory commissions, boards, panels and task forces. Still others, including myself, have a continuing relationship with the IAAO, which offers an especially valuable and practical access to the assessment side of the real property world.
LL: Any final thoughts on the conference and its future?
TJ: Having just completed my two-year term as chairman, I hope it can be said that the conference maintained the high standards set by my immediate predecessors—Ignatius MacLellan, Joseph Small and Blaine Davis. I certainly feel that the future is in capable hands with our new chair, Arnold Aronson. With the biannual rotation of the conference to different locations around the U.S., it returns to Cambridge next year to celebrate its twenty-fifth year. I will simply echo what many of us say every year when we convene: This conference is the finest and most beneficial professional education endeavor in which any of us are engaged.
SHARE
Compulsory purchase, expropriation, eminent domain, or simply “taking” are different names for the legal institution that allows governments to acquire property against the will of its owner in order to fulfill some public purpose. This tool has been used for a long time as a major instrument of land policy, but now it is subject to a number of criticisms and mounting social resistance in many parts of the world. Campaigns for housing rights, movements for the defense of property rights, and legislative and judiciary activism are among the factors changing the conditions under which governments exercise their power of eminent domain.
SHARE
Across the country, decision makers at the local and state levels increasingly are turning to new methods for resolving conflicts that arise during land use decision making processes. For disputes over permitting or enforcement of local and state land use regulations, mediation is considered a reasonable alternative to at least some litigation. Although mediation has successfully resolved many land use disputes, its use typically has been applied ad hoc as inclination and resources determine.
To better understand the use of mediation across a land use decision-making system within a single state, the Consensus Building Institute (CBI) and Green Mountain Environmental Resolutions (GMER) conducted an 18-month screening and evaluation study in Vermont.
Mediation and Land Use Disputes
Previous studies by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and the Consensus Building Institute have demonstrated that negotiation and mediation can be effective in resolving land use disputes. A successful mediation program requires selecting suitable cases for mediation at the right time in the process, and matching them with appropriate forms of mediation assistance.
Although mediation is widely used in some areas of law, such as family or employment cases, its application in land use law has been limited. There is no systematic program or set of programs that integrates mediation into the land use permitting process at all levels, from local planning boards to state courts. Increasing the use of mediation and integrating it into the land use permit application and appeal process can reduce the burden on valuable judicial resources, save the parties time and money, and, perhaps most important, resolve disputes that otherwise could divide a community into opposing camps. This study of Vermont aimed to identify lessons that can inform the land use decision-making process in other states.
Methodology
Vermont’s manageable size, its diversity of small cities and rural towns, and the frequent use of mediation, especially at the court level, made it an ideal laboratory in which to learn how mediation might be better integrated into different levels of land use decision making. Vermont also has a strong land use planning law, Act 250, passed in 1970 to protect the environment, balance growth and development needs, and provide a forum for neighbors, municipalities, and other interest groups to voice their concerns. Depending on the nature of a proposed development project, an applicant may need to obtain permits from a local board, a regional commission, various state agencies, or federal agencies.
As in most states, land use disputants in Vermont may utilize mediation via one of two routes: when there is consensus to try it, or in court when a judge orders mediation or a hearing officer suggests mediation at a prehearing conference.
This study investigated two methods for identifying cases that might be appropriate for mediation. First, we sought to better understand action at the state court level, after other opportunities for consensus building and mediation had failed. In collaboration with the Vermont Environmental Court, CBI developed a screening and evaluation process for 285 active land use cases in the court between July 1, 2006 and December 31, 2007. Judges were asked to fill out a form to identify why and how they screened each case for mediation, and the parties were asked to complete an evaluation form after the mediation ended.
Second, GMER and CBI developed a protocol to determine whether it was possible to identify cases appropriate for mediation at both local and Act 250 levels prior to the appeal stage. Over the 18-month study period, GMER screened 54 contested Act 250 permit applications. Most cases that make their way to the Act 250 and Vermont Environmental Court dispute systems start at the local level. However, despite many efforts by GMER to identify local-level cases to be screened, only 13 local cases were reviewed.
Nine Lessons Learned
1: Screening for mediation assists with settlement.
Mediation screening—that is, evaluation of the appropriateness of mediation for a particular case—prior to proceeding with traditional avenues of land use conflict resolution is an effective tool for encouraging settlement as a general approach; encouraging mediation specifically; and distinguishing among cases that are more amenable to resolution and those that require more formal quasi-judicial or judicial decision making. Given the current barriers to mediation—lack of knowledge about mediation, jointly finding a mediator, and simply communicating with the opposing party—screening is an effective tool to increase its use.
In the Act 250 cases, the act of screening itself seemed to encourage informal negotiations and settlement in some instances (figure 1). Many of the screenings were essentially informal phone mediations that included discussions of the parties’ interests and possible options to satisfy those interests.
2: Screening criteria are useful but not fully determinative.
There is no simple formula or correlation between key factors in a case and the parties’ willingness to mediate as a way to successfully resolve issues. However, the data on screening do suggest a few key criteria that are important in determining if a case is more likely to be recommended for mediation.
The data also suggest that some criteria are not important in determining whether mediation is appropriate for a specific case.
3: The screener’s qualifications and credibility do matter.
A mediation screener for land use disputes requires a specific skill set, knowledge base, and credibility. At the Environmental Court level, a judge’s expertise in land use issues, law, and regulatory structure allows a more informed assessment of cases amenable to mediation. Analysis of the court’s screening data concluded that the two most important factors in determining the appropiateness of mediation were the issue of law at stake and the judge’s “sense” of settlement potential. Both are professional judgments rather than more formulaic means of determining appropriateness. Furthermore, the judge’s authority gives the resulting determination legitimacy.
In a nonjudicial setting such as a permitting body, a screener without legal authority or stature can also be effective. Most parties will participate and take seriously the recommendations of the screener, as long as the screener has the express support and legitimacy provided by an official governing body.
4: Screening program design is also important for legitimacy.
As part of the research, we established and implemented the screening program for the District Commissions, entities that provide review under Act 250. This program was highly instructive because it raised several key issues. The primary question was whether screeners should be part of or separate and independent from an appropriate government agency (table 1). A secondary concern was whether a screener might also later mediate the case. Protocols can be used to avoid or minimize the perception of any potential conflict of interest.
A few survey respondents raised concern that the Act 250 screener was also available to mediate the cases screened, though the screener always provided the parties a roster of mediators from which to choose. The concerns were about ethics (Can one conduct a fair and neutral screening when one has both the economic and professional incentive to recommend mediation in order to then mediate?) and the marketplace (Is it fair to and competitive for other mediators if the screener has an “inside track” on certain cases?).
We assume that screeners as mediators may be influenced by the opportunity to mediate, if they are eligible. We would argue that this incentive is not merely financial, but also professional in the sense that one wishes to practice one’s craft. Nonetheless, countervailing arguments suggest that a strict separation of screening and mediation poses an equally difficult set of problems.
5: Land use mediation may be more effective in helping parties reach a settlement than in restoring relationships.
Data gathered through the court mediation evaluation forms offer a somewhat surprising reflection on how participants value their mediation experience. While mediation is often lauded for its contributions to improving relationships among parties, evaluation survey results suggest that parties valued mediation more for its ability to make them consider options than for its impact on their relationship with other parties.
Sixty-six percent of participants reported that the mediation process encouraged them to consider various options for resolving the dispute (59 percent [154] agreed and 7 percent [18] strongly agreed). On the other hand, 42 percent of respondents felt that at the end of the mediation process they were better able to discuss and seek to resolve problems with other parties on this project (39 percent [102] agreed and 3 percent [8] strongly agreed). While one might wish, optimistically, for a mediation program that restores relationships and rebuilds social capital, it seems that participants are more interested in exploring various options for settlement than in broader social or relational goals.
6: Land use mediation may not always result in satisfying agreements, but it generally results in satisfaction with the process.
Parties support mediation and are willing to participate again, despite indications by many that their most recent experience did not result in an agreement that satisfied them. Figure 2 shows that 40 percent agreed that mediation resulted in an agreement that was satisfying to them (88 agreed and 15 strongly agreed), while 35 percent disagreed (55 strongly disagreed and 36 disagreed).
Despite these findings, when asked if they would participate in a mediation again, respondents show more varied results (figure 3). More than 50 (131) agreed and 17 percent (45) strongly agreed to participate again, while only 19 percent (30) disagreed and 7 percent (19) strongly disagreed.
We interpret these data to mean that the agreement reached was tolerable, given their constrained choices. The mediation process more often than not seems to have offered enough benefits, cost or time savings, or some other advantage that many respondents would be willing to participate again.
The evaluation process did reveal some concerns about the role of pro se parties (who represent themselves without an attorney). Some pro se parties expressed frustration with the mediation process, which they felt did not provide an adequate forum for exploring and resolving the full range of issue that concerned them. Other parties expressed their own frustration with the pro se parties, whom they felt slowed down the process and demanded too much time from the mediator. Additional research on best practices for defining and communicating the role of pro se parties could improve overall satisfaction with the mediation process.
7: Mediation of particular issues does not relieve the larger burden on municipalities to make complex decisions on land use projects.
Lower levels of satisfaction were expressed by town officials than other parties, which suggests that mediation in and of itself is not assisting local officials to the extent one might hope. Town representatives were more likely to disagree or strongly disagree (56 percent) that the mediation resulted in an agreement that was satisfying to them than were applicants (36 percent), agencies (36 percent), and interested parties (35 percent).
By the time cases, especially enforcement cases, reach the Environmental Court, town officials may feel they have already tried to accommodate applicants and thus are less enthusiastic about mediation with parties who, in their perspective, have been “recalcitrant.” A court decision, even if it adopts a mediated settlement, may not resolve an entire dispute. Mediation may resolve issues pending before the court, but does not resolve all barriers to implementation of an agreement at the local level. This finding suggests that municipalities may need more assistance, not only in mediation of narrowed issues, but also in more comprehensive consensus building or public participation efforts.
8: Encouraging mediation at the municipal level remains challenging.
The research team was not successful in instituting any systematic local approaches to screening and mediation, despite an intensive outreach effort; a no-cost screening service; the support of mediation at the Act 250 and Court levels; a state generally amenable to alternative forms of dispute resolution; and a relatively vigorous development climate during the study.
Various factors may explain this resistance. The single largest obstacle on the local level is that in most cases the permitting bodies do not know if an application will be opposed until the hearing begins. Furthermore, most applications have only one hearing day, so there is little opportunity for mediation screening. Hearings that last multiple days clearly have other options.
Other obstacles include the fact that mediation as commonly understood may be introduced too early for parties wishing to see how they might fare in the standard administrative process. Local officials may view mediation as usurping their role. The status quo of existing administrative processes may simply be considered “good enough.” Town budgets may account for potential litigation, but not be flexible enough to fund mediation. Some officials may not know enough about mediation or simply be uninformed about its benefits. There may be too few cases in most municipalities in a rural state like Vermont to establish any programmatic approach.
In any case, this study reinforced the assumption that administering mediation at the local level is difficult, however promising the “idea” of mediation may be in assisting communities and their citizens.
9: The Environmental Court can influence attitudes toward mediation.
The Environmental Court’s embrace of mediation as a key tool to its proceedings appears to have an interesting effect on municipal land use decisions, despite the challenges at the local level. It is widely perceived (though inaccurately) among local and regional land use professionals across the state that if a case proceeds to the Environmental Court it “almost always” will be ordered into mediation. The court, in fact, is quite careful about referrals. During our study period, the court referred fewer than half of its cases to mediation.
This finding points to at least two interesting implications for a more rigorous, system-wide approach to mediation and dispute resolution. First, the data suggest that a powerful land use body’s support of mediation has a meaningful impact on perceptions of mediation across the system. Second, the active support of mediation by a body such as the court has likely salutary effects on settlements that can occur earlier in the process. This also suggests that when enough of a land use system’s regulatory bodies support and encourage mediation, a culture of settlement and dispute resolution may take hold.
Conclusions
This study supports the assertion that mediation is useful in land use conflicts. Upon evaluation of nearly 300 Vermont land use cases at the local, Act 250, and Environmental Court levels, this study found that mediation screening and actual mediation are effective tools for targeting and resolving many cases. As disputes become more complex, and resources, time, and money for resolving land use disputes become scarcer, it will be important to find efficient and reliable methods for settling cases. Mediation and mediation screening hold great potential for meeting those goals.
Related Publications
Susskind, Lawrence, Ole Amundsen, and Masahiro Matsuura. 1999. Using Assisted Negotiation to Settle Land Use Disputes: A Guidebook for Public Officials. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Susskind, Lawrence, Mieke van der Wansem, and Armand Ciccarelli. 2000. Mediating Land Use Disputes: Pros and Cons. Cambridge, MA; Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
About the Authors
Patrick Field is managing director of the Consensus Building Institute in Cambridge, Massachusetts, as well as associate director of the MIT-Harvard Public Disputes Program and senior fellow at the Center for Natural Resources and Environmental Policy of the University of Montana in Missoula.
Kate Harvey is an associate at the Consensus Building Institute.
Matt Strassberg is an director of the Environmental Mediation Center and principal of Green Mountain Environmental Resolutions based in Moretown, Vermont.
This research was made possible by the generous support of the JAMS Foundation and the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
