SHARE
Una caricatura de Jack Ziegler en la revista New Yorker refleja la ironía esencial de participar en condominios, cooperativas y otros tipos de asociaciones de propietarios. Un automóvil está ingresando en un camino que conduce hasta un grupo de casas adosadas a lo lejos, con un cartel en la entrada que proclama “Bienvenido a Condoville y la ilusión de ser propietario de su propia vivienda” (Ziegler 1984).
A pesar de esta ambigüedad, aproximadamente un cuarto de la población estadounidense vive ahora en viviendas gestionadas por asociaciones, conocidas en su conjunto como comunidades de interés común (CIC). La figura 1 muestra el impresionante aumento de las CIC en las últimas décadas. Entre 1970 y 2013, la cantidad de unidades de vivienda en este tipo de comunidades pasó de alrededor de 700.000 a 26,3 millones, mientras que la cantidad de residentes se multiplicó por más de 30, de 2,1 millones a 65,7 millones.
Con su creciente popularidad, las comunidades de interés común han generado desafíos políticos y problemas legales que exigen constante resolución. Estos conflictos en general tienen que ver con preocupaciones externas de que las CIC segregan a los ricos del resto de la sociedad, o desacuerdos internos entre los propietarios individuales y los órganos de gobierno de sus asociaciones. Este artículo examina algunas de las controversias asociadas al modelo de CIC y su sistema de gobierno, y sugiere medidas para aumentar los beneficios de las comunidades de interés común, tanto para los propietarios como para la sociedad en general.
El aumento de las comunidades de interés común
La creciente industrialización que se produjo en el siglo XIX, causó contaminación, tráfico, ruido y enfermedades, lo que llevó a muchos planificadores y ciudadanos a favorecer la separación de usos residenciales, comerciales e industriales. (La zonificación como herramienta de planificación no había surgido todavía, y no sería legitimada por la Corte Suprema de Justicia de los Estados Unidos hasta 1926). Algunos emprendedores residenciales impusieron por lo tanto “servidumbres” (convenios, restricciones y derechos de acceso en predios ajenos) sobre sus proyectos de subdivisión. Las servidumbres generalmente restringían las propiedades a usos residenciales y frecuentemente creaban derechos compartidos para el uso de instalaciones y servicios comunales, a cambio de aranceles. Los compradores de lotes aceptaban estas servidumbres y, una vez que las restricciones se habían registrado, los compradores subsiguientes estaban legalmente obligados a respetarlas. El derecho consuetudinario resultó ser un vehículo efectivo para crear áreas residenciales de alto nivel, como Gramercy Park en Nueva York (1831) y Louisburg Square en Boston (1844).
Después de una desaceleración durante la Gran Depresión y la Segunda Guerra Mundial, la construcción de CIC comenzó a crecer a fines de la década de 1960, y la Administración Federal de Viviendas (FHA) reconoció el condominio como un vehículo de propiedad asegurable, seguido de leyes legislativas estatales en el mismo sentido. Los seguros hipotecarios de la FHA animaron a los emprendedores a construir condominios para la clase media, que ganaron aceptación en el mercado como consecuencia del movimiento llamado “new town” (nuevos pueblos), ejemplificado por las primeras comunidades planificadas, como Reston, Virginia (1964) y Columbia, Maryland (1967). La aprobación de la Propuesta 13 en California, una iniciativa que limitó la tributación a la propiedad en 1978, y de medidas similares en otros estados, también impulsó el crecimiento de las CIC, ya que los gobiernos locales, necesitados de fondos y bajo creciente presión para suministrar más servicios, ya no estaban dispuestos a absorber los costos de infraestructura y servicios de nuevos emprendimientos. Por esta razón, tendieron a aprobar solamente nuevos emprendimientos en forma de CIC, donde los costos estaban cubiertos por el emprendedor (y en última instancia por los propietarios).
Hoy en día, los propietarios de CIC están sujetos generalmente a una variedad de restricciones sobre sus unidades privadas, desde limitaciones sobre la diagramación y el diseño de los edificios y el tipo de materiales de construcción utilizados, hasta restricciones en las decoraciones visibles, estructuras auxiliares y el paisajismo. Frecuentemente existen controles sobre la conducta de los propietarios y el uso de la propiedad, que está normalmente limitado a ocupación residencial. También se pueden imponer reglamentos sobre ruido, estacionamiento y tráfico, junto con restricciones vehiculares. En algunos casos también se prohíben carteles políticos, distribución de volantes y actividades asociadas.
A cambio de las cuotas de asociación, los propietarios tienen acceso a infraestructura común, como calles y áreas recreativas, y a servicios privados, como seguridad, recolección de basura, limpieza de calles y remoción de nieve. En general, la CIC es administrada por un gobierno residencial privado y varios comités, que son elegidos por los propietarios y están sujetos a las leyes que rigen contratos civiles, no al derecho público administrativo y constitucional (ver recuadro 1).
————————
Recuadro 1: Modelos de comunidades de interés común
Las CIC normalmente tienen un gobierno privado elegido por los propietarios para administrar y hacer cumplir los contratos, y para promulgar reglas que beneficien los intereses de la comunidad. Aunque la forma exacta de la estructura de gobierno puede variar, los conceptos básicos son similares.
Asociaciones de propietarios
Los propietarios de cada unidad –en general una vivienda unifamiliar o adosada– poseen el título de propiedad de la misma. La asociación posee el título de las áreas comunes y otorga a los propietarios derechos de servidumbre para poder usarlas. Éstas se pueden crear por derecho común o, en algunos estados, bajo derecho legislado. Las asociaciones de propietarios constituyen más de la mitad de las asociaciones comunitarias del país.
Condominios
Los propietarios de cada unidad poseen el título de propiedad de la misma, más un porcentaje de las áreas comunes. La asociación administra las áreas comunes, pero no posee el título de las mismas. Los condominios pueden ser verticales (edificios de apartamentos) u horizontales (viviendas unifamiliares o adosadas) y se crean exclusivamente bajo leyes estatales. Los condominios representan entre el 45 y 48 por ciento de las asociaciones comunitarias.
Cooperativas
Una corporación cooperativa es dueña del edificio, y los propietarios reciben acciones en la corporación y un contrato de alquiler de largo plazo, automáticamente renovable, sobre sus unidades individuales. A diferencia de los condominios y las asociaciones de propietarios, la corporación puede transferir el control de los contratos de alquiler y las acciones de los propietarios de la cooperativa. Sólo entre el 3 y 4 por ciento de las asociaciones comunitarias está organizado en cooperativas.
————————
Beneficios económicos de las CIC
Las CIC aportan beneficios económicos sustanciales a sus propietarios y a la sociedad en general. Los residentes que compran propiedades en estas comunidades han llegado a la conclusión de que las instalaciones compartidas, como las áreas recreativas, son, un mejor valor que, por ejemplo, las piscinas personales y otras instalaciones privadas. De manera similar, aquellos que se han unido a las CIC han llegado a la conclusión de que ciertas restricciones (como la prohibición de estacionar casas rodantes en las entradas de vehículos) aumentan el valor de su propiedad.
Estas comunidades también ayudan a lograr un uso eficiente del suelo. Los costos de organizar y administrar una comunidad residencial privada son menores que los de un sistema público (Nelson 2009). Los costos de transacción y captación de rentas por medio del sistema político también se reducen. Finalmente, como está libre de restricciones legislativas y constitucionales, una comunidad privada tiene mayor flexibilidad para crear sus propias reglas y operaciones, liberándola de la necesidad de cumplir con pautas públicas cuando firma contratos con proveedores de servicios y abastecedores.
Los tribunales estadounidenses han validado estos beneficios en eficiencia al reconocer los contratos de CIC y la participación de sus propietarios en los mismos. En opinión de un tribunal: “Es un hecho reconocido que [los convenios] aumentan el valor de la propiedad subdividida y crean un incentivo para que los compradores adquieran lotes dentro de la subdivisión” (Gunnels vs. No. Woodland Community Ass’n, Tex. Ct. App, 17013 [1978]).
Preocupaciones externas: Secesión de la comunidad general
A pesar de estos beneficios, varios comentaristas han argumentado a que los servicios e instalaciones privadas de las CIC están solamente disponibles para aquellos que tienen el dinero suficiente, y que sirven para separar a los ricos del resto de la sociedad. El resto de la municipalidad donde se encuentra la CIC se ve obligado a vivir sin estos privilegios, creando un sistema permanente de dos niveles de vivienda. Los críticos también argumentan que la privatización de infraestructura y servicios aísla a los residentes de las CIC y reduce su interés en temas comunales generales.
De acuerdo a esta lógica, los residentes de las CIC están menos dispuestos a participar con el gobierno público en asuntos cívicos, y son mucho más propensos a oponerse a los aumentos de impuestos, ya que los servicios son proporcionados por la CIC y no por el gobierno municipal. Cuando las asociaciones comunitarias forman parte de los emprendimientos suburbanos, el aislamiento del centro urbano puede agudizarse. Estas preocupaciones se centran frecuentemente en el miedo a sufrir segregación económica y de clase. El ex Secretario de Trabajo Robert Reich escribió en un artículo para el New York Times, titulado “Secesión de los exitosos”: En muchas ciudades y pueblos, los ricos han retirado de hecho su dinero del mantenimiento de los espacios e instituciones públicas compartidas por todos y han dedicado sus ahorros a sus propios servicios privados… Los condominios y las omnipresentes comunidades residenciales presionan a sus miembros a realizar trabajos que los gobiernos locales con fondos escasos ya no están en condiciones de hacer bien (Reich 1991).
Libertad de elección
Esta caracterización de las asociaciones comunitarias, sin embargo, contradice los valores estadounidenses fundamentales de libertad de contrato y libertad de asociación. Es un valor compartido por todos que la gente puede gastar su dinero y firmar contratos de la manera que quiera, siempre que sus fines sean lícitos. La ley sólo interfiere con la libertad de contrato ocasionalmente, cuando se ponen en juego consideraciones políticas importantes. Los tribunales han reconocido que la libertad de contrato es un elemento importante para sostener los acuerdos de servidumbre privados: Comenzamos con el supuesto de que las personas privadas, en el ejercicio de su derecho constitucional de libertad de contrato, pueden imponer las restricciones que quieran sobre el uso del suelo transferido a otro (Grubel vs. McLaughlin, D. Va. [1968]).
Las CIC también son un reflejo de la creencia estadounidense en la libertad de asociación, ejemplificada por una larga tradición de comunidades utópicas y otras redes basadas en creencias. Los residentes de las CIC modernas podrían compartir intereses comunes, como los propietarios que viven en comunidades ecuestres o de clubes de golf. Otros residentes pueden simplemente compartir el deseo de vivir con tranquilidad o de gozar del carácter del barrio. En Behind the Gates (Detrás de las puertas), Setha Low sugiere que las CIC permiten a las “familias de clase media establecer sus paisajes residenciales con “amabilidad”, de manera que puedan reflejar su propia estética de orden, constancia y control” (Low 2004). Cualquiera que sea la razón, las asociaciones comunitarias son congruentes con la observación de Tocqueville sobre las interacciones entre estadounidenses: Los estadounidenses de toda edad, condición y disposición están constantemente formando asociaciones.No sólo tienen compañías comerciales y de manufactura, de las cuales todos forman parte, sino también asociaciones de miles de otros tipos: religiosas, morales, serias, fútiles, amplias o restringidas, enormes o diminutas (de Tocqueville 1835).
Más aún, las pruebas disponibles demuestran que los residentes de CIC están generalmente contentos con su elección. En 2014, en una encuesta realizada por Public Opinion Strategies para el Instituto de Asociaciones Comunitarias, el 64 por ciento de los propietarios dieron una opinión positiva sobre su experiencia general, y el 26 por ciento dieron una opinión neutra. Si bien el 86 por ciento de los encuestados indicaron que preferiría menor regulación gubernamental o, por lo menos, que no quería ninguna regulación adicional, el 70 por ciento opinó que las reglas y restricciones de la asociación protegen y aumentan el valor de su propiedad.
El problema de doble tributación
Si bien el auge de las CIC se debe a una variedad de factores, uno especialmente clave fue la constricción financiera de las municipalidades después de las revueltas tributarias de la década de 1970. De hecho, una narrativa distinta sobre el tema de “la secesión” es que algunos de los propietarios en comunidades de interés común creen que el gobierno municipal los abandonó a ellos.
Los propietarios de CIC pagan impuestos sobre la propiedad a la misma tasa que otros ciudadanos, aunque a título privado servicios como recolección de basura, limpieza de calles y seguridad, como parte de las cuotas de asociación comunitaria. Esto equivale a una doble tributación, porque los propietarios de asociaciones pagan por un servicio que no reciben.
Si hubiera una política de no proveer de servicios efectivamente antes de que el propietario comprara una unidad en una CIC, teóricamente el comprador podría ofrecer un precio de compra más bajo que reflejase la falta de servicios municipales y el efecto de la doble tributación. El propietario de la unidad estaría protegido, y el emprendedor absorbería la pérdida. Pero si una municipalidad reduce los servicios pero no los impuestos después de la compra de la unidad, el propietario sufre una pérdida no compensada. Este resultado sería una mala política, pues supondría posibilitar la captación de rentas al permitir que una mayoría los ciudadanos de un pueblo seleccionara a un grupo de residentes para que soporte una carga tributaria adicional sin crear costos adicionales. Esto pervierte la noción de ecuanimidad y eficiencia, y es antitética a la construcción de comunidad y confianza cívica.
Es especialmente importante que las legislaturas eviten el uso de la doble tributación como política, dado que las acciones judiciales al respecto tienen poca probabilidad de tener éxito. Los pocos tribunales que han examinado ataques contra la doble tributación han sido indiferentes a los argumentos de que viola el proceso de derecho debido, viola la cláusula de protección igualitaria de la Constitución, o que equivale a la toma de una propiedad sin compensación. Si bien la doble tributación puede ser una mala política, no es inconstitucional. Los tribunales no deberían revocar estas decisiones legislativas, porque son esencialmente decisiones políticas que el público debería rechazar en las urnas.
La cuestión de desigualdad
El argumento de “secesión de los ricos” parece estar basado en la noción de que sólo los propietarios de mayores ingresos con viviendas de mayor valor son los que viven en comunidades de interés común. Los datos disponibles, sin embargo, no apoyan este supuesto con claridad. Como se indica en la figura 2, los precios de condominios y cooperativas –que suman la mitad de las unidades en CIC del país– son inferiores a los de todas las viviendas existentes (que incluyen condominios, cooperativas y viviendas unifamiliares dentro y fuera de asociaciones comunitarias). Si bien estas estimaciones no están segmentadas en profundidad (por ejemplo, no desglosan las viviendas unifamiliares dentro y fuera de las CIC), demuestran que los valores de condominios y cooperativas concuerdan con los valores de las viviendas en general.
El acceso a viviendas a un precio asequible es un desafío importante en los Estados Unidos, pero las asociaciones comunitarias no son necesariamente la causa de estos problemas arraigados y complejos. Antes de que las CIC se hicieran populares, los gobiernos locales ya habían impuesto la zonificación en forma de requerimientos de lotes de una gran superficie mínima, lo que frenaba a los emprendedores a construir viviendas de interés social. De hecho, se ha demostrado que las CIC han reducido los costos de la compra de vivienda. Las viviendas multifamiliares, como los condominios y las casas adosadas, son más económicas que las viviendas unifamiliares, porque recortan el costo del suelo, la infraestructura y la construcción (Ellickson & Been 2005). Las cooperativas de viviendas de interés social permiten restricciones a los precios de reventa y el nivel de ingresos del propietario, asegurando que las familias de bajos ingresos tengan la oportunidad de acceder a la vivienda. Con este propósito, los emprendedores que operan bajo requisitos o incentivos municipales frecuentemente designan como de interés social ciertas unidades de condominio dentro del proyecto.
Por lo tanto, es simplista y contraproducente considerar que las asociaciones comunitarias son un campo de batalla entre ricos y pobres.También el uso peyorativo del término “comunidades enrejadas” para describir las CIC con acceso público limitado no contribuye a comprender el problema. De hecho, una cooperativa de ingresos moderados con su puerta principal bajo llave por razones básicas de seguridad caería en la definición de “comunidad enrejada”.
Principios rectores
¿De qué manera debería la crítica de la “secesión de los exitosos” afectar nuestra comprensión, aceptación y autorización de las comunidades de interés común? El tema es complejo y no se presta a elecciones binarias. Por el contrario, es cuestión de acomodar intereses contrapuestos de acuerdo a los siguientes principios:
Conflictos internos: Propietarios individuales vs. la comunidad
En su libro pionero Privatopia: Las asociaciones de propietarios y el ascenso de los gobiernos residenciales privados (1996), Evan McKenzie advirtió: Las CIC tienen una forma de gobierno privado que expresa una preferencia norteamericana por la propiedad de viviendas privadas y, con demasiada frecuencia, se convierte en una ideología de privativismo hostil. El objetivo social más importante es la preservación de los valores de la propiedad, y todos los demás aspectos de la vida comunitaria están subordinados a él. El cumplimiento rígido, intrusivo y frecuentemente mezquino de las reglas es una caricatura de… la gestión benigna, y la creencia en la planificación racional se distorsiona al poner el énfasis en la conformidad por la conformidad misma.
Los conflictos entre los residentes y las asociaciones o juntas de las CIC frecuentemente se centran en torno a dos temas: el sentido de las restricciones y los procedimientos para hacerlas cumplir (ver el recuadro 2). La disputa puede enfocarse en una gama de temas que va desde restricciones de paisajismo a la cobranza de cuotas. En efecto, el 24 por ciento de los residentes de CIC que respondió a la encuesta de Public Opinion Strategies de 2014 había experimentado un problema o desacuerdo personal importante con su asociación. De este grupo, el 52 por ciento quedó satisfecho con las resoluciones y el 36 por ciento no; en el 12 por ciento de los casos, el problema todavía no se había resuelto.
Existe sin duda el riesgo de que las asociaciones comunitarias se excedan en el contenido y cumplimiento de las restricciones, pero estas preocupaciones políticas sustanciales y de procedimiento se pueden resolver por medio de legislación y supervisión judicial.
————————
Recuadro 2: Los conflictos son buenos para los medios
Mientras que los siguientes titulares omiten las múltiples interacciones positivas entre los propietarios individuales y las asociaciones, sí señalan algunas de las interacciones difíciles que se pueden producir.
————————
Libertad de elección
Como se dijo anteriormente, los individuos ejercen su libertad de elección al comprar viviendas en CIC y aceptar sus reglas. La vida en una asociación puede no ser para todos, pero en general se deben respetar las expectativas de la gente que elige vivir en una CIC, y no deben verse frustradas por alguien que después trata de violar el contrato. Los tribunales generalmente coinciden con esta opinión, como indica esta sentencia de 1981:
Las restricciones [originales] están revestidas de una presunción muy fuerte de validez, que deriva del hecho de que cada propietario individual de una unidad la compra sabiendo y aceptando las restricciones que se imponen sobre las mismas… [Una] restricción de uso en una declaración de condominio puede tener un cierto grado de irracionalidad, pero a pesar de ello resistir un ataque en los tribunales. De no ser así, el propietario de una unidad no podría confiar en las restricciones estipuladas en la declaración… ya que dichas restricciones podrían estar potencialmente en un estado de cambio continuo (Hidden Harbour Estates vs. Basso, Fla. Ct. App. [1981]).
Hay varias situaciones, sin embargo, en las que los propietarios no tendrían ninguna libertad de elección. Primero, es posible que las únicas viviendas nuevas disponibles para los compradores estuvieran en CIC, es decir, que los emprendedores ya no construyan viviendas fuera de asociaciones. Efectivamente, un informe reciente concluyó que en 2003 el 80 por ciento de todas las viviendas en construcción en ese momento eran en asociación (Fundación para la Investigación de Asociaciones Comunitarias, 2014). Además, un gobierno municipal podría requerir que los emprendedores crearan asociaciones como condición para la aprobación de una subdivisión. (La reciente legislación promulgada en Arizona que prohíbe esta práctica es señal de que todavía ocurre.) Finalmente, algunos tribunales han sugerido que, si bien las reglas en vigor al momento de la compra se deben hacer cumplir, una regla promulgada posteriormente por la asociación o junta bajo una competencia reservada no se tiene que hacer cumplir si un propietario puede demostrar que “no es razonable”. Otros tribunales no están de acuerdo: No se debe considerar la reclamación de un propietario cuando la asociación de propietarios enmienda la declaración conforme a una cláusula registrada en la declaración de convenio inicial. Cuando un comprador adquiere una unidad en dicha comunidad, la compra se efectúa no sólo sujeta a los convenios expresos en la declaración, sino también sujeta a las disposiciones de enmienda… Y, por supuesto, un comprador potencial que esté preocupado por el gobierno de la asociación comunitaria tiene la opción de comprar una vivienda que no esté sujeta al gobierno de una asociación… Por esta razón, declinamos someter dichas enmiendas… a la prueba de “racionalidad” (Hughes vs. New Life Development Corp., Tenn.Sup.Ct. [2012]).
Directrices para la protección de la autonomía personal
Las restricciones impuestas por las asociaciones de propietarios generan una preocupación cuando amenazan la autonomía personal y los derechos individuales fundamentales de sus miembros. Las restricciones de este tipo podrían incluir la prohibición de carteles o mensajes políticos, y la restricción de ocupación a familias “tradicionales”.
Los tribunales deberían hacer cumplir las restricciones si limitan los efectos colaterales (también llamados “secuelas” o “externalidades”) de un propietario hacia el resto de la comunidad. Sin embargo, no deberían dejar cumplir las restricciones que limitan la naturaleza o el estado de los ocupantes o el comportamiento dentro de una unidad que no cree externalidades. Esta metodología se basa en la teoría de que el propósito fundamental de los regímenes de las CIC es aumentar el valor económico y fomentar los intercambios eficientes. Por lo tanto, si el propietario no genera externalidades, los tribunales no deberían hacer cumplir prohibiciones de ciertos comportamientos. Más aún, algunos valores de autonomía personal son demasiado importantes y tienen prioridad sobre las reglas usuales de contrato. Por ejemplo, no permitimos contratos de esclavitud o la venta de órganos humanos.
Según este norma, una regla que limite el ruido o prohíba fumar (debido a la propagación de olores) en unidades multifamiliares sería legítima, pero las restricciones basadas en el estado civil de los residentes no. Algunas situaciones son más complicadas: por ejemplo, las restricciones sobre mascotas. Según las directrices sugeridas, en general sería legítimo prohibir las mascotas debido al ruido potencial y la renuencia de algunos residentes a compartir áreas comunes con ellas. No obstante, en el caso de animales de servicio, la salud del propietario de la unidad puede tener prioridad sobre las preocupaciones comunitarias.
Los temas relacionados con la Primera Enmienda presentan desafíos especiales. La libre expresión –por ejemplo, los carteles políticos o sobre un tema conflictivo, la distribución de volantes, demostraciones u otro tipo de manifestación– puede causar efectos colaterales, como ruido, interferencia estética y perturbación del ambiente general de la comunidad. Al mismo tiempo, sin embargo, la libre expresión es fundamental para nuestra forma republicana de gobierno, ya sea en el ámbito mayor del gobierno público o del gobierno privado. En casos de expresión, los tribunales podrían tener en cuenta la doctrina de larga tradición que prohíbe convenios que violen políticas públicas, y rechazar las prohibiciones totales de libertad de expresión a favor de restricciones razonables de horario, lugar y modo. De esa manera, se podría permitir la expresión pero limitar, pero no eliminar, sus efectos colaterales sobre la comunidad.
Otro valor fundamental para los estadounidenses es la libertad de culto. Las restricciones a la colocación de una mezuzá en el marco de la puerta o la exposición de pesebres, figuras de santos y luces de Navidad limitan la libre expresión del culto. Ponerse a hacer equilibrios para determinar la importancia religiosa de las luces de Navidad de colores frente a las blancas, en contra de las normas de la CIC, abriría una caja de Pandora, y sería apropiado que los tribunales impusieran una norma general de adecuación razonable sobre los reglamentos de la CIC que afecten a prácticas religiosas.
Finalmente, en el desarrollo y cumplimiento de los reglamentos de asociaciones, los propietarios de las CIC tienen el derecho a esperar cierto comportamiento por parte de las asociaciones y juntas. Esta expectativa deriva de la obligación de que todas las partes de un contrato actúen de buena fe y de forma ecuánime. Por lo tanto, un propietario debería tener el derecho a procedimientos imparciales, con las notificaciones pertinentes y la oportunidad de ser escuchado; de ser tratado de la misma manera que otros propietarios en circunstancias similares; y a no sufrir prejuicios, animadversión y decisiones de mala fe por parte de la junta y sus miembros.
Conclusión
Las comunidades de interés común cubren una gran parte de la superficie residencial de los Estados Unidos, y actualmente alojan a un cuarto de la población del país. Aunque las CIC ofrecen grandes ventajas económicas a sus residentes y a la sociedad en general, estos tipos de modalidad de vivienda requieren interacciones cuidadosas entre la asociación comunitaria y el gobierno municipal, y el reglamento de la asociación puede afectar la autonomía personal de sus miembros. No obstante, hay estrategias disponibles para mitigar, si no superar, estos problemas. Estas estrategias pueden hacer que la propiedad de una vivienda en una CIC sea menos ilusoria y más real.
Sobre el autor
Gerald Korngold es profesor de derecho en la Facultad de Derecho de Nueva York y visiting fellow del Instituto Lincoln de Políticas de Suelo. Enseña y escribe sobre temas de propiedad y derecho inmobiliario.
Referencias
De Tocqueville, Alexis. 1835. Democracy in America. London: Saunders and Otley.
Ellickson, Robert C. y Vicki L. Been. 2005. Land Use Controls. New York, NY: Aspen Publishers, 3rd edition.
Foundation for Community Association Research. 2014. “Best Practices. Report #7: Transition.” www.cairf.org/research/bptransition.pdf.
Foundation for Community Association Research. 2013. “National and State Statistical Review for 2013.” www.cairf.org/research/factbook/2013_statistical_review.pdf.
Grubel v. McLaughlin Gunnels v. No. Woodland Community Ass’n, 17013, Texas Court of Appeals (1978).
Hidden Harbour Estates v. Basso, Florida Court of Appeals (1981).
Hughes v. New Life Development Corp., Tennessee Superior Court (2012).
Low, Setha. 2004. Behind the Gates: Life, Security, and the Pursuit of Happiness in Fortress America. London: Routledge.
McKenzie, E. 1996. Privatopia: Homeowner Associations and the Rise of Private Residential Governments. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press.
Nelson, R. H. 2009. “The Puzzle of Local Double Taxation: Why Do Private Communities Exist?” The Independent Review. 13 (3) (Invierno) 345–365.
Public Opinion Strategies. 2014. “Verdict: Americans Grade Their Associations, Board Members and Community Managers.” Falls Church, Virginia: Community Associations Institute.
Reich, Robert. 1991. “Secession of the Successful.” The New York Times Magazine. 20 de enero.
Treese, C. J. 2013. Association Information Services, Inc., compiled from National Association of Realtors data. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I_2LgTIYSqR4nLPRxN-HtCV-oOFK_QqN1AcO5JJTw-g/edit.
Ziegler, J. 1984. The New Yorker. 3 de septiembre.
SHARE
Una versión más actualizada de este artículo está disponible como parte del capítulo 1 del libro Perspectivas urbanas: Temas críticos en políticas de suelo de América Latina.
Una serie de tendencias convergentes llevaron a 40 académicos y profesionales de 15 países a reunirse en el Instituto Lincoln en julio de 1998 para discutir recientes reformas de los mercados de tierra. La primera de ellas es el reconocimiento de que la población mundial se está volviendo cada vez más urbana y en consecuencia se puede esperar que la cantidad de tierra convertida al uso urbano aumente significativamente. Segundo, la evidencia de que una mayor proporción de las familias más pobres del mundo viven actualmente en áreas urbanas (en el orden del 80% en Latinoamérica). Tercero, la percepción de una ola de cambio general en el papel del gobierno, de una posición de intervención y regulación hacia una gerencia urbana más selectiva. Durante los tres días del seminario, los participantes presentaron trabajos y discutieron la lógica de ciertas reformas legales e institucionales, la naturaleza de la transición de los mercados consuetudinarios o informales a formales, la evidencia de una mayor eficacia en el mercado de tierra y el acceso a la tierra por parte de los sectores pobres.
La Reforma Institucional y Legal
Varios participantes abogaron por la reforma institucional de los mercados de la tierra desde diversas perspectivas. Steve Mayo (Instituto Lincoln) identificó vínculos conceptuales y empíricos entre el funcionamiento de los mercados de la propiedad y la macroeconomía. Hizo notar que los mercados de la tierra que funcionan inadecuadamente influyen en la creación de riqueza y los porcentajes de movilidad, los cuales — en presencia de ciertas condiciones financieras — pueden agravar la inestabilidad macroeconómica. Refiriéndose a datos del Programa de Indicadores de la Vivienda, Mayo demostró que los precios de la tierra bruta y la tierra dotada de servicios tienden a converger hacia precios más altos de la tierra, indicando multiplicadores de desarrollo más altos a los precios más bajos. También destacó la presencia de una relación entre la elasticidad de los precios de la oferta de la vivienda y el ambiente político.
Aunque existe una percepción de que las reformas hacia ambientes de “capacitación” política son ampliamente empleadas en las economías en transición y desarrollo, Alain Durand-Lasserve (Centro Nacional para la Investigación Científica, Francia) observó la falta de referencia explícita a la “reforma del mercado de la tierra” en las propuestas de políticas en África. Más aún, sostuvo que la justificación ideológica de una mayor libertad en los mercados de la tierra está más avanzada que la práctica de establecer los prerequisitos para mercados efectivos y unitarios. En la práctica, varios de los trabajos presentados señalaron la presencia de agendas políticas conflictivas, ambigüedad legal y distintos grados de progreso en los procesos de reforma.
“La ley puede reformarse, la historia no”, dijo Patrick McAuslan (Birbeck College, Londres) al discutir el papel de las leyes como base necesaria para la reforma efectiva del mercado de la tierra. Describió la evolución de la recién aprobada Acta de la Tierra de Uganda, que busca establecer un mercado de la tierra basado en la propiedad individual. Felicitó al gobierno por combinar el proceso de reforma con un amplio debate público, pero apuntó que las versiones preliminares del Acta establecieron nuevas contradicciones en una historia secular de relaciones conflictivas entre la propiedad absoluta, la tenencia consuetudinaria y la nacionalización pública de tierras. Su trabajo enumeró una serie de “bombas de tiempo” dejadas por las administraciones coloniales y agravadas por los gobiernos posteriores a la independencia, de las cuales sólo unas pocas han sido tomadas en cuenta por la nueva legislación.
La inconsistente naturaleza de la reforma parece agudizarse en las economías de transición de Europa Oriental y África del Sur. En Europa Oriental, el legado del comunismo ha conducido a usos inadecuados de la tierra y a la asignación de valores no monetarios a la propiedad. Los cambios legales hacia la privatización de la tierra, sin embargo, han sido lentos. Tom Reiner (Universidad de Pennsylvania) argumentó que a pesar de la propuesta de normas a favor de la privatización y la demanda latente en Ucrania, las leyes actuales no contemplan provisiones para la venta libre. Presentó datos demostrando que la privatización produciría beneficios macroeconómicos y fiscales considerables: tan sólo los ingresos por ventas directas alcanzarían los 13 billones de dólares, además de los aumentos en los impuestos y la asignación más eficaz de recursos.
En Rusia, según Jan Brzeski (Instituto de Bienes Raíces de Cracovia), la emergencia de los mercados de la tierra ha sido inhibida por una concepción diferente del papel social de la propiedad y los territorios políticos. En Polonia, donde la privatización está mas avanzada, las reformas han sido insuficientes para superar la extendida asignación errónea de recursos. La asignación ha sido efectuada a precios simbólicos, sin reformas a las rentas de terrenos o los impuestos a la propiedad, y con altos costos de transacción. Aún así, el ciclo de compra y venta se está acelerando más rápidamente que el crecimiento económico, en tanto que las reventas representan cerca del 25% de la inversión de capital.
El programa de privatización de 1991 en Albania parece haber estimulado un mercado activo de tierras y propiedades. Investigaciones efectuadas por David Stanfield (Universidad de Wisconsin, Madison) indican que ha habido sustanciales aumentos en las transacciones de compra y venta y en el incremento de los precios, pero también extensos conflictos entre los propietarios anteriores a la colectivización y los posteriores a la privatización, contradicciones entre las numerosas leyes y errores en la nueva documentación. La investigación señala la facilidad relativa de establecer marcos para la privatización, y la gran dificultad de permitir que los mercados funcionen posteriormente.
Lusugga Kironde (Colegio Universitario de Estudios de Arquitectura y Tierras de Tanzanía) describió cómo descuidos en el sistema “planificado” de asignación en Tanzanía llevaron al 60% de la población a adquirir tierras a través de métodos informales. Esto, a su vez, disminuyó los ingresos del gobierno, ya que las transacciones se efectuaron sin aprobación oficial y, en algunos casos, familias con buena situación económica recibieron terrenos altamente subsidiados. Michael Roth (Universidad de Wisconsin, Madison) describió una situación similar en Mozambique, donde el legado del socialismo estatal todavía está presente en el nivel de intervención del gobierno y en la falta de representación de la propiedad libre.
En ambos países africanos, la evaluación de la reforma resultó ambivalente. La Nueva Política de Tierras de Tanzania (1995), si bien constituyó un paso exitoso hacia la aceptación de la existencia del mercado de la tierra y el aseguramiento de los terrenos ocupados en forma consuetudinaria, ha resultado insuficiente para remover las barreras a un mercado eficaz de la tierra. En particular, Kironde destacó que las nuevas medidas concentran la toma de decisiones en un Comisionado de Tierras a pesar de una política nacional de descentralización administrativa. La política no ofrece incentivos para estimular la formalización de prácticas informales o asegurar su acatamiento por parte de los importantes intermediarios. En Mozambique, desde finales de los años ’80, las reformas orientadas al desarrollo de mercados han resultado en responsabilidades administrativas confusas y en inciertos derechos a la tierra. Han sido características las disputas de tierras entre familias y asociaciones productoras con nuevos poderes legales. Las reformas de 1997 intentan garantizar la seguridad de la propiedad, suministrar incentivos a la inversión e incorporar ideas innovadoras sobre los derechos comunitarios a la tierra.
En Latinoamérica, la reforma se ha concentrado menos en el establecimiento de mercados de por sí que en la mejora de su funcionamiento, especialmente las reformas de la tierra iniciadas por motivos principalmente rurales pero que han tenido gran impacto urbano. Rosaria Pisa (Universidad de Gales) indicó que las reformas en México han creado las condiciones necesarias para la privatización de tierras comunitarias (ejidos), pero que el progreso ha sido lento. Menos del 1% de la tierra ha sido privatizada en cinco años, a causa de intereses dispares del gobierno y ambigüedades legales que han establecido un segundo mercado informal de la tierra.
Carlos Guarinzoli, del Instituto Nacional de Colonización y Reforma Agraria (INCRA) en Brasil, explicó que la reforma rural ha introducido la diversidad en el uso de la tierra, especialmente a través de la supervivencia de las pequeñas granjas familiares. La reforma también está afectando los mercados urbanos en Brasil, al trasladar capital de las áreas rurales a las áreas urbanas, probablemente incrementando los precios de la tierra urbana. Francisco Sabatini (Universidad Católica de Chile) argumentó que la liberalización en Chile no ha reducido los precios de la tierra porque las decisiones de los propietarios y promotores están menos influenciadas por las regulaciones que por la demanda.
En general, no se llegó a un consenso claro acerca de si las reformas estaban produciendo mercados unitarios y menos diversos o no. Los agentes y las instituciones están mostrando ser muy adaptables a las nuevas condiciones, una circunstancia común a las tres regiones. Ayse Pamuk (Universidad de Virginia) planteó que, en base a su análisis de instituciones informales en Trinidad, los investigadores deben alejarse de las regulaciones formales como barreras a la operación del mercado de la tierra. En cambio, deben considerar la forma en que instituciones sociales tales como la confianza y la reciprocidad producen soluciones flexibles a la falta de seguridad de la tenencia y a la resolución de disputas.
Clarissa Fourie (Universidad de Natal) describió la forma en que los registros locales de propiedad han podido combinarse, de manera cómoda para el usuario, con los registros de matrimonio, herencias, derechos de la mujer y deudas para producir un instrumento útil a la administración de tierras en Namibia. Sin embargo, aclaró, la incorporación de prácticas consuetudinarias a la administración de tierras, a fin de dotar de seguridad a la propiedad, requiere un cierto grado de adaptación de los sistemas sociales de tenencia de la tierra. Refiriéndose a investigaciones en Senegal y África del Sur, Babette Wehrmann de la fundación alemana GTZ, indicó que los agentes informales y consuetudinarios están multiplicándose y sirviendo como fuentes de alta calidad de información sobre el mercado.
La Formalización y la Regularización de la Tenencia de la Tierra
Peter Ward (Universidad de Texas, Austin) describió la diversidad de programas de regularización a través de Latinoamérica, donde ciertos países consideran la regularización como un proceso jurídico y otros como mejoramiento físico. La regularización puede ser un fin en sí misma (programas masivos de adjudicación de títulos), o un medio hacia un fin (desarrollar los sistemas de crédito). Ward discutió que las diferencias entre los programas se originan a partir de la forma en que cada gobierno “construye” su proceso de urbanización y transmite esta visión al resto de la sociedad a través de las leyes y el lenguaje.
Edesio Fernandes (Universidad de Londres) explicó como el Código Civil de Brasil, originado a principios del siglo, creó un sistema de derechos individuales de propiedad que limitan la capacidad del gobierno para regularizar las favelas. La Constitución de 1998 intentó reformar esta situación al reconocer los derechos privados de propiedad cuando éstos cumplen una función social. Sin embargo, debido a tensiones legales internas los programas de regularización no han podido integrar las favelas a la “ciudad oficial”, conduciendo a algunas situaciones políticas peligrosas.
Bajo distintas circunstancias, Sudáfrica produjo un régimen regulatorio que le negó la libre propiedad a las familias negras y ofreció sólo complicados permisos sin necesidad de garantía a unos pocos. Lauren Royston (Alternativas de Planificación del Desarrollo, Johannesburg) explicó la manera en que el Documento de Política de la Tierra de dicho país contempla derechos no raciales legalmente vigentes, un rango más amplio de opciones de tenencia, y oportunidades para la adquisición de propiedades comunitarias.
Los dos países en vías de desarrollo con mayor número de programas masivos de adjudicación de títulos, México y Perú, fueron analizados por Ann Varley (Colegio Universitario, Londres) y Gustavo Riofrío (Centro para el Estudio y la Promoción del Desarrollo – DESCO, Lima). Varley contradijo dos supuestos prevalecientes en la literatura contemporánea sobre políticas: que la descentralización produce un manejo más efectivo de la tierra, y que la regularización de la tenencia consuetudinaria es más complicada que la regularización de la propiedad privada. En México, a pesar de la retórica de descentralización, un sistema altamente centralizado ha resultado ser cada vez más efectivo en suministrar la regularización de la tenencia de la tierra a los asentamientos en ejidos. Por otra parte, la regularización de la propiedad privada es tortuosamente larga y con frecuencia produce pobres resultados. Varley se mostró preocupada por las tendencias actuales en México a convertir los ejidos en propiedades privadas y encaminarse hacia una mayor descentralización.
Riofrío puso en duda la validez de los reclamos hechos a favor de la regularización de la tierra en Perú. Hizo notar que en realidad, el interés de las familias por tener título de propiedad es relativamente bajo, siendo uno de los motivos principales que los registros son imprecisos y por lo tanto ofrecen menos seguridad de la que prometen. Más aún, el mercado de financiamiento de la vivienda basado en las propiedades regularizadas se encuentra todavía en estado incipiente. Las familias tienen miedo de endeudarse, pero están dispuestas a dejar su vivienda en garantía para pedir pequeños préstamos para la instalación de microempresas o para consumo.
Nuevos Patrones Sociales y Formas de Entrega de Tierras
¿Producirá la liberalización mercados de la tierra más segregados? Brzeski planteó que la planificación estatal en Europa Oriental ha dejado un legado de espacios equitativos y escasa tenencia informal de la tierra, que no durará para siempre, y que los planificadores necesitan tomar en cuenta a la hora de instigar reformas. En países con niveles altos de segregación, como Chile, Colombia y África del Sur, tendencias menos predecibles están emergiendo. Los datos de Sabatini indicaron una menor segregación espacial en Santiago a pesar de la liberalización a medida que los espacios intermedios se desarrollan, alrededor de centros comerciales, por ejemplo, y a medida que nuevos estilos de vida se reflejan en los desarrollos de viviendas “de recreo” fuera del área metropolitana.
Carolina Barco (Universidad de los Andes) explicó que nuevas medidas en Colombia, específicamente la Ley de Ordenamiento Territorial de 1997, permitirán al gobierno de Bogotá capturar incrementos en el valor de la tierra y transferir dichos ingresos a la vivienda pública y a otros proyectos. El proceso todavía presenta problemas, sin embargo, incluso para una ciudad que tiene considerable experiencia en el uso de tasas de valorización.
En Sudáfrica, las estrategias para hacer frente a la “escasez de tierra” de la ciudad posterior al apartheid, especialmente el Acta para Facilitar el Desarrollo a nivel nacional y el Programa de Desarrollo Acelerado de Tierras en la provincia de Gauteng, han permitido la entrega rápida de tierras pero no han funcionado muy bien en relación a los principios de igualdad e integración. Royston explicó que el resultado ha sido un alto número de invasiones y la aceleración por parte de gobiernos locales de la entrega de tierras en la periferia urbana, donde no constituye un reto al “status quo” espacial.
Cambiar el método de entrega de tierras y el nivel de participación del gobierno tiene potencial para afectar la segregación y el acceso a la tierra. Geoff Payne (Geoff Payne y Asociados, Londres) resumió los principios y prácticas de las asociaciones público-privadas en los países en desarrollo. Si bien son muy aclamadas en la política internacional, estudios de investigación efectuados en África del Sur, India, Pakistán, Egipto y Europa Oriental demuestran que tales asociaciones han malbaratado su potencial.
Crispus Kiamba (Universidad de Nairobi) describió la transición en Kenya de esquemas patrocinados por el gobierno, que dejaron separados los sectores formales e informales, a nuevos enfoques que incorporan una mayor participación de organizaciones no gubernamentales, “ranchos colectivos” y asociaciones. En México, también, las asociaciones están vistas como un método para eliminar el ciclo de ilegalidad y regularización. Federico Seyde y Abelardo Figueroa, del gobierno mexicano, presentaron un nuevo programa llamado PISO, el cual –a pesar de numerosos inconvenientes– está resultando ser más efectivo al ser comparado con intervenciones previas (tales como las reservas de tierras).
Los Mercados de la Tierra y la Reducción de la Pobreza
En mis comentarios de apertura del seminario, expuse la idea de que la mayor parte de la investigación sobre mercados ha considerado la pobreza como un contexto legítimo, pero de ahí en adelante ha parecido concentrarse más en las operaciones del mercado que en la forma en que estas operaciones pueden afectar a la pobreza misma. En la sesión final, Omar Razzaz (Banco Mundial) presentó una propuesta para vincular las operaciones del mercado de la tierra con la reducción de la pobreza. La “Iniciativa de Tierras y Bienes Raíces” está dirigida a investigar formas de mejorar la liquidez de los bienes de tierras y el acceso de los sectores pobres, a través de la reestructuración de los registros de tierras (mejorando los procesos de negocio), el desarrollo de infraestructura normativa (en el área de cambios, hipotecas y aseguramiento) y el acceso y la movilización de tierras y bienes raíces por los sectores pobres. El propósito de esta iniciativa generó considerable debate, lo que podría ayudar a refinar ideas que beneficien a los 500 millones de personas que viven en la pobreza en las ciudades de los países en desarrollo.
Gareth A. Jones estuvo a cargo del desarrollo del programa y dirigió este seminario.
SHARE
In recent years, politicians, lobbyists and voters in the United States have often seemed polarized—or paralyzed—over where to draw the line between private and public rights in land. Common property, defined as group- or community-owned private property, straddles that line.
Most recognized common property is in natural resources, and most recognized commoners are rural people in developing countries. But the concept of commons might also apply to some aspects of urban land in the United States. At the least, common property theory may help U.S. policymakers understand more clearly what is at stake in debates about land rights.
At Voices from the Commons, the June 1996 conference of the International Association for the Study of Common Property in Berkeley, California, the Lincoln Institute assembled a dozen researchers and practitioners from the U.S. to discuss these new forms of commons, some of which are described in this article:
Property Rights and Land Use Strategies
Economist Daniel Bromley and legal scholar Carol Rose have proposed independent but roughly compatible schemes for classifying property regimes. Bromley focuses on the form of land rights, while Rose focuses on management strategies:
PROPERTY IN LAND
Bromley Rose
1. private property rights
2. state keep out
3. nonproperty do nothing
4. common property right way
Option 1 on each of these lists is classically private property. The owner’s rights are exclusive, and the owner decides what to do with the land. Option 2 is often associated with public land, in the sense that government owns it and decides what, if anything, can be done and who can do it on the land. Option 3 is the situation often lamented as “the tragedy of the commons,” in which the land is owned by no one, and everyone therefore has both access and incentives to abuse it. Despite the “tragedy of the commons” language, this option is better described as “open access,” “unowned” or “nonproperty.” Option 4 is most often associated with common property, defined as private property owned and managed in a specific “right” way by a group of people.
There is not a perfect correspondence between Rose’s strategies and Bromley’s categories. “Keep out” as a strategy may apply to either private or group-owned property as well as public lands–wherever the main strategy is to restrict access to a defined group, or to no one. The “right way” strategy may apply to “nonproperty” as well as commons–if anyone, and not just members of a specific group, can use the resource simply by following the prescribed rules of use.
Nevertheless, putting Bromley’s and Rose’s lists side-by-side suggests that the distinguishing feature of common property may be assigning land both to a specific group of people and to prescribed uses.
Most urban land in the United States is defined as either private or public property. Yet such land may be more like common property than is usually recognized. Zoning and environmental regulations, for example, do not allow private landowners to do anything and everything with “their” land. Instead, for example, the private owners of land next to a river may not be permitted to install underground oil storage tanks. Those aspects of land use that affect the community’s quality of life or shared environment are managed almost like common property.
What Makes a Successful Commons?
Elinor Ostrom has identified two prerequisites for successful common property regimes: the system must face significant environmental uncertainty, and there must be social stability in the group of owners/users. As Ostrom puts it, commoners must have “shared a past and expect to share a future.” They must be capable not just of “short-term maximization but long-term reflection about joint outcomes.”
Environmental instability gives commoners an incentive to share risks. Social stability allows or forces them to preserve resources for future generations. For example, in many Alpine villages, herds are private property but summer pastures are common property. To avoid overgrazing and free-riding, individual farmers cannot graze more sheep and goats on the summer pastures than they can feed privately over the winter. Access to the summer pastures helps to guarantee all families, whatever their private resources, a chance to earn a living.
Environmental instability and social stability are usually associated with rural places. Rural landowners face the random risks of droughts, floods and plagues, and are known–accurately or inaccurately–for their sense of community.
Do these requirements exist in the urban United States? Perhaps. Environmental instability is easy enough to find, if “environment” is defined as social and economic as well as physical. For many inner-city residents, depopulation, gentrification, or plant and base closings are just as random and devastating as floods or plagues. The social stability of these neighborhoods may be largely involuntary, created by economic and racial barriers to mobility. But some community activists also see human knowledge, social relationships and the land itself in such places as “social capital,” which can be mobilized for development through new forms of ownership.
Pros and Cons of Common Property
Most scholars who have written about common property have seen commoners as political and economic underdogs. A classic example is villagers defending their traditional forest grazing grounds against timber companies or government foresters who want to prohibit grazing to protect tree seedlings or prevent erosion. But commoners may also be prosperous or even highly privileged. For example, many private or gated “common interest” communities attempt to wall in high home values and wall out social and economic diversity.
Commoners are by definition conservative. To preserve their shared resources, they must exclude or expel anyone not willing to follow their land use rules. They must also keep the individuals who make the most productive or profitable use of the common property from taking their share of the proceeds and “cashing out” of the system. Although less comforting than the stereotype of downtrodden commoners who share and share alike, exclusionary commons may still be preferable to either privatization or state control.
But in practice, both these options may speed up resource exhaustion. Private owners may extract the maximum cash value from their land as quickly as possible, rather than preserve resources for their own or anyone else’s future use. “Keep out” signs may not keep local people from extracting resources unsustainably from government lands–in fact, hostility toward a distant government may encourage such behavior.
Economist William Fischel has applied this implicit comparison to U.S. local governments’ primary dependence on land-based (property) taxes. He sees all residents in a jurisdiction as commoners who share an interest in maximizing local land values. Fischel argues that California’s Proposition 13 was exactly the equivalent of turning a village commons into a national park. By restricting local property taxes and giving state government a stronger role in school funding, Proposition 13 transferred “ownership” of the schools from face-to-face communities to a distant government.
From the local taxpayers’ vantage point, this upward transfer of responsibility changed their schools from a local “commons,” with strong norms about the “right way” to finance and use education, into state property, which local residents almost saw as nonproperty. As a result, the quality of California schools was leveled across local jurisdictions, but it was leveled down rather than up. Education was exhausted rather than managed sustainably.
New Commons
A few experimental forms of land ownership and management in the U.S.–including land trusts, neighborhood-managed parks, community-supported agriculture and limited-equity housing cooperatives–explicitly avoid the extremes of private or public property. All these “new” forms of common property fit Carol Rose’s description of option 4: “right way.” All aim to foster or protect specific land uses or groups of users.
These experiments with property rights and responsibilities raise questions that few researchers, either on urban development or on common property, have yet addressed. When and how should local policymakers support experiments with “common property”? For example, should local and state officials help to remove regulatory barriers to group ownership of land, or support new criteria for mortgage financing of group-owned land?
There are also long-standing legal objections to “perpetuities”–trying to tie the hands of future owners about how to use their land. To avoid these objections, land trusts must sometimes seek special legal exemptions, or even change state property laws. The long-term costs and benefits of common property experiments, however, may depend less on the initial distribution of land rights than on shifting local politics and economic conditions. Finding answers to these questions will require close collaboration between researchers and practitioners.
Sidebars
Land Trusts and Limited-Equity Cooperatives
Much of land’s market value depends on whether it contains important natural resources, is located in a thriving community, or has access to services and infrastructure provided by government. The nineteenth-century American philosopher Henry George argued that all these values were created by something other than private action, and should therefore be captured for public use through taxation.
In recent years, land trusts and other groups have experimented with distributing the costs and benefits of land development in much the same way as proposed by Henry George, but through new forms of land ownership rather than taxation. Some of these experiments include limited-equity cooperatives and land trusts such as Boston’s Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative. The Dudley Street project has made the land in an inner-city redevelopment area the common property of a nonprofit group, while allowing private ownership of homes and other buildings.
Using similar arguments, groups such as the Connecticut-based Equity Trust have dedicated the “social increment” in property values–the increase in land prices as a neighborhood recovers from blight, or a small town grows–to social purposes. For example, the portion of a home’s sale price that is due to the increase in land values rather than housing construction costs is used to subsidize the purchase price for the next homeowner.
Incidental Open Spaces
Vacant lots, old cemeteries and partially buried urban streams raise a host of questions about managing urban landscapes as commons. Groups seeking to reclaim or use such incidental urban open spaces must often persuade private owners to let them use and help to maintain the land. Some geographers and planners have remapped cities’ neglected, and in practice often “unowned,” open spaces.
Groups such as the Waterways Restoration Institute in Berkeley, California, have built on this research to help low-income city residents uncover and restore forgotten streams and their banks, turning them from neighborhood eyesores into neighborhood treasures. The process increases residents’ appreciation of the interdependence between the city and nature, which they often think of as exclusively suburban or rural.
Housing
For the elderly, single-parent households and many low-income families, detached single-family housing is either inappropriate or priced beyond reach. Yet traditional land use regulations, grounded partly in concerns about property values, favor only single-family housing. Advocates of privatization, in the U.S. as well as in developing or transitioning economies, often argue for converting common property into private ownership to promote reinvestment or increase property values. Organizations serving the homeless, such as San Francisco’s HomeBase, are seeing this argument applied even to traditionally public spaces such as doorways, parks and bus benches. To discourage the homeless from occupying these spaces, some local businesses and neighbors support regulations that convert them into quasi-private property.
Yet in all these settings, some researchers and practitioners have also proposed to manage the housing stock as a whole as a form of common property, both to meet needs not met by single-family detached housing and to encourage neighborhood reinvestment. In the U.S., researchers such as Cornell’s Patricia Pollak have examined the sources of opposition to, and the consequences of, converting some single-family homes into group quarters, accessory apartments and elder cottages. Many home and business owners who oppose these land uses in interviews, expecting them to depress property values, are ironically unaware that their neighborhoods already contain some of this alternative housing.
Converted Military Bases
For each base closed, the federal government offers planning funds to a single organization. That organization must represent the entire local community affected by the base closing, from public to private interests and across local political jurisdictions. Researchers such as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Bernard Frieden are now studying the way that communities around these bases, which often include very diverse interests, are being forced to create at least temporary “commons” structures to receive federal grants.
Few bases have been all the way through the conversion process yet, so it remains to be seen whether these temporary structures will be converted for permanent land ownership or management. In the Oakland-San Francisco area, however, the Earth Island Institute’s Carl Anthony and others on the East Bay Conversion and Reinvestment Commission consciously considered long-term group or community ownership of some base lands as a way to meet regional needs for housing, open space and jobs.
_______________
Alice E. Ingerson, director of publications at the Lincoln Institute, earned her Ph.D. in cultural anthropology, for research on the politics of rural industrialization in Portugal. She moderated the session “Is There an Urban Commons in the U.S.?” at the 1996 Voices from the Commons conference in California.
References
Steve Barton and Carol Silverman, Common Interest Communities: Private Governments and the Public Interest (Berkeley, CA: Institute of Governmental Studies Press, 1994).
Daniel Bromley, Environment and Economy: Property Rights and Public Policy (Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell, Inc., 1991).
William A. Fischel, Regulatory Takings: Law, Economics, and Politics (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995).
Elinor Ostrom, Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990).
Carol M. Rose, “Rethinking Environmental Controls: Management Strategies for Common Resources,” Duke Law Journal 1991, no. 1 (February 1991), pp. 1-38.
SHARE
The collapse of communism in the early 1990s launched an era of political and economic reforms in Russia and throughout the former Soviet Union that introduced democracy and the free market economy to countries that previously had no experience with either of these concepts. In Russia privatization of land was one of the first items on the reform agenda, and by the end of 1992 the Russian Parliament had adopted the federal law On the Payment for Land. This law set normative land values differentiated by regions to be used for taxation, as well as a basis for land rent and purchase. At the time the country had no land market, so this was considered a very progressive measure. Lands that were previously held in public ownership were rapidly distributed to individuals, and by 1998 some 129 million hectares of land were privately held by some 43 million landowners. Introduction of private ownership rights in land also meant the introduction of the land tax, since owners or users of land plots became eligible to pay for their real property assets.
Economic reforms in Russia were accompanied by inflation that ran thousands of percent annually. To maintain revenue yields, local and regional authorities adjusted normative land values accordingly. As land market activity started to develop in the mid-1990s, some of these authorities used market price information to make land value adjustments. As a result land taxes became absolutely inconsistent with the economic situation, and tax amounts were not comparable for similar properties located in different jurisdictions.
By the late 1990s the land tax system had developed faults that required tax reform on a nationwide scale. The basic outline of the tax reform included the following features:
Reform of the land tax is seen as part of a wider property tax reform. The current property tax system in Russia includes a number of taxes: individual property tax; enterprise property tax; land tax; and real property tax. While the first three are operational, the fourth tax has been tested as an experiment since 1997 in two cities, Novgorod Veliky and Tver (Malme and Youngman 2001, Chapter 6). It is expected that when Russia is in a position to introduce the real property tax nationally, the first three taxes will be canceled.
In 1999 the Land Cadastre Service of Russia, a land administration authority of the federal government, was delegated the responsibility to develop mass valuation methods and to implement the country’s first mass valuation of all land. The government chose mass valuation, identifying the sales comparison, income and cost approaches as the basic valuation models that needed to be developed. Land is valued at its site value as if it were vacant.
Implementation of a mass valuation system has been constrained by the lack of reliable land market data, however. The housing market is the only developed market in Russia that can be characterized by a large number of sales transactions. These transactions are spread unevenly throughout the country, with large cities characterized by many transactions and high prices for apartments, whereas small towns and settlements have few examples of real estate sales. The national land market recorded some 5.5 million transactions annually, with only about 6 percent of them being actual buying and selling transactions. Official data from land registration authorities could not be used as a data source because transacting parties often conceal the true market price to avoid paying transfer taxes.
This lack of reliable market data has forced the developers of mass valuation models to identify other factors that may influence the land market. The model developed for valuation of urban land included some 90 layers of information that were geo-referenced to digital land cadastre maps of cities and towns. Apart from available market information, these data layers included features of physical infrastructure such as transport, public utilities, schools, stores and other structures. Environmental factors also are taken into consideration.
Mass valuation methods in Russia have identified 14 types of urban land use that can be assigned to each cadastral block. Thus, the model can set the tax base according to the current or highest and best land use. The actual tax base established for each land plot is calculated as the price of a square meter of land in a cadastral block multiplied by the area of the plot.
It took one year of development and model testing and two years of further work to complete the cadastral valuation of urban land throughout Russia. Actual valuation results suggest that the model works accurately with lands occupied by the housing sector. The correlation between actual market data and mass valuation results is between 0.6 and 0.7 on a scale of 0 to 1.0, with greater accuracy in areas where the land market is better developed.
Cadastral valuation of agricultural land is based on the income approach, since availability of agricultural land market information is extremely limited. Legislation allowing the sale of agricultural land became effective in early 2002. The data used to value agricultural land included information on soils and actual farm production figures over the last 30 years. Mass valuation of forested lands was also based on the income approach. Russian land law also identifies a special group of industrial lands located outside the city limits that includes industrial sites, roads, railroads, and energy and transport facilities. These lands proved to be a difficult subject for mass valuation because there are so many unique types of structures and objects on them; individual valuation is often applied to them instead.
Over the past four years, some 95 percent of Russia’s territory has been valued using mass valuation methodology. The Federal Land Cadastre Service continues to refine and improve its methods in preparation for the enactment of relevant legislation authorizing the introduction of a new value-based land tax. During this period, the Cadastre Service organized a Workshop on Mass Valuation Systems of Land (Real Estate) for Taxation Purposes, in Moscow in 2002, under the auspices of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. It also assembled a delegation for the Lincoln Institute’s course Introducing a Market Value-Based Mass Appraisal System for Taxation of Real Property, in Vilnius in 2003 (see related article).
Alexey L. Overchuk is deputy chief of the Federal Land Cadastre Service of Russia and deputy chairman of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Working Party for Land Administration.
Reference
Malme, Jane H. and Joan M. Youngman. 2001. The Development of Property Taxation in Economies in Transition: Case Studies from Central and Eastern Europe. Washington, DC: The World Bank. Available at http://www1.worldbank.org/wbiep/decentralization/library9/malme_propertytax.pdf
SHARE
The core competence of the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy is the analysis of issues related to land, and ours is one of the few organizations in the world with this focus.
The Institute’s current work program, both in the United States and in selected countries around the world, encompasses the taxation of land, the operation of land markets, the regulation of land and land use, the impacts of property rights, and the distribution of benefits from land development. This focus on land derives from the Institute’s founding objective—to address the links between land policy and social and economic progress—as expressed by Henry George, the nineteenth-century political economist and social philosopher.
The Institute plays a leading role in the analysis of land and property taxation, land valuation and appraisal, the design of land information and cadastral systems, and the reform and establishment of property tax systems. Work on the operation of land markets includes the analysis of transit-oriented development and research on urban housing and the expansion of urban areas. The regulation of land encompasses work on smart growth and growth management, visualizing density and the physical impact of development, mediating land use disputes, land conservation, and the management of state trust lands in the West. Analysis of property rights includes research on diverse topics including informal markets and land titling in developing countries, the establishment of conservation easements, and the preservation of farmland. Much work is underway on the distribution of benefits from land development, including value capture taxation, tax increment financing, university-led development, and community land trusts that seek to promote affordable housing.
While the Institute’s work in recent years has emphasized urban land issues, it has also addressed problems beyond urban boundaries such as conservation, management of state trust lands, and farmland preservation. A balance of activities across urban and rural topics will persist as the Institute’s work program continues to focus on land issues of relevance to social and economic development. The Institute will not normally address topics that lack a strong link to land policy.
Communicating new findings through education programs, publications, and Web-based products is a core Institute activity. The overarching objective is to strengthen the capacity of public officials, professionals, and citizens to make better decisions by providing them with relevant information, ideas, methods, and analytic tools. The Institute offers traditional courses and seminars, and is moving aggressively to make many of its offerings available on the Web as either programmed instruction or as online courses with real-time interactions between students and instructors. The Institute also develops training materials and makes them available to others, for example through activities in several developing countries that involve the training of trainers in topics such as appraisal and tax administration.
Research strengthens the Institute’s training programs and contributes to knowledge about land policy generally. The Institute supports both mature scholars who conduct groundbreaking research and advanced students who are working on their dissertations or thesis research. The Institute offers several fellowship programs and other opportunities for researchers to propose work on important topics that can contribute to current debates on land policy. The results of this research are regularly posted on the Institute Web site as working papers and are published in books, conference proceedings, and policy focus reports.
Demonstration and evaluation activities constitute the third major component of the Institute’s agenda. Recently the Institute has begun to combine education, training, research, and dissemination in demonstration projects that apply knowledge, data collection, and analysis to the development and implementation of specific policies in the areas of property taxation, planning, and development. These projects are being expanded to include the analysis of policies as they are applied, and to assess and evaluate outcomes in terms of the intended objectives of the policies. The goal is to provide more rigorous evidence about how well and in what circumstances specific land and tax policies achieve their objectives so that information can be incorporated into future research and training programs.
SHARE
We suggest that a better approach is to link IH to the ongoing process of rezoning—either by the developer or by local government initiative—thus treating it explicitly as a vehicle for recapturing for public benefit some part of the gain in land value resulting from public action.
SHARE
Limited access to land is a substantial hindrance to economic development in many transition economies. Additionally, when the ability to gain appropriate permits to use the land is subject to delays, bribes, or corruption, the efficiency of the land allocation mechanism is compromised and overall economic growth is constrained.
In this article I summarize findings from empirical models of land access, permit activity, time costs, and corruption, using both country and firm characteristics as explanatory variables. Data come from the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD)–World Bank Business Environment and Enterprise Performance Survey (BEEPS 2009) for business enterprises in transition economies of Europe and Central Asia, supplemented with country-specific economic measures and EBRD indices of reform. Results indicate that limited access to land and difficulty in obtaining permits are substantial impediments to economic development, and these conditions clearly create an environment in which bribery flourishes.
Land Markets in Transition Economies
The context of this study is analysis of firm-level performance in transition economies where access to land has been subject to varying types of land privatization regimes in the past 20 years since independence. Stanfield (1999, 1–2) provides a helpful strategy for thinking about how land markets have been created in such economies, recognizing that “Markets in land linked to markets in capital and labor are central to market economies.”
Indeed, land market liberalization must be linked to liberalization of capital and labor markets simultaneously if transition countries are to advance their economies. Stanfield also suggests that many existing institutions of land administration must make radical changes to support the privatization of land rights. Defining and enforcing property rights and providing transparent and efficient land registration mechanisms free of bribery and corruption are essential to supporting economic development (Estrin et al. 2009).
Boycko, Schleifer, and Vishny (1995) suggest two ways that access to land and real estate is critical to restructuring a transition economy and promoting economic development in general. First, land and buildings are complementary to plants and equipment, which typically have already been privatized in these countries. Until land and buildings are also privatized, control of these productive assets continues to be held jointly by local politicians and managers, leading to an inefficient ownership structure. Second, privatization of land and real estate provides firms with a source of capital for restructuring their business investments. For example, a former state-owned enterprise that has surplus land and buildings can sell those assets to raise funds for other investments. However, Boycko, Schleifer, and Vishny (1995, 136) conclude, “Because it serves local governments so well, politicization of urban land and real estate persists, and slows down the restructuring of old firms and the creation of new ones.”
Deininger (2003) makes the case that well-functioning land markets foster general economic development, citing four key tenets. First, in many developing economies the distribution of land ownership prevents operational efficiency. If land ownership cannot be transferred easily, or if land use is not separable from land ownership, then there may be a mismatch between the owners and the most efficient land users. If land markets are allowed to transfer land use from less productive to more productive uses, then overall economic efficiency is enhanced. Second, transferable land use rights can allow rural residents to move into the nonagricultural sector of the economy, which can help boost the output of that sector and the overall economy. Third, by making land use rights transferable the ownership and use of land can be separated, facilitating more efficient land use. Fourth, a well-developed land market allows land transfers to occur with low transaction costs, which frees up credit in the economy.
Economic Consequences of Limited Access to Land
Firms use a combination of land, labor, and capital inputs to produce a given quantity of output. Consider a situation where the first input is land, for which the firm faces a constraint on the quantity available, but the other two inputs are freely available in any quantity needed. In a competitive market, a profit-maximizing firm uses additional units of any freely available input until the value of the additional product derived from the last unit of the input used equals its market price. In this case, however, if the available land is constrained, the firm would purchase a less than optimal amount. Consequently, the firm would not achieve an optimal input combination, leading to an inefficient allocation of resources.
Even if the quantity of land is not constrained, obstacles to obtaining building, construction, or use permits may impede the conduct of business. In such circumstances, the amount of land may be accessible, but the permitting process increases its effective price. Once again, the firm is forced to operate inefficiently.
In either situation one could ask, “What would the firm be willing to pay in order to be able to operate most efficiently?” Clearly, the land constraint or permit restriction imposes a cost on the firm and reduces its efficiency, and the firm presumably would be willing to pay a bribe to a government official to gain access to additional land or obtain a permit to use the available land. Hence, limited access to land and permits can encourage informal payments or bribes. Carlin, Schaffer, and Seabright (2007) have suggested that managers’ responses to survey questions regarding the business environment in which they operate and the constraints they face can measure the hidden implicit cost of those constraints.
Country and Firm Data and Survey Results
The primary data for this study are 15 country-specific characteristics from various sources and 13 firm characteristics from the 2009 round of the EBRD-World Bank BEEPS, which is conducted every three years. The survey covers a broad range of topics related to the business environment and performance of firms as well as questions on business-government relations. A total of 11,999 business enterprises in 30 transition economies of Europe and Central Asia are represented. These data have been used extensively in the transition and development literatures, most recently in Commander and Svenjar (2011). Table 1 lists the country and firm characteristics and indicates their effects on five aspects of economic development.
Access to Land as an Obstacle to Economic Development
The BEEPS questionnaire asks firms about a number of potential obstacles to efficient operation, including access to land. A key question asks, “Is access to land No Obstacle, a Minor Obstacle, a Moderate Obstacle, a Major Obstacle, or a Very Severe Obstacle to the current operations of this establishment?” Survey respondents may also respond “Do not know” or “Does not apply.” Overall, 43 percent of the firms surveyed reported land access as an obstacle to some extent. There is wide variation in firm responses across the countries in the sample, however, with the share of firms reporting land access as an obstacle ranging from a low of 6 percent in Hungary to a high of 62 percent in Kosovo (figure 1).
Nine of the 15 possible country-specific explanatory variables have a statistically discernable effect on the likelihood that a firm will report land access as an obstacle (table 1, column 1). Firms were more likely to report land access obstacles in CIS countries (Commonwealth of Independent States, or former Soviet republics) and in faster growing countries. The CIS effect is particularly important, with firms in those countries approximately 28 percent more likely to report land access obstacles than comparable firms in non-CIS transition countries. In countries with a high VAT rate, firms were less likely to report access to land as an obstacle.
Among the EBRD indices of reform listed in table 1, the mixed likelihood of increases and decreases on these measures may indicate that uneven reforms across sectors of the economy can have opposing effects on firms’ experiences. If land privatization and policies providing land access are not moving in tandem with financial market reforms and broader privatization reforms, such a pattern of mixed signs may emerge.
Firm characteristics associated with a greater likelihood of land access obstacles include competition against unregistered or informal firms, subsidization of the firm by the government, the number of employees, and limited partnership legal status. Of particular note are the firms that report they compete against informal market firms and those that are subsidized by the government. These two characteristics increase the reported probability of land access obstacles by 8 and 6 percent, respectively.
Presumably, state-subsidized firms also report that they compete against unregistered or informal market firms, so the combined increase in probability may be approximately 14 percent. On the other hand, characteristics associated with lower probabilities of reporting land access as an obstacle include operating in the manufacturing sector or having a more experienced manager.
Beyond merely stating that land access is an obstacle, firms were asked to report on the severity of the obstacle (figure 2). On a scale from zero to 4 (with zero indicating no obstacle and 4 indicating a very severe obstacle), the overall mean for the 5,206 firms responding to this question is 2.47. When we correct for sample selection bias, we take into account that firms reporting land access as an obstacle may be systematically different from those not reporting an obstacle. Country and firm characteristics with statistically significant positive and negative effects of severity are shown in table 1, column 2.
The BEEPS also includes a way for the interviewer to respond to concerns about truthfulness in the survey responses: “It is my perception that the responses to the questions regarding opinions and perceptions (were): Truthful, Somewhat truthful, Not truthful.” Interviewer suspicions are associated with a greater likelihood of reporting land access as an obstacle (about a 3 percent greater probability). For example, among firms reporting land access as an obstacle, interviewer suspicions were associated with a significantly less intense reported obstacle. Apparently, suspicions are raised in the mind of the survey recorder when the firm representative is being overly optimistic relative to the recorder’s expectations.
Permit Seeking
In order to use the land to which it has access, a firm must be able to obtain relevant permits that can be crucial to the production process. By impeding land use, construction, or business occupancy permits, government officials may limit effective access to land. The BEEPS includes questions regarding the number of permits the firm obtained during the previous two years, the number of working days the staff spent on procedures related to obtaining those permits, formal and informal payments for permits, and waiting periods from application to receipt of permits. One question asks, “How many permits did this establishment obtain in the last two years?” Another asks, “How many working days were spent by all staff members on the procedures related to obtaining the permits applied for over the last two years?”
Responses to these questions are used in modeling both the number of permit applications and the related time costs (figures 3 and 4). About 34 percent of the businesses in the survey applied for permits, with a mean number of 3.9 applications, a mean number of 38.0 working days of effort, and a mean waiting time of 45.9 days. There is a very high variance among countries in the number of permits applied for, the days of effort expended, and the waiting time for permits.
The model of the number of permit applications reflects the interaction of supply and demand factors. A firm demands permits as it plans to develop its property while the government supplies permits according to its rules. Nine country characteristics have a significant effect on the number of permit applications requested, with four factors increasing the number and five factors decreasing it (table 1, column 3).
To understand time costs involved for firms seeking permits, the modeling approach involves a first-stage model to control for the selection bias that may exist with systematic differences between firms applying for permits and those that do not apply. The second-stage model results for permit time cost show that ten country-specific variables have statistically discernable effects—four factors increase staff time expended and six factors reduce staff time (table 1, column 4). Two firm-specific factors significantly increase days of effort, while six reduce the number of days of effort.
Bribes to Government Officials
The BEEPS also asks a question about informal payments to government officials: “Thinking about officials, would you say the following statement is always, usually, frequently, sometimes, seldom or never true?… It is common for firms in my line of business to have to pay some irregular ‘additional payments or gifts’ to get things done…” Responses are coded on a scale of 1 to 6, with 1 being never and 6 being always (figure 5). In a simple regression model of the frequency of bribes, ten country-specific explanatory variables and five firm-specific variables have statistically discernable effects (table 1, column 5).
Summary and Conclusions
Limited access to land and permits to use that land can contributes to economic inefficiency and corruption in transition countries. In this research I have estimated empirical models of firms reporting limited access to land and permits and instances of bribery as obstacles to economic development. Those models indicate that both country and firm characteristics affect land access, permit access and effort, and bribery.
At the country level, higher per capita GDP systematically reduces the likelihood of firms seeking permits, the number of permits, and the time cost to obtain them. That implies that more developed economies require fewer permits and present lower permit obstacles, thereby reducing costs. Furthermore, the higher the GDP growth rate the greater the likelihood that firms experience limited access to land and the need to apply for permits, as well as the likelihood that firms are asked to pay bribes. This may indicate bottlenecks in the development process as firms in CIS countries are much more likely to report that access to land is an obstacle. They also are required to apply for more permits, and they incur much larger time costs related to permit applications.
Higher corporate tax rates do not affect access to land or permits, but do increase the likelihood of being asked to pay bribes. Firms in more highly privatized economies report fewer problems with access to land and fewer permits needed, but more problems related to bribery. Indices of privatization and reform are often significant, but have both positive and negative impacts. This may reflect uneven reform processes in which liberalization in one sector of the economy does not have full impact due to constraints in other sectors.
Firms competing against others that are unregistered or operate in the informal market are more likely to report limited access to land, more likely to seek permits and incur time costs related to permits, and more likely to be asked to pay bribes. Firms subsidized by the government or those with larger numbers of employees also are more likely to report limited access to land, seek more permits, and incur larger permit time costs.
The primary lesson to be learned from this research is that limited access to land is a serious obstacle to economic development in transition countries. Furthermore, the ability to obtain permits to effectively use that land is crucial. Limited access to land and permits not only hinders economic development, but also contributes to a culture of bribery and corruption. Countries wishing to speed their development process should therefore remove impediments to land access by fostering markets for land and land use rights, and should also remove unnecessary obstacles in the permit process. The result will be a more efficient use of land and a more dynamic economy.
About the Author
John E. Anderson is the Baird Family Professor of Economics in the College of Business Administration at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln. He has served as an advisor to public policy makers in the fields of public finance, fiscal reform, and tax policy in the United States and in transition economies.
References
Boycko, Maxim, Andrei Schleifer, and Robert Vishny. 1995. Privatizing Russia. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Business Environment and Enterprise Performance Survey. 2009. Washington, DC: World Bank. http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/BEEPS
Carlin, Wendy, Mark E. Schaffer, and Paul Seabright. 2007. Where are the real bottlenecks? Evidence from 20,000 firms in 60 countries about the shadow costs of constraints to firm performance. Discussion Paper Number 3059. Bonn, Germany: Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
Commander, Simon, and Jan Svenjar. 2011. Business environment, exports, ownership, and firm performance. The Review of Economics and Statistics 93: 309–337.
Deininger, Klaus. 2003. Land markets in developing and transition economies: Impact of liberalization and implications for future reform. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85: 1217–1222.
Estrin, Saul, Jan Hanousek, Evzen Kocenda, and Jan Svenjar. 2009. Effects of privatization and ownership in transition economies. Journal of Economic Literature 47: 699–728.
Stanfield, J. David. 1999. Creation of land markets in transition countries: Implications for the institutions sof land administration. Working Paper Number 29. Madison: University of Wisconsin Land Tenure Center.
SHARE
A New Yorker cartoon by Jack Ziegler captures the essential irony of buying into condominiums, cooperatives, and other homeowner associations. A car is entering a driveway that leads to a group of townhouses in the distance, and a sign by the entrance proclaims, “Welcome to Condoville and the Illusion of Owning Your Own Property” (Ziegler 1984).
Despite this ambiguity, about a quarter of the American population now lives in association housing situations, collectively known as common interest communities (CICs). Figure 1 shows the tremendous increase in CICs over the past several decades. From 1970 to 2013, the number of housing units in such communities spiked from about 700,000 to 26.3 million, while the number of residents multiplied more than 30-fold from 2.1 million to 65.7 million.
With their growing popularity, common interest communities have raised policy challenges and legal issues that require ongoing resolution. These conflicts generally reflect either external concerns that CICs segregate the wealthy from the rest of society or internal disagreements between individual owners and their associations’ governing bodies. This article examines some of the controversies associated with the CIC model and its governance, and suggests approaches for enhancing the benefits of common interest communities for both property owners and society at large.
The Rise of Common Interest Communities
With increasing industrialization during the 19th century, the intrusion of pollution, traffic, noise, and disease led many planners and citizens to favor the separation of residential, commercial, and industrial uses. (Zoning had not yet emerged as a planning tool and would not be validated by the Supreme Court of the United States until 1926.) Some residential developers thus imposed “servitudes”—covenants, restrictions, and easements—on their subdivision projects. Servitudes generally restricted the properties to residential uses and often created shared rights to communal facilities and services in exchange for fees. Lot purchasers agreed to the servitudes, and once the restrictions were recorded, subsequent purchasers were also legally bound. The common law proved to be an effective vehicle for creating high-end residential areas, including New York City’s Gramercy Park (1831) and Boston’s Louisburg Square (1844).
After a slowdown during the Great Depression and World War II, construction of CICs began to boom in the late 1960s, after the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) recognized the condominium as an insurable ownership vehicle, and state statutory authorization followed. FHA mortgage insurance encouraged developers to build middle-class condominiums, which gained market acceptance as a result of the “new town” movement—exemplified by early planned communities such as Reston, Virginia (1964), and Columbia, Maryland (1967). The passage of California’s Proposition 13, the initiative that limited property taxation in 1978, and similar measures in other states also spurred an increase in CICs, as cash-strapped local governments, under increased pressure to provide more services, were unwilling to absorb the infrastructure and service costs from new development. As a result, they tended to approve new developments only in CIC form, where the developer (and ultimately the owners) covered the costs.
Today, CIC owners are generally subject to a variety of constraints related to their private units, from limitations on the layout and design of buildings and the type of construction materials used, to restrictions on visible home decorations, ancillary structures, and landscaping. There are often controls on the owner’s behavior and use of the property, which is typically limited to residential occupancy. Noise, parking, and traffic rules may also be imposed, along with vehicle restrictions. In some cases, political signs, leafleting, and related activities are also prohibited.
In exchange for their association dues, owners have access to common facilities, such as roads and recreational areas, and to private services, such as security, trash collection, street cleaning, and snow plowing. The CIC is usually administered by a private residential government and various committees, elected by the owners and subject to the law of contract rather than public administrative and Constitutional law (see Box 1).
————————
Box 1: Common Interest Community Models
CICs typically create a private government elected by the owners to administer and enforce contracts, and to promulgate rules to advance community interests. While the exact form of the arrangement may vary, the basic concepts are similar.
Homeowner Associations
Unit owners hold fee title to their individual properties, which are usually single-family or townhouse homes. The association holds title to common areas and grants the owners easement rights for their use. These can be created by common law or under statutes in some states. Homeowner associations make up more than half of community associations nationally.
Condominiums
Unit owners receive fee title to their units plus a percentage ownership in the common areas. The association administers the common areas but does not hold title to them. Condominiums may be vertical (high-rise) or horizontal (single-family or townhouse homes), and they are created exclusively pursuant to state statute. Condominiums represent 45 to 48 percent of community associations.
Cooperatives
A cooperative corporation owns the building, and the owners receive shares in the corporation and automatically renewable, long-term leases on their individual units. Unlike condominium and homeowner associations, the corporation can control transfer of leases and shares by cooperative owners. Only 3 to 4 percent of community associations are organized as cooperatives.
————————
Economic Benefits of CICs
CICs bring substantial economic benefits to owners and to society at large. Residents who buy into these communities have determined that shared facilities, such as recreational areas, are a better value than, say, personal swimming pools and other private facilities. Similarly, those joining CICs have determined that certain restrictions—such as a prohibition on parking mobile homes in driveways—increase property values.
These communities help to achieve efficient use of land as well. The costs of organizing and administering a private residential community are lower than in a public system (Nelson 2009). Transaction costs and rent-seeking through the political system are also reduced. Finally, because it is free from statutory and constitutional restraints, a private community has greater flexibility in the substance of its rules and operations, freeing it from adherence to public guidelines when entering into contracts with service providers and suppliers.
American courts have recognized these efficiency benefits when enforcing CIC arrangements and the owners’ reliance on them. As one court noted, “It is a well-known fact that [covenants] enhance the value of the subdivision property and form an inducement for purchasers to buy lots within the subdivision” (Gunnels v. No. Woodland Community Ass’n, Tex. Ct. App, 17013 [1978]).
External Concerns: Secession from the General Community
Despite these benefits, various commentators have argued that the services and private facilities of CICs are available only to those who can afford them and facilitate the separation of the wealthy from the rest of society. The rest of a CIC’s municipality is forced to do without, creating a permanent, two-tier system of housing. Critics also claim that privatization of infrastructure and services isolates CIC residents and reduces their stake in broad communal issues.
By this logic, CIC dwellers are less willing to engage with public government on civic matters and more likely to resist tax increases, given that the CIC rather than the municipal government provides many services. Where community associations are part of suburban developments, isolation from the urban core may be acute. These concerns often center on a fear of class and economic segregation. As former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich wrote in a New York Times article called “Secession of the Successful”: In many cities and towns, the wealthy have in effect withdrawn their dollars from the support of public spaces and institutions shared by all and dedicated the savings to their own private services. . . . Condominiums and the omnipresent residential communities dun their members to undertake work that financially strapped local governments can no longer afford to do well (Reich 1991).
Freedom of Choice
This characterization of community associations, however, is at odds with the fundamental American values of freedom of contract and freedom of association. It is a shared value that people may spend their money for lawful purposes as they wish and enter into contracts as they please. The law intrudes on freedom of contract only in rare instances when major policy considerations are at stake. Courts have recognized freedom of contract as an important consideration for upholding private servitude arrangements: We start with the proposition that private persons, in the exercise of their constitutional right of freedom of contract, may impose whatever restrictions upon the use of land which they convey to another that they desire to impose (Grubel v. McLaughlin, D. Va. [1968]).
CICs also reflect the American belief in freedom of association, exemplified in a long tradition of utopian communities and other belief-centered networks. Residents in modern CICs might share common interests, such as the homeowners living in golf or equestrian communities. Other residents may simply share a desire for neighborhood tranquility or character. In Behind the Gates, Setha Low suggests that CICs allow “middle-class families [to] imprint their residential landscapes with ‘niceness,’ reflecting their own aesthetic of orderliness, consistency, and control” (Low 2004). Whatever the reason, community associations are consistent with de Tocqueville’s observation about American interactions: Americans of all ages, all conditions, and all dispositions, constantly form associations. They have not only commercial and manufacturing companies, in which all take part, but associations of a thousand other kinds—religious, moral, serious, futile, extensive or restricted, enormous or diminutive (de Tocqueville 1835).
Moreover, the available evidence indicates that CIC residents are generally happy with their choice. In a 2014 survey conducted by Public Opinion Strategies for the Community Associations Institute, 64 percent of owners were positive about their overall experience, and 26 percent were neutral. While 86 percent of respondents indicated that they wanted either less or no additional governmental regulation, 70 percent maintained that association rules and restrictions protect and enhance property values.
The Issue of Double Taxation
While the rise of CICs reflects a variety of factors, the constrained finances of municipalities following the property tax revolts in the 1970s were key. In fact, a different take on the “secession” narrative is that some owners in common interest communities believe that municipal government abandoned them.
CIC owners pay property taxes at the same rates as other citizens, even though they privately purchase services such as trash collection, street cleaning, and security with their community association dues. This amounts to double taxation, charging association owners for a service they are not receiving.
If a no-service policy were in effect before an owner purchased a unit in a CIC, theoretically the buyer could lower the offer price to reflect the lack of municipal services and the double-taxation-effect. The unit owner would be protected, and the developer would absorb the loss. But if a municipality reduces services but not taxes after the unit purchase, the owner suffers an uncompensated loss. This outcome would be bad policy in that it permits rent seeking, allowing the majority of citizens in the town to select one group of residents to bear an extra tax burden even though they do not create extra costs. This offends notions of both fairness and efficiency, and it’s antithetical to community building and civic trust.
It is especially important for legislatures to avoid the use of double taxation as a matter of policy, given that judicial challenges are unlikely to succeed. The few courts that have entertained attacks on double taxation have been unsympathetic to claims that it violates due process of law, offends the equal protection clause of the Constitution, or works a taking of property without compensation. While double taxation may be bad policy, it is not unconstitutional. The courts should not overturn such legislative decisions, because these are essentially political outcomes that the public should challenge at the ballot box.
The Question of Inequality
The “secession of the wealthy” argument appears to be based on the notion that only higher-income owners with higher-value homes live in common interest communities. The available data, however, do not clearly support this assumption. As Figure 2 indicates, prices for condominiums and cooperatives—half of the units in CICs nationally—are below those for all existing homes (including condominiums, cooperatives, and single-family homes inside and outside of community associations). While these estimates are not deeply segmented (for example, they do not break out single-family homes inside and outside CICs), they do show that the values of condominiums and cooperatives are consistent with those of homes generally.
Housing affordability and access are significant challenges in the United States, but community associations are not necessarily the cause of these deep-seated, complex problems. Employed before CICs became popular, exclusionary zoning imposed by local governments in the form of large lot requirements has prevented developers from building affordable housing. CICs have in fact been found to lower the costs of home purchases. Multi-unit housing, such as condominiums and townhouses, is more affordable than single-family homes because it cuts the cost of land, infrastructure, and building (Ellickson & Been 2005). Affordable housing cooperatives permit restrictions on resale prices and owner income, thus ensuring that housing opportunities remain available for lower-income families. For these purposes, developers operating under city requirements or incentives often designate condominium units within a project as affordable units.
It is therefore simplistic and counterproductive to see community associations as a battleground between rich and poor. Similarly, pejorative use of the term “gated” communities to describe those CICs with limited public access does not advance understanding. Indeed, a moderate-income cooperative with a front door locked for basic security reasons falls within the definition of a “gated” community.
Guiding Principles
In what ways should the “secession of the successful” critique affect our understanding, acceptance, and authorization of common interest communities? The issue is complex and does not lend itself to binary choices. Instead, it is a matter of accommodating competing interests according to the following principles:
Internal Conflicts: Individual Owners vs. the Community
In his groundbreaking book Privatopia: Homeowner Associations and the Rise of Private Residential Governments (1996), Evan McKenzie warned that: CICs feature a form of private government that takes an American preference for private home ownership and, too often, turns it into an ideology of hostile privatism. Preservation of property values is the highest social goal, to which other aspects of community life are subordinated. Rigid, intrusive, and often petty rule enforcement makes a caricature of . . . benign management, and the belief in rational planning is distorted into an emphasis on conformity for its own sake.
Conflicts between residents and CIC associations or boards often revolve around two general issues: the substance of the restrictions and the procedures for enforcement (see Box 2). As Figure 3 shows, disputes may focus on a range of topics, from landscaping restrictions to assessment collection. Indeed, 24 percent of CIC residents responding to the 2014 Public Opinion Strategies survey had experienced a significant personal issue or disagreement with their associations. Of this group, 52 percent were satisfied with the outcome and 36 percent were dissatisfied; in 12 percent of cases, the issue was still unresolved.
There are indeed certain risks that community associations can overstep with respect to the substance and enforcement of restrictions, but legislation and judicial supervision can address these substantive and procedural policy concerns.
————————
Box 2: Conflicts Make Good Copy
While the following headlines fail to represent the myriad positive interactions between individual owners and associations, they do suggest some of the difficult interactions that can occur.
————————
Freedom of Choice
As discussed earlier, individuals exercise their freedom of choice by purchasing homes in CICs and agreeing to be subject to their rules. Association living may not be for everyone, but the expectation of people who choose the CIC life should generally be respected and not be frustrated by someone who subsequently seeks to violate the compact. The courts generally reflect this view, as suggested by this 1981 ruling: [The original] restrictions are clothed with a very strong presumption of validity which arises from the fact that each individual unit owner purchases his unit knowing and accepting the restrictions to be imposed. . . . [A] use restriction in a declaration of condominium may have a certain degree of unreasonableness to it, and yet withstand attack in the courts. If it were otherwise, a unit owner could not rely on the restrictions found in the declaration . . . since such restrictions would be in a potential condition of continuous flux (Hidden Harbour Estates v. Basso, Fla. Ct. App. [1981]).
There are several scenarios, though, where homeowners may have no freedom of choice. First, it is possible that the only new housing available to buyers would be in CICs—i.e., developers are no longer building new homes outside of associations. Indeed, a recent report found that in 2003, 80 percent of all homes being built at that time were in associations (Foundation for Community Association Research 2014). In addition, municipal government may require developers to create associations as a condition for subdivision approval. (Recent legislation in Arizona prohibiting this practice indicates that it still occurs.) Finally, some courts have suggested that while rules in place at the time of purchase should be enforced, a rule subsequently enacted by the association or board under a reserved power should not be enforced if an owner can show that it is “unreasonable.” Other courts disagree: Homeowner should not be heard to complain when, as anticipated by the recorded declaration of covenants, the homeowners’ association amends the declaration. When a purchaser buys into such a community, the purchaser buys not only subject to the express covenants in the declaration, but also subject to the amendment provisions. . . . And, of course, a potential homeowner concerned about community association governance has the option to purchase a home not subject to association governance. . . . For this reason, we decline to subject the amendments . . . to the “reasonableness” test (Hughes v. New Life Development Corp., Tenn. Sup. Ct. [2012]).
Guidelines for Protecting Personal Autonomy
Association restrictions raise concerns when they threaten the personal autonomy and fundamental individual rights of owners. Constraints of this type might include prohibitions of political signs or messaging, and restriction of occupancy to “traditional” families.
Courts should enforce restrictions if they limit spillovers (also known as fallout or externalities) from one owner to the rest of the community. They should not, however, enforce restrictions that limit the nature or status of the occupants or the behavior within a unit that does not create externalities. This approach is based on the theory that the primary purpose of CIC regimes is to enhance economic value and encourage efficient exchanges. Thus, if the owner creates no externalities, the courts should not enforce bans on the particular behavior. Moreover, some values of personal autonomy are too important and trump the usual rules of contract. We do not, for example, permit contracts of indentured servitude or the sale of human organs.
By this standard, limiting noise and banning smoking (because of seepage of odors) in multi-family units would be legitimate, but restrictions based on the marital status of residents would not. Some situations are trickier—for example, restrictions on pets. Under the suggested guidelines, it would usually be legitimate to bar pets because of the potential noise and the reluctance of some residents to share common areas with them. In the case of service animals, however, the unit owner’s health needs may trump community concerns.
First Amendment–type issues present special challenges. Free expression—such as political or issue-related signage, leafleting, demonstrations, or other manifestations—can cause spillovers that may include noise, aesthetic interference, and disruption of the community’s general ambience. At the same time, however, free speech is fundamental to our republican form of government, arguably whether it is addressed to the larger public government or the private government. In expression cases, courts might apply the longstanding doctrine that prohibits covenants that violate public policy, rejecting total bans on speech in favor of reasonable restrictions on time, place, and manner. This would allow expression but limit, if not eliminate, spillover on the community.
Religious freedom is another fundamental American value. Restrictions on the placement of a mezuzah on doorposts and the display of crèches, statues of saints, and Christmas lights limit free exercise of religion. While it would open a Pandora’s box to engage in balancing the religious importance of colored versus white Christmas lights against CIC standards, it would nevertheless be appropriate for the courts to impose a general standard of reasonable accommodation on CIC regulations that affect religious practices.
Finally, in the development and enforcement of association rules, CIC property owners have a right to expect certain behavior from associations and boards. This expectation traces from the obligation of good faith and fair dealing that is incumbent on all parties to a contract. Thus, an owner should have a right to fair procedures, including notice and an opportunity to be heard; to be treated equally to other similarly situated owners; and to be free from bias, personal animus, and bad-faith decision making by the board and its members.
Conclusion
Common interest communities are a large part of the American residential landscape, currently providing homes for a quarter of the U.S. population. While CICs bring great economic advantages to residents and society in general, these types of housing arrangements do require nuanced interactions between the community association and the municipal government, and association rules can impinge on the personal autonomy of members. However, strategies are available to mitigate if not overcome these problems. Indeed, these approaches can make ownership of a home in a CIC less of an illusion and more of a reality.
About the Author
Gerald Korngold is Professor of Law at New York Law School and a visiting fellow at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. He teaches and writes in the fields of property and real estate law.
References
De Tocqueville, Alexis. 1835. Democracy in America. London: Saunders and Otley.
Ellickson, Robert C. & Vicki L. Been. 2005. Land Use Controls. New York, NY: Aspen Publishers, 3rd edition.
Foundation for Community Association Research. 2014. “Best Practices. Report #7: Transition.” www.cairf.org/research/bptransition.pdf.
Foundation for Community Association Research. 2013. “National and State Statistical Review for 2013.” www.cairf.org/research/factbook/2013_statistical_review.pdf.
Grubel v. McLaughlin Gunnels v. No. Woodland Community Ass’n, 17013, Texas Court of Appeals (1978).
Hidden Harbour Estates v. Basso, Florida Court of Appeals (1981).
Hughes v. New Life Development Corp., Tennessee Superior Court (2012).
Low, Setha. 2004. Behind the Gates: Life, Security, and the Pursuit of Happiness in Fortress America. London: Routledge.
McKenzie, E. 1996. Privatopia: Homeowner Associations and the Rise of Private Residential Governments. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press.
Nelson, R. H. 2009. “The Puzzle of Local Double Taxation: Why Do Private Communities Exist?” The Independent Review. 13 (3) (Winter) 345–365.
Public Opinion Strategies. 2014. “Verdict: Americans Grade Their Associations, Board Members and Community Managers.” Falls Church, Virginia: Community Associations Institute.
Reich, Robert. 1991. “Secession of the Successful.” The New York Times Magazine. January 20.
Treese, C. J. 2013. Association Information Services, Inc., compiled from National Association of Realtors data. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I_2LgTIYSqR4nLPRxN-HtCV-oOFK_QqN1AcO5JJTw-g/edit.
Ziegler, J. 1984. The New Yorker. September 3.
SHARE
The richness and multidimensional nature of the Lincoln Institute’s educational program is well demonstrated by the seminars, courses and lectures offered at Lincoln House recently. We are proud that the Institute is playing a significant role in helping scholars and practitioners from throughout the United States and around the world to clarify the issues and their own positions on complex land and tax policies.
In late May, Armando Carbonell, cochairman of the Institute’s Department of Planning and Development, and Harvey Jacobs, professor of planning at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, assembled a group of leading scholars to discuss the changing nature of property rights in the twenty-first century. This topic has taken a prominent place in local debates around the U.S., and the Supreme Court is regularly asked to review property rights cases. Property rights and land tenure issues are also increasingly important in many contexts around the world. In rapidly growing cities in developing countries, for example, new calls for constitutional changes seek to ensure rights for the poor.
In another arena, the Institute continues to provide training for journalists who cover land use and property tax issues. We are all aware of the significant role that journalists play in informing the public on a variety of topics, yet most journalists are by training generalists rather than specialists. Our programs are designed to provide valuable background material and resources on land use and taxation issues to inform their work. Following the seminar on property rights, Carbonell and Jacobs reviewed the key themes of that debate with an invited group of 28 journalists who spent two days at Lincoln House. This course also included presentations by Joan Youngman, chairman of the Institute’s Department of Valuation and Taxation, and Bob Schwab, an economist at the University of Maryland, on the interplay between property taxation and school finance. Rosalind Greenstein, cochairman of the Institute’s Department of Planning and Development, and John Landis, professor of planning at the University of California, Berkeley, detailed the policy concerns related to sprawling patterns of development in California and other regions.
Training practitioners continues to be another major focus of our courses and seminars. We regularly provide training for transportation planners, state and regional planning officials, community development corporation directors, and professionals in urban universities who are responsible for real estate and community development. Martim Smolka, director of the Institute’s Latin America Program, brought 23 policy makers and academics from 12 Latin America countries to examine the opportunities and pitfalls of large-scale urban developments. Finally, as part of our Lincoln Lecture Series, Anthony Vickers, the former president of the Henry George Foundation of Great Britain, presented a talk on the prospects for land value taxation in Great Britain.
Lincoln House is a busy place. We believe we are making a difference in many different ways—training a broad cross-section of scholars, educators, journalists and practitioners in land and tax policy, and providing a forum for public debate. We look forward to the new academic year that begins in July, and hope you will find a way to share this experience with us.
SHARE
Numerous convergent trends motivated 40 academics and practitioners from 15 countries to meet at the Lincoln Institute in July 1998 to discuss recent land market reforms. First, the recognition that the world’s population is becoming increasingly urban and so the quantity of land converted to urban use is expected to rise significantly. Second, evidence that a major proportion of the world’s poorest households now lives in urban areas (e.g., 80 percent in Latin America). Third, the perceived sea change in the role of government shifting away from intervention and regulation toward more selective urban management. During the three-day workshop, participants presented papers and discussed the rationale behind recent legal and institutional reforms, the nature of the transition from customary or informal to formal markets, evidence for improved land market efficiency, and access to land for the poor.
Legal and Institutional Reform
Several participants made the case for institutional reform of land markets in different ways. Steve Mayo (Lincoln Institute) drew conceptual and empirical links between the performance of property markets and the macro economy. He noted that poorly functioning land markets influence wealth creation and mobility rates which, coupled with particular finance conditions, could aggravate macro-economic instability. Drawing data from the Housing Indicators Program he showed that the prices of raw and serviced land tended to converge with higher land prices, indicating larger land development multipliers at lower prices. He also noted a relationship between the price elasticity of the housing supply and the policy environment.
Although there is a perception that reforms toward ‘enabling’ policy environments are now widespread in developing and transition economies, Alain Durand-Lasserve (National Center for Scientific Research, France) observed the rarity of explicit reference to ‘land market reform’ in political statements in Africa. Indeed, he argued that the ideological underpinning for freer land markets was more advanced than the practice of establishing the prerequisites for effective and unitary markets. In practice, a number of papers indicated competing political agendas, legal ambiguity and diversity of progress in the reform process.
“The law can be reformed, history cannot,” said Patrick McAuslan (Birkbeck College, London) in discussing the role of the law as a necessary basis for effective land market reform. He described the evolution of the recent Land Act of Uganda, which seeks to establish a land market based on individual ownership. He commended the government for dovetailing the reform process with extensive public debate, but noted that drafts of the Act set up new contradictions in a century-long history of competing land relations between freehold, customary tenure and nationalized public lands. His paper outlined a series of ‘time-bombs’ left by colonial administrations and aggravated by post-independence governments, only some of which are addressed by the new legislation.
The inconsistent nature of reform appears to be particularly acute for the transition economies of Eastern Europe and Southern Africa. In Eastern Europe, the legacies of communism have led to inappropriate land uses and the assignment of non-monetary values to property. Legal changes toward land privatization, however, have been slow. Tom Reiner (University of Pennsylvania) argued that despite a strong normative case for privatization and latent demand in the Ukraine, current laws make no provision for freehold sale. He presented data to show that privatization would yield considerable macro-economic and fiscal benefits: direct sales revenue alone would amount to $13 billion, plus increased taxes and more efficient resource allocation.
In Russia, according to Jan Brzeski (Crakow Real Estate Institute), the emergence of land markets has been inhibited by a different understanding of the social role of property and turf politics. In Poland, where privatization is more advanced, he argued that reforms have been insufficient to overcome extensive resource misallocation. Assignation has taken place at symbolic prices without reforms to ground rents or property taxes, and with high transaction costs. Nevertheless, land market turnover is increasing faster than economic growth and re-sales represent about 25 percent of capital investment.
The1991 privatization program in Albania appears to have stimulated an active property and land market. Research by David Stanfield (University of Wisconsin-Madison) indicates substantial increases in turnover rates and increasing prices, but also extensive conflicts between pre-collectivization and post-privatization holders, contradictions in the many laws and errors in the new documentation. The research points to the relative ease of establishing frameworks for privatization but greater difficulties in allowing markets to function thereafter.
Lusugga Kironde (University College of Lands and Architectural Studies) described how shortcomings in the ‘planned’ allocation system in Tanzania meant that 60 percent of people acquired land through informal methods. This in turn denied revenue to the government since transactions were outside official sanction and in some cases well-off households received plots with a substantial subsidy. Michael Roth (University of Wisconsin-Madison) described a similar situation in Mozambique, where the legacy of state socialism is still felt in the level of government intervention and under-representation of freehold tenure.
In both countries, the assessment of reform was mixed. Tanzania’s New Land Policy (1995), while a useful step in accepting the existence of a land market and providing security to plots with customary tenure, has fallen short of removing the barriers to an effective land market. In particular, Kironde noted that the new measures concentrated decisions in a Land Commissioner despite a national policy of administrative decentralization. The policy offers no incentive to encourage the formalization of informal practices and no stake to ensure the compliance of important middlemen. In Mozambique, since the late 1980s, market-oriented reforms have produced unclear administrative responsibilities and uncertain land rights. One feature has been land disputes with households calling upon newly empowered producer associations to defend claims. The 1997 reforms attempt to guarantee tenure security, provide incentives for investment, and incorporate innovative ideas for community land rights.
In Latin America, reform has been less concerned with establishing markets per se and more with improving their function, especially land reforms motivated by largely rural concerns but which have important urban impacts. Rosaria Pisa (University of Wales) indicated that reforms in Mexico have created the necessary conditions for the privatization of community (ejido) land, but progress has been slow. Less than one percent of land has been privatized in five years due to other government interests and legal ambiguities that have established a second informal land market.
Carlos Guanziroli (INCRA – the National Institute on Colonization and Agrarian Reform, Brazil) argued that rural reform was producing land use diversity, especially through the survival of small family farms. Reform was also affecting Brazil’s urban land markets as capital switched from rural to urban areas, probably raising urban land prices. Francisco Sabatini (Catholic University) argued that the liberalization in Chile had not reduced land prices because landowners’ and developers’ decisions are influenced less by regulations and more by demand.
Overall, the consensus on whether reforms were producing unitary and less diverse land markets was unclear. Agents and institutions are proving to be very adaptable to new conditions, a point made for all three regions. Ayse Pamuk (University of Virginia) argued that, based on her analysis of informal institutions in Trinidad, researchers should look away from formal regulations as a barrier to land market operation. Instead, they should consider how social institutions such as trust and reciprocity were producing flexible solutions to tenure insecurity and dispute resolution.
Clarissa Fourie (University of Natal) described how user-friendly local land records could be merged with registries on marriage, inheritance, women’s rights and debt to produce a useful tool for land administration in Namibia. Nevertheless, she noted that the incorporation of customary practices into land administration to provide security of tenure would mean some adaptation of social land tenure systems. Pointing to research in Senegal and South Africa, Babette Wehrmann (GTZ, Germany) argued that customary and informal agents were flourishing and providing high-quality sources of market information.
The Formalization and Regularization of Land Tenure
Peter Ward (University of Texas at Austin) described the diversity of regularization programs across Latin America, where some countries consider it to be a juridical procedure and others regard it as physical upgrading. Regularization may be an end in itself (mass titling programs), or a means to an end (to develop credit systems). Ward argued that the differences among programs stem from how each government ‘constructs’ its urbanization process and represents this vision back to society through laws and language.
Edesio Fernandes (University of London) explained how Brazil’s Civil Code dating from the beginning of the century created a system of individual property rights that restricted the ability of government to regularize favela communities. The 1988 Constitution attempted to reform this situation by acknowledging private property rights when accomplishing a social function. Nevertheless, legal tensions within regularization programs have failed to integrate the favelas into the ‘official city,’ leading to some politically dangerous situations.
Under different circumstances, South Africa produced a regulatory regime that denied freehold tenure to black households or offered only complicated non-collateral permits to the few. Lauren Royston (Development Planning Alternatives, Johannesburg) outlined how the country’s Land Policy White Paper contemplates legally enforceable and non-racial rights, a wider range of tenure options and opportunities for communal property acquisition.
The two developing countries with the most extensive mass titling programs, Mexico and Peru, were scrutinized by Ann Varley (University College, London) and Gustavo Riofrio (Center for the Study and Promotion of Development – DESCO, Lima). Varley assessed two prevailing assumptions that run through the contemporary policy literature: that decentralization produces more effective land management, and that the regularization of customary tenure is more complicated than the regularization of private property. In Mexico, despite the rhetoric of decentralization, a highly centralized system has been increasingly effective in providing land regularization to settlements on ejido land. On the other hand, the regularization of private property is tortuously long and frequently produces poor results. She commented with some concern on the current trends in Mexico to convert ejido land to private ownership and to move toward greater decentralization.
Riofrio questioned the validity of the claims made for land regularization in Peru. He noted that in reality household interest in property title was quite low, not least because records are inaccurate and therefore offer less security than promised. Moreover, only an incipient housing finance market has emerged, based on the regularized properties. Households are wary of debt but are willing to borrow small sums for micro-enterprises and consumption secured on their housing.
New Social Patterns and Forms of Land Delivery
Would liberalization produce more segregated land markets? Brzeski noted that state planning in Eastern Europe has left a legacy of spatial equity and few informal land holdings, but that it would not last forever and planners need to take this into account in instigating reform. In countries with notable levels of social segregation, such as Chile, Colombia and South Africa, less predictable trends are emerging. Sabatini’s data indicated less spatial segregation in Santiago despite liberalization as intermediate spaces are developed, around malls for example, and as new lifestyles are reflected in ‘leisure home’ developments outside the metropolitan area.
Carolina Barco (University of the Andes) argued that new measures in Colombia, specifically the 1997 Ley de Ordenamiento Territorial, will allow the government of Bogota to capture land value increments and transfer these revenues to public housing and other projects. This process is still problematic, however, even in a city with considerable experience in the use of valorization taxes.
In South Africa, strategies to cope with the ‘land hunger’ of the post-apartheid city, especially the Development Facilitation Act nationally and the Rapid Land Development Program in the province of Gauteng, have offered fast-track land release but have performed less well against the principles of equity and integration. Royston explained that the result has been a large number of invasions and the speeding up of land delivery through local government on the urban periphery that does not challenge the ‘spatial quo.’
Changing the method of land delivery and government stakeholding has the potential to affect segregation and access to land. Geoff Payne (Geoff Payne and Associates, London) outlined the principles and practices of public/private partnerships in developing countries. Although much heralded in international policy, research in South Africa, India, Pakistan, Egypt and Eastern Europe has shown that such partnerships had undersold their potential.
Crispus Kiamba (University of Nairobi) outlined a transition in Kenya from government-sponsored schemes, which left the informal and formal circuits separate, to new approaches with greater NGO involvement, ‘group ranches’ and partnerships. In Mexico, too, partnerships are seen as one method to eliminate the cycle of illegality and regularization. Federico Seyde and Abelardo Figueroa (Mexican government) outlined a new program called PISO, which, despite numerous bottlenecks when compared to previous interventions (e.g. land reserves), was proving more effective.
Land Markets and Poverty Reduction
In my opening remarks I argued that most research on markets considered poverty as a legitimate context, but thereafter seemed more concerned with market operations than with how these operations might affect poverty. In the final session, Omar Razzaz (World Bank) outlined a proposal for linking land market operation to poverty reduction. The ‘Land and Real Estate Initiative’ aims to investigate ways to improve the liquidity of land assets and access to the poor through re-engineering land registries (improved business processes), developing regulatory infrastructure (the exchange-mortgage-securitization continuum), and accessing and mobilizing land and real estate by the poor. The appropriateness of this initiative generated considerable debate, which may help in refining ideas that could benefit the 500 million people living in urban poverty in developing countries.
Gareth A. Jones was the program developer and chair of the workshop.
