SHARE
For more than a century, California’s Great Central Valley has been recognized as one of the world’s foremost agricultural regions. A giant basin 450 miles long and averaging 50 miles wide, the Valley encompasses some 19,000 square miles. With only one-half of one percent of the nation’s farmland, the Valley accounts for 8 percent of the nation’s farm output-including 15 percent of America’s vegetable production and 38 percent of fruit production.
Today, large parts of the Valley are making a transition to an urban economy. Led by such emerging metropolitan areas as Sacramento, Fresno and Bakersfield, the Central Valley already has more than 5 million residents. State demographers predict growth to reach almost 9 million people by 2020 and more than 11 million by 2040.
Given this scale of urban growth, what are the key issues facing the Valley? With the assistance of the Lincoln Institute, the Great Valley Center-a non-governmental organization supporting the economic, social and environmental well-being of California’s Central Valley-has undertaken an effort to try to frame this basic question. Which issues are purely local, and which ones require a more regional approach? What are the constraints the Valley faces in the decades ahead? And, finally, what are the choices? How might the Valley approach the question of accommodating urban growth while still retaining an agricultural base, a vibrant economy, a good quality of life and an enhanced natural environment?
Perhaps the biggest question is simply whether the Central Valley can accommodate such a vast quantity of urban growth and still maintain its distinctive identity. For decades, the Valley’s regional environment consisted mostly of three elements intertwined on the landscape-vestiges of nature, a panoply of crops and compact agricultural towns. The development of agriculture created a rural landscape, but one in which nature was often sacrificed for agricultural production. A distinctive urban form evolved that was far different from the rest of California. The Valley’s older towns, often sited on railroad lines, are typically compact but not dense, with wide, shady streets stretching out along the flat expanse from an old commercial downtown.
Regional and Sub-Regional Growth Dynamics
In determining urban development options for the Central Valley, it is important to understand the context of growth dynamics that affect the entire region as well as important sub-regions. Although the geographical size of the Central Valley is very large-far larger than many states, for example-in many ways it should be viewed as one region with a common set of characteristics and problems. These include:
Air quality: The Central Valley consists of one air basin, and so pollutants emitted in one part of the Valley can have an impact hundreds of miles away.
Water supply and distribution: Although many parts of the Central Valley depend heavily on groundwater, almost every community in the region is at least partly dependent on one water source: The drainage that flows into the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers and then through the Sacramento Delta. This water source is also used in many different ways by both state and federal water projects. Transportation links: The Central Valley is connected internally and to other regions by a series of transportation links. Most obvious are the major freeway corridors, including Highway 99, Interstate 5, and Interstate 80, along with rail lines, which generally follow the Highway 99 corridor.
Land supply and cost: In virtually all parts of the Central Valley, land is cheaper and in more abundant supply than it is in coastal areas. This is one of the main reasons why population growth has shifted from the coast to the Central Valley.
At the same time, the Valley can be viewed as a group of five sub-regions, each with its own growth dynamic. These include:
North Valley: Seven counties in the northern portion of the Sacramento Valley remain rural and experience relatively little urban growth pressure compared to the rest of the Valley.
Sacramento Metro: Six counties around Sacramento have the highest rates of educational attainment and the highest wage scales anywhere in the Valley, largely because of the state capital, the University of California at Davis, and proximity to the Bay Area. This has become a popular location for high-tech employers.
Stockton-Modesto-Merced: Traditionally a major ranching and agricultural area, these centrally located counties are now experiencing tremendous urban growth pressure because of Bay Area commuting, though they are not adding jobs as rapidly as Sacramento Metro.
Greater Fresno: Four counties near Fresno remain the agricultural heartland of the Central Valley. Though population growth rates are high due to immigration and high birth rates, especially in the metropolitan Fresno area, the economy is only beginning to diversify and remains heavily focused on agriculture and related industries. As with other parts of the Valley, much of Greater Fresno’s population growth has come from immigration and high birth rates.
Bakersfield-Kern County: Somewhat separate geographically from the rest of the San Joaquin Valley, this area remains a center of both agriculture and extractive industries, especially oil. This region is experiencing rapid population growth and is the only part of the Valley that appears to be directly influenced by spillover growth from Greater Los Angeles.
Underlying Issues
With so much urban growth on the horizon, the Central Valley’s twenty-first-century landscape will be shaped by the interplay among several different issues:
Agriculture: Agriculture is likely to consume less land and less water in the future than it has used in the past, but it is still likely to be the sector that most determines the Valley’s urban growth patterns. The critical issues are: What kind of agricultural base will the Valley have in the next century, and how much land and water will that agricultural base require? Recent trends have moved the Valley toward ever-higher-value crops, and competition with foreign markets is expected to be fierce.
Socioeconomic issues: The Valley has traditionally lagged behind the rest of California in social and economic indicators. Unemployment and teenage pregnancy are high, while household income and educational attainment is low. Like the rest of California, the Valley is rapidly evolving a unique mix of racial diversity. Although the Valley will soon get a boost from the creation of a new University of California campus in Merced County, the region’s overall economic competitiveness may not be able to match its urban population growth.
Natural resources: In the rush to create one of the world’s great agricultural regions, the Central Valley’s leaders often overlooked the wonderland of natural resources that lay at their feet. For example, the Valley’s vast system of wetlands, once one of the largest and most important in the world, has almost completely disappeared, much to the detriment of the migratory bird population. In the future, there will be increasing pressure to restore and enhance these natural resources even as the Valley continues to urbanize. The entire San Francisco Bay-Sacramento Delta ecosystem has emerged as the focal point of a massive state and federal effort to improve water quality and restore biodiversity.
Infrastructure and infrastructure financing: When California’s coastal metropolitan areas were created, mostly in the postwar era,- the state and federal governments contributed greatly to their success by picking up the tab for most of the infrastructure they required. In the last two decades, however, all this has changed. In the Central Valley, the urban infrastructure is underdeveloped, and the financial ability of developers and new homebuyers to bear the full cost of community infrastructure is questionable.
Governmental structure and regional/sub-regional cooperation: In the Valley as elsewhere, a wide range of local, regional, state and federal agencies make decisions that create the emerging landscape. But there is little history of cooperation among these agencies, and especially among local governments. If all these entities can work together well, they can effectively increase the region’s “capacity” to create an urban environment that works for its users while protecting agricultural land, natural resources and other non-urban values. But if these entities do not establish a pattern of working together, the result could be a haphazard pattern of urban growth that does not serve any goal well.
Possible Strategies
Given these background conditions, the Central Valley could adopt any one of a number of strategies for shaping urban growth, or different parts of the Valley could “mix and match” from a variety of possibilities, which include the following:
Concentrate urban growth in existing urban centers. The Central Valley’s urban centers are well established and well served by existing infrastructure. They contain most of the current job centers and community support services and amenities required for urban or suburban living. This strategy would concentrate urban growth in and near these centers through a combination of infill development and compact growth in new areas.
Adopt a “metroplex” strategy. This strategy would recognize that population growth in the Valley will be concentrated in a few large metropolitan areas. Urban growth needs, including urban centers, bedroom communities, parks and greenbelts, should be dealt with at the metropolitan level in a small number of distinct “urban metropolitan regions.”
Create a “string of pearls” along Highway 99. For most of this century, Highway 99 has been the Central Valley’s “main drag.” Virtually all of the Valley’s older urban centers are located along this corridor. One possible strategy would be to concentrate future urban development up and down Highway 99, creating a string of urban and suburban pearls. In point of fact, the string of pearls is already emerging in some places. New development districts are being created along the corridor to the north and south of existing cities and towns because of access to this major transportation artery.
Encourage the creation of new towns in the foothills on the west side of the Valley. The so-called “Foothill Strategy” has been discussed for several years in some parts of the Valley. Foothill new towns would place commuters closer to Bay Area jobs and protect prime farmland on the Valley floor. However, water and infrastructure finance issues make this strategy very difficult to achieve.
Permit the emergence of an urban ladder. A final possibility is to permit the development of what might be called an urban ladder: a network of urban and suburban areas that run up and down the Valley along Highway 99 and Interstate 5, and then run across the Valley on a series of east-west rungs along smaller roads that connect the two freeway corridors. In many ways, the urban ladder is the most likely possibility, simply because it connects existing cities and towns with probable new areas for urban growth by using the available transportation corridors. At the same time, however, it holds the potential to create more “suburban sprawl” than any other option.
Many of these options are already emerging as an actual urban pattern in certain parts of the Valley, and it is unlikely that there is a “one-size fits all” answer for the entire Valley. But, unless the civic leaders of the Valley confront the issue of urban growth head-on, it is likely that the Valley will adopt the sprawling and inefficient land use patterns that characterize Los Angeles and California’s other coastal metropolitan areas.
There is still time to shape a different outcome in the Valley, if civic leaders work together in a conscious attempt to design a set of workable urban development patterns that will operate efficiently and effectively for urban dwellers, for employers, for agriculturalists, and for the natural environment.
William Fulton is editor of California Planning and Development Report, contributing editor of Planning magazine, and correspondent for Governing magazine. For more information about the Great Valley Center, see www.greatvalley.org.
SHARE
The recent fiscal crisis in Asia has affected systems of taxation and land use regulation throughout the region. The situation in Korea is typical. A series of collapses of large conglomerates led to a severe economic crisis, with 5.5 percent of total loans in default by the end of 1997. Currency and stock indexes fell to one-half their value within a year. Major measures to control the crisis, undertaken in cooperation with the International Monetary Fund (IMF), include cutting government expenses by 10 percent and initiating a series of tax reforms to raise revenues.
In this context, a recent seminar on the taxation of real property in Asia provided a valuable and timely forum for the exchange of ideas. The seminar was hosted by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the Government of Korea at the Korea-OECD Multilateral Tax Center in Chonon in early March. Tax administrators from China, Korea, Singapore and Vietnam attended the two-part program, which included a four-day seminar on property taxation and a one-day workshop hosted by the Korea Ministry of Finance. My fellow instructors in the seminar were Michael Engelschalk of OECD’s Fiscal Division in Paris and Anders Muller of Denmark’s Ministry of Taxation.
Seminar Themes
The seminar addressed three major issues concerning local government systems for property taxation:
Local Revenues and Fiscal Decentralization:
Anticipating increased political and fiscal decentralization in many Asian countries, the seminar explored the role of local government within the national tax structure. These fundamental issues are particularly of interest to China, which is just beginning to develop a property tax system, and Korea, which is beginning to exercise stronger local autonomy.
Market Economy and Property Valuation:
For Vietnam and China, which are moving toward a market-based economy, establishing reliable sales information on property markets and developing effective valuation techniques are major challenges. Korea and Singapore, with their more advanced property tax systems, must be able to respond to a dynamic property market. Singapore’s annual value rating method and Korea’s market capitalization approach are very different systems, and the issue of improving valuation models remained a hotly debated subject during the seminar.
Taxation Administration and Enforcement:
Computerization, a collection process and legal procedures need to be developed and implemented in all governments to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of management and enforcement procedures. Political issues such as assignment of local and central government functions, determining ability to pay and the role of wealth taxation were also discussed extensively by the participants.
Tax Policy Issues in Asian Countries
Although China at present does not permit private ownership of land, three categories of taxes are applied to use rights:
taxes on land use (land use tax, land occupation tax and agricultural tax):
taxes on ownership of buildings (house tax and real estate tax); and
taxes on transactions (land appreciation tax, business tax, stamp duty and deed tax.)
Property tax reform in China is needed for two reasons: redundancy and out-of-date regulations. Even after the economic reforms of the 1980s, foreign investment in real property has been regulated and taxed according to a 1951 law. The central government has decided to reform and simplify property taxes by consolidating the domestic house tax with the land use tax for local people, consolidating domestic and foreign house taxes for foreigners, and possibly eliminating the deed tax.
Korea proposed a land value increment tax several years ago to capture the capital gains from land transactions, but the proposal was defeated. To capture land value increments and avoid speculation, Korea instead implemented a capital gains tax system that covers both real property and other asset transactions. To discourage land speculation, the tax rate will be fixed at 50 percent for property sales within two years of purchase, but owners who hold properties for more than two years will have a lower capital gains tax rate.
Korea’s GNP is expected to grow less than one percent in 1998 and tax revenues are projected to decline by US$4.4 billion. In response, the government designed a package to raise tax revenues by US$2.4 billion and to cut government expenditures by US$5.6 billion. In the tax reform package, minimum tax levels will generally be raised but capital gains taxes on land sales and value-added tax exemptions will be reduced.
Vietnam began reforming its tax system in 1990 with the introduction of uniform tax laws and ordinances across the country. Some examples are the 1994 Law on Agricultural Land Use Taxes, the 1992 Ordinance on Land and Housing Taxes, and the 1994 Law on Taxes on Land Use Right Transfer. Although Vietnam endorses a market economy, these central government regulations set the standard for all taxation administration. Property valuation (use value) is also defined by national law, although the taxable price is determined by the People’s Committee of the province or city, which is directly under central government power. In other words, the valuation is based on market value but must be approved by the People’s Committee.
In Singapore property owners pay an annual tax of 12 percent on the annual value of the property. The annual value for buildings is based on the estimated market rent per annum. The value for vacant land or land under development is derived from five percent of its estimated market value. The total annual tax in 1996-97 constituted six percent of the government’s operating revenue. Other property-related taxes include transfer taxes, inheritance taxes and development charges. Given the dynamic urban real property market and high land prices, the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS), which oversees the taxation system, is continuously developing new valuation and collection methodologies.
In summary, the demand for research on tax policies is critical in Asia. This seminar offered an educational environment where instructors and participants could share basic principles on the taxation of real property and learn from each others’ experiences.
Alven Lam is a fellow of the Lincoln Institute and academic dean of the Land Reform Training Institute in Taiwan.
SHARE
Mexico is beginning to create an enabling environment to use land value increments for development purposes. Recent constitutional and legal reforms have authorized the clarification of land titling as well as the commercialization of land. Real estate markets are gradually superseding the immobile land tenure arrangements that gave rise to informal markets characterized by confusing and often arbitrary arrangements and high transaction costs. The private sector is moving into the areas of low-income housing and public-private arrangements for balanced and sustainable land developments.
The State of Mexico has launched a comprehensive program, known as PRORIENTE, to promote government, business and community interaction for joint management and financing of urban development in the eastern part of the territory. PRORIENTE’s vision is one of “new cities” surrounding the Mexico City megalopolis, characterized by balanced growth between demographic densification, income-generating activities and environmental protection. The creation of employment in and around the new settlements is an overriding social and economic goal of the program.
Given the intricate pattern of interests involved, PRORIENTE has adopted an intersectorial and interjurisdictional approach. Indeed, PRORIENTE requires that the State of Mexico take the initiative to coordinate land and fiscal policies and instruments among the federal government, the newly elected opposition government of the Federal District, and the many municipalities that are largely controlled by opposition parties.
The challenges for PRORIENTE are formidable:
Population growth in the region between now and the year 2,020 is estimated at five million people.
Deforestation and disorganized urbanization of agricultural areas are leading to further desertification of this region.
Innovative policies and contractual arrangements have yet to be introduced to create effective land markets.
Uncontrolled urbanization has been dominated by private developers who speculate with land prices, ignore urban planning and appropriate huge increases in land values, as well as by settlements of low-income immigrants. New mechanisms for public capture of increases in land values that emanate from new policies and/or administrative decisions will have to overcome serious resistance.
Real estate taxation is largely underdeveloped, and the property tax structure is plagued with many exceptions. Cadasters are often outdated and have only weak connections with the system of transfer and registration of real property.
Public-private partnerships that are accountable to the communities and operate on a transparent basis are practically unknown in a country with a tradition of a strong federal government.
Intergovernmental fiscal relations and interjurisdictional arrangements have been dominated by the will and the overwhelming fiscal power of the federal government, which controls 80 percent of public income compared to four percent for the municipalities and 16 percent for the state. Local and regional governments are just beginning to experiment with political coalitions and multiparty governments capable of surviving the short life span of one administration.
In view of these obstacles and challenges, the leaders of PRORIENTE have adopted a participatory, negotiating approach that is already producing visible results. Businesses have formed large-scale conglomerates capable of funneling much-needed capital and management technologies into the area. The federal government, the Federal District, municipalities and communities are invited to the negotiating table to participate in an ongoing process that nurtures an expanding program rather than a precise policy or institutional goal.
The Lincoln Institute recognizes that this project presents an excellent opportunity to study the complex role of land as a strategic factor for development throughout Latin America. Last April, the Institute coordinated a seminar on urban land markets in the city of Toluca, and is continuing to serve as a sounding board for policymakers of the State of Mexico and other public and private actors involved in PRORIENTE.
In addition, a Lincoln Institute team is cooperating with other institutions and practitioners to share international experiences regarding both the process of policy formation and the operational side of the PRORIENTE program. Special attention is given to the sustainability and replicability of strategies to facilitate the transition from restrictive land tenancy systems, weak property tax administrations and highly centralized fiscal resources to competitive land markets and local land use initiatives to encourage development. The Institute will utilize this experience in Mexico for developing courses in other countries facing similar situations.
Fernando Rojas, a visiting fellow of the Lincoln Institute, is a legal scholar and public policy analyst from Colombia. He was formerly a visiting fellow at the David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies at Harvard University. Alfonso Iracheta is technical secretary of PRORIENTE and the director of planning for the State of Mexico.
SHARE
Despite the long-term and continuing trend away from central business districts and toward suburban development, a number of factors are motivating recent attention to rail transit. These factors include:
concerns about the negative impact of auto-oriented sprawl desires to reduce air pollution and energy consumption interest in rebuilding urban communities need to provide access and mobility to those without autos desires to save the costs and avoid the impacts of new or widened roadways
Many metropolitan areas in the United States are considering the addition or expansion of light rail and commuter rail systems to link employees with business centers. The land use characteristics of the corridors where transit lines operate have been shown to influence transit ridership, but much of the previous work is more than 20 years old and based on data from a limited number of regions.
Our national research project, conducted for the Transit Cooperative Research Program with Jeffrey Zupan, expands and updates earlier research. We analyzed information on 261 stations on 19 light rail lines in 11 cities, including Baltimore, Cleveland and St. Louis, and 550 stations on 47 commuter rail lines in the six city regions of Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Philadelphia and Washington, DC.
The study shows that light rail and commuter rail serve distinctly different markets and land use patterns. Light rail with its closely spaced stations attracts more riders per station when it is located in denser residential areas. Feeder bus service helps to boost ridership. Light rail can function in regions with a wide range of CBD sizes and employment densities. Commuter rail depends more on park-and-ride lots at stations in low-density, high-income suburban areas farther from the CBDs, which tend to be larger and more dense than those in light rail areas.
Light rail, with its more frequent service, averages about twice as many daily boarders per station as commuter rail, even though light rail is more often found in smaller metropolitan areas. Figure 1 shows that light rail is most effective in attracting passengers close to the CBD. Figure 2 shows that commuter rail attracts the largest number of its riders about 35 miles out from the CBD. In both figures, other factors affecting ridership, except CBD employment density, are held constant.
Because most transit systems emanate from and focus on a region’s CBD, the amount of employment concentrated downtown clearly affects the demand for transit. Figures 1 and 2 also show that ridership increases with CBD density for both light rail and commuter rail. For light rail, the effects of CBD density on ridership are most pronounced for stations within 10 miles of the core, while for commuter rail the larger impacts occur at stations 20 to 50 miles outside the city.
Changes in Employment and Residential Density
CBD employment density (as measured by employment per gross CBD acre) is nearly twice as important for commuter rail ridership as for light rail. Our study shows that a 10 percent increase in CBD employment density produces 7.1 percent more commuter rail riders, but only 4.0 percent more light rail riders. Commuter rail boardings are more strongly influenced by CBD employment density because these systems usually have a single downtown terminal. Higher-density CBDs assure that more jobs are within walking distance of the commuter rail station. Employment density in city centers is less important in light rail regions since they have more stations distributed throughout the CBD.
On the other hand, a 10 percent increase in station area residential density (as measured by number of persons per gross acre within two miles of a station) boosts light rail boardings by 5.9 percent and commuter rail boardings by only 2.5 percent. Throughout the study these effects are measured holding constant transit system characteristics such as parking availability, station distance to the CBD and station area income levels.
Light rail, with its relatively short lines, is most effective in attracting passengers when stations are in higher-density residential areas close to the CBD. Commuter rail ridership rises more slowly with residential density because commuter rail is a high-fare mode, and its higher-income riders tend to live in more expensive, lower-density places. Moreover, the higher speeds and longer distances on commuter rail tend to increase ridership to the CBD from precisely those places outside the city where residential densities tend to be low.
Cost-efficiency and Effectiveness
In this study, cost-efficiency is measured by annual operating costs plus depreciation per vehicle mile. Effectiveness is measured by daily passenger miles per line mile. For light rail, these measures indicate a strong positive relationship with CBD employment size and residential density. A weaker but still significant relationship occurs for CBD employment density and for the line distance from the CBD. This suggests that medium to large cities with higher density corridors work best for light rail. For commuter rail, larger, denser CBDs attract more riders per line mile, but add to the cost per vehicle mile, creating a trade-off between effectiveness and cost-efficiency.
The length of the rail line is important for both light rail and commuter rail. Longer light rail lines are both slightly more cost-efficient and effective, but ridership diminishes beyond 10 miles. Commuter rail lines are much more cost efficient when they are longer, but their effectiveness declines beyond 50 miles.
This summary does not address many other significant factors in rail transit usage and land use patterns, including operating, capital and environmental costs saved as a result of not using other modes of transportation, notably automobiles and buses. Cities considering investment in new or expanded rail systems need to examine carefully all transportation alternatives in a corridor, including site-specific conditions and local preferences. Further, our study makes clear the need to integrate transit planning with land use planning at the earliest possible stage.
___________________________
Judy S. Davis is an urban planner and Samuel Seskin is a senior professional associate with Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas in Portland, Oregon. As a faculty associate of the Lincoln Institute, Seskin also develops and teaches courses linking land use and transportation. This article is derived from a report titled Commuter and Light Rail Transit Corridors: The Land Use Connection. It will be published by the Transit Cooperative Research Program in the summer of 1996 as part of Volume 1 of An Examination of the Relationship Between Transit and Urban Form, TCRP Project H-1.
SHARE
From the earliest days of the Republic, civic boosters have prodded American governments to develop large-scale physical facilities—mega-projects, we label them—ranging from canals and railroads in the nineteenth century to rail transit systems and convention centers today. Until the mid-twentieth century, such projects tended to involve modest public expenditures by contemporary standards and they rarely caused significant disruption of the existing urban fabric.
This pattern altered abruptly in the 1950s and early 1960s. Central city economies had, with rare exceptions, stagnated through the Great Depression and World War II, and they continued to do so in the early postwar years. Local business and political leaders concluded that if central cities—particularly those developed prior to the auto age—were ever to thrive again, they would require major surgery. Specifically, they needed to clear slums to provide large downtown sites for redeveloped office districts; to facilitate high-speed automotive movement between suburban and central city locations; and to provide larger airfields with attractive terminals for the nascent commercial aviation industry.
Recognizing that they could not finance these expensive projects with locally generated funds, urban leaders campaigned aggressively for federal assistance, and they were successful in obtaining considerable amounts of funding. We attribute their success mainly to the following factors: (1) public confidence in government was unusually high in the postwar period; (2) business leaders generally accepted the need for government activism to sustain prosperity; and (3) although cities lacked the political clout to secure expensive programs on their own, they were able to participate in much broader coalitions—most notably, those focused on housing (which expanded to include urban renewal) and highways. Urban aviation advocates were less successful, but as aviation traffic boomed they were able to fund new airports and expand old ones by relying primarily on revenues from landing fees and terminal leases.
During the late 1950s and the 1960s these efforts combined to produce an unprecedented wave of urban public investment. While often successful on their own terms, these projects tended to be highly disruptive as well, destroying in particular vast amounts of low-income housing and urban parkland. Project advocates maintained that the public should accept such impacts to advance the greater good. Robert Moses, New York’s famed master builder, never tired of citing a French proverb: “You can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs” (Caro 1974).
During the late 1960s and early 1970s, however, neighborhood activists allied with those involved in the emerging environmental movement against the full panoply of mega-project programs that had come into being during the 1950s. They succeeded not just in blocking large numbers of planned expressways, renewal schemes and airport projects, but also in securing the adoption of numerous statutes, regulations and judicial doctrines, thus strengthening the hands of critics in urban development controversies. For a time it seemed to most observers that the era of mega-project investment in cities was over.
“Do No Harm” Planning
The forces committed to mega-projects have proven highly resilient and adaptive, however. While the character of such investment has changed dramatically since the 1970s, its volume has remained high. Nevertheless, mega-project advocates have had to work within new constraints; they have had to learn the art of making omelets without leaving a residue of broken eggs. We label this art, as exercised in the domain of urban land use, “do no harm” planning. Its essential components are the selection, siting and design of projects to minimize disruptive side effects, and the aggressive mitigation of any harmful impacts that cannot be avoided entirely. Most obviously, governments have ceased clearing slums and building expressways through developed neighborhoods, and only one major new passenger airport—in Denver—has been constructed since the early 1970s.
Public investment in facilities such as rail transit systems, festival retail markets, sports stadiums and arenas, and convention centers has surged. Within the transportation sector, moreover, investment priorities have shifted toward the reconstruction of existing highways, new construction on suburban fringes and airport terminals rather than runway improvements. The great advantage of such projects is that they are relatively easy to site either at some distance from existing development or in older commercial districts that have few preservationist defenders.
Where cities and states have gone forward with major highway and airport projects, they have taken extraordinary steps to minimize social and environmental impacts. The new Denver airport, for example, is on a previously rural 53-square-mile site 25 miles east of downtown. Its location and scale were determined primarily by two considerations: land assembly without the disruption of existing residential enclaves; and future airport operation without significant noise impacts overflowing the airport boundary. Boston’s $14.6 billion Central Artery/Tunnel project, known colloquially as “The Big Dig,” appears very different, in that it is located in the heart of downtown, but it is virtually identical in its do no harm planning orientation. It is almost entirely underground as it passes close to built-up areas (replacing a previous elevated roadway); it has been threaded into the urban fabric without the taking of a single home; and it will add significantly to the city’s parkland.
Common Themes
In addition to do no harm planning, our review of mega-projects built over the past two decades identified the following themes as particularly salient.
Business Support
While insufficient by itself, strong business support has generally been an indispensable condition for mega-project development. Within the business community, leadership has almost invariably come from enterprises with deep local roots, particularly in real estate ownership, development and finance. The strongest supporters of Denver’s new airport, for example, were those who owned property with commercial development potential near the new site; downtown businesses concerned that the city’s existing airport was too small to allow for the region’s continued development; and the banks and financial service firms that had lent money to many of the city’s property owners and developers. Similarly, the most active and effective support group for Boston’s Big Dig has been the Artery Business Committee, a coalition of those who own major buildings adjacent to the artery’s corridor and several major employers with historic roots in downtown Boston.
Public Entrepreneurs
In addition to well-mobilized constituencies, aggressive, deft government officials have been indispensable to the success of recent mega-project proposals. Indeed, it was frequently they who originated project ideas and first sparked the formation of supportive coalitions. Even when others initiated, they commonly took the lead in crafting strategies, tactics and plans; in lobbying for state and federal aid; in securing other types of needed legislation and regulatory approvals; and in dealing with project critics.
Though business groups initiated some projects, they seemed more frequently to “invest” in proposals originated by public entrepreneurs. The business constituents were by no means easy marks, of course. Like venture capitalists in the private sector, they considered a great many ideas brought to them by public entrepreneurs (and others), but invested only in those few that looked particularly good for their enterprises, were to be carried out mainly or entirely at public expense, and had a reasonable chance of securing the myriad approvals required.
Illustratively, Boston’s Big Dig was conceived by Fred Salvucci, a transportation engineer who had become active in battles against planned highway and airport projects during the 1960s and then served as transportation secretary for twelve years under Governor Michael Dukakis. During the first Dukakis administration (1975–1979) the main constituencies for a new harbor tunnel (business) and for depressing the central artery (neighborhood and environmental groups) were at loggerheads. While temporarily out of office from 1979 to 1983, however, Salvucci concluded that the politically feasible strategy might be to marry these projects, while also relocating the tunnel to an alignment far from a neighborhood that it had historically threatened. This strategy in fact resolved the local controversy, and prepared the way for a successful campaign for massive federal aid, led again by Salvucci with critical business support.
Denver Mayor Federico Peña broke a similar type of logjam that had persisted for years over whether to expand Denver’s existing Stapleton Airport or build a new facility on a large site outside the city’s borders. Concluding that the obstacles, both political and environmental, to expanding Stapleton were insuperable, but that city ownership and operation of any new airport remained a critical objective, he negotiated successfully with adjacent Adams County for a massive land annexation. To achieve this objective, he accepted conditions protecting county residents from significant airport noise and guaranteeing Adams County most of the tax benefits that would flow from economic development around the new airport. With local agreements in hand he, like Salvucci, then led a successful campaign for special federal assistance.
Mitigation
Do no harm plans avoid substantial neighborhood and environmental disruption but it is impossible to build a mega-project with no negative side effects. The commitment of do no harm planning is to ameliorate such impacts as much as possible, and to offset them with compensatory benefits when full direct mitigation cannot be achieved. The boundary between mitigating harm and providing net benefits to protesting groups is often indistinct, however, so the norm of mitigation provides leverage as well for skilled activists whose demands are at times tangential to the mega-projects whose budgets they seek to tap. Mega-project champions in turn reflected on the fate of such projects as New York City’s proposed Westway, which failed because of what seemed at first a minor legal challenge. They were deathly afraid of litigation and were frequently willing to make very expensive concessions in return for agreements by critics not to sue.
During permitting for the Big Dig, for example, Boston’s Conservation Law Foundation (CLF), a group whose signature strategy was litigation for environmental purposes, threatened to sue unless the state committed to accompany the highway project with a multi-billion dollar set of rail transit investments, mainly for expansion. CLF’s rationale was that the transit projects would prevent the new road from filling up with traffic, which in turn would generate more air pollution. Modeling done for the project (as well as data from other regions) showed that the Big Dig would not in fact have significant air pollution effects, and that investing in rail transit extensions would be a particularly inefficient way to offset pollution effects if they did occur. Nonetheless, both Democratic and Republican state administrations acquiesced to CLF’s demands because they did not want to risk litigation, which at the very least threatened project delays and might also have imperiled the breadth of local consensus in support of the Big Dig.
Bottom-up Federalism
A naïve observer of American politics might assume that the federal government distributes grants to achieve national goals. In fact, however, the grantor-grantee relationship is usually much more complicated than that. Recipient jurisdictions are typically active participants in the coalitions that bring new programs into being and provide them with critical support each budget season. The programs of aid for mega-project investment that we examined were all distinguished more by their openness to local initiative than their sharp definition of national purpose. If grantee jurisdictions had a great deal of influence collectively on program structure, moreover, they had even more when it came to projects, and they were able to exercise it individually.
Every project we studied was initiated by subnational officials and interest groups, and it was they who took the lead at every stage in the decision process. While limited in their discretion by federal program rules, they were alert as well to opportunities for securing waivers, statutory amendments and add-on funds, with the assistance of their congressional delegations. Stated another way, when federal aims are diffuse and weakly defended, principal-agent theory (as applied to the intergovernmental system) needs to be read bottom-up rather than top-down.
High and Rising Costs
Do no harm designs and related mitigation agreements have tended to produce projects that are vastly more expensive than their historic predecessors. According to Brian Taylor (1995), the average cost per centerline mile of urban freeways rose by more than 600 percent in real terms from the 1960s to the 1980s, and costs were even more extreme in some of the mega-projects we examined. Whereas Taylor found that urban freeways cost on average about $54 million per centerline mile (in 2002 dollars) in the 1980s, for example, the Big Dig cost $1.9 billion per centerline mile. Judith Grant Long (2002) reports in a similar vein that the average cost of new stadiums and arenas more than quadrupled in real terms from the 1950s to the 1990s, and we have calculated that light rail development costs increased by nearly two-fifths from the 1980s to the 1990s.
Both older and more recent projects have been marked by a consistent pattern of substantial cost increases between authorization and completion. The projected cost of Boston’s Big Dig, for example, has roughly tripled in real terms since its approval by Congress as an interstate highway project in 1987. The cost of Denver International Airport more than doubled from the late 1980s, when it received voter approval and its federal funding commitments, to its completion six years later.
While a full study of this issue was beyond the scope of our work, we judge that the consistent pattern of underestimation has two primary causes. First, project advocates have very strong incentives to estimate optimistically as they seek political commitments of support. Second, mega-projects are often so complex—both technically and in terms of the mitigation agreements that will often prove necessary to keep them on track—that early cost estimates are typically little more than guesses within very broad ranges.
Locally Painless Project Funding
The hallmark of successful mega-project financing is that projects should appear costless, or nearly so, to the great majority of local voters. The easiest way to achieve this result is to rely on funding from higher-level governments. Where such aid is unavailable or insufficient, the challenge is to identify other sources of revenue to which local voters are generally insensitive—which means, above all, avoiding local property and income taxes and spreading the burden beyond host city residents.
This challenge became increasingly salient after 1970 with rising antitax sentiment, the end of federal renewal aid, and the surge in capital spending for such facilities as stadiums, arenas and convention centers, for which federal aid was only rarely available. In the growing domain of mass transit, moreover, federal matching ratios have tended to decline since 1980.
The revenue strategies adopted to deal with these challenges have been varied and ingenious. New terminals and runways at major airports have been funded largely by increased landing fees, lease payments, and (since the early 1990s) ticket surcharges authorized by the federal government but imposed locally. Stadiums, arenas and convention centers are commonly funded by taxes that fall mainly on nonresidents, such as taxes on hotel rooms, car rentals and restaurant bills. Where broad-based taxes have been unavoidable, the preferred method has been incremental add-ons to sales taxes, which typically require voter approval. Voters have often said no, but sales tax increases provide large amounts of revenue when they are adopted—and when they are not, project advocates routinely come back with revised plans. In Los Angeles and Seattle, for example, transit advocates responded to referendum defeats by scaling back their rail plans and allocating some of the projected revenue to bus service and local road improvements.
Looking to the Future
Almost two decades ago, when New York City’s ambitious Westway project died even though its backers had helped pioneer the do no harm planning and design paradigm, then-Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan wondered whether it had become so difficult to build public projects that “Central Park could not conceivably be built today” (Finder 1985). Recent history suggests, however, that the mega-project impulse remains strong. The pertinent question is not whether the U.S. political system can still generate mega-projects but whether the projects that go forward are typically worth their costs to taxpayers.
In general, economists are skeptical about the cost-effectiveness of the most prominent mega-projects, from the Big Dig to the scores of rail transit systems, professional sports facilities and convention centers, built over the past 25 years. Project advocates invariably retort that the economists miss intangible project benefits such as fostering community pride and (in the case of transit, particularly) strengthening the likelihood of smart growth practices in new development. The national coalitions in support of highway and airport improvements, which economists tend to rate more favorably than other types of projects, have argued vociferously that current environmental rules and opportunities for critics to litigate are too onerous and should be relaxed.
There is no easy resolution of these issues because they involve tradeoffs between important, deeply held values. However, our review of a half-century of public works projects in urban areas has left us with three clear impressions. First, states and localities should be required to bear half or more of the cost of projects they undertake, because great windfalls of earmarked money from higher levels of government tend to overwhelm serious local deliberation. Second, strong environmental regulation helps ensure that local pro-growth coalitions do not leave fouled environments or devastated neighborhoods in their wake. Finally, while referenda are in general a flawed instrument of policy making, the evidence seems to suggest that the requirement of voter approval for major local projects tends to have a salutary effect on the bargaining between business groups that stand to benefit financially from the proposed investments and the more general interests of local taxpayers and residents.
_____________________
Alan Altshuler and David Luberoff are the coauthors of Mega-Projects: The Changing Politics of Urban Public Investment. Altshuler is the Stanton Professor of Urban Policy at the Kennedy School of Government and the Graduate School of Design (GSD) at Harvard University, and director of the Kennedy School’s Taubman Center for State and Local Government. Luberoff is the Taubman Center’s associate director and an adjunct lecturer at GSD.
References
Caro, Robert A. 1974. The power broker: Robert Moses and the fall of New York. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Finder, Alan. 1985. Westway: A road that was paved with mixed intentions, losing confidence and opportunities. New York Times, September 22, sec. 4, 6.
Long, Judith Grant. 2002. Full count: The real cost of pubic funding for major league sports facilities and why some cities pay more to play. Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University.
Taylor, Brian. 1995. Public perceptions, fiscal realities, and freeway planning: The California case.
SHARE
The Lincoln Institute’s China Program was established several years ago, in part to develop training programs on property taxation policy and local government finance with officials from the State Administration of Taxation (SAT). The Institute and SAT held a joint forum on international property taxation in Shenzhen in December 2003, and more than 100 participants attended another course held in China in May 2004. In January 2005, 24 Chinese tax officials from 15 provinces visited the United States for additional programs; many of them are developing property tax systems in six pilot cities. The Institute also supports the Development Research Center (DRC) of the State Council to research property tax assessment in China, and they jointly organized a forum in February 2005.
Economic growth and institutional reforms in China over the past two decades have created profound changes within the society. The central authorities now need to set forth new policies and procedures for modern governance to address devolution of certain authority to local governments, rapid urban and rural development, and changes in land uses and land and fiscal policies. The national government’s commitment to further modernization is most evident in the effort to develop and implement a new property taxation system.
This article describes the current system and discusses issues and challenges that must be overcome to implement a successful property tax policy in China. Given the complexity of this endeavor and the huge variation in economic development across the country, a gradualist approach, which has proved effective in China’s modernization process, may be the best way to initiate property tax reform and development.
Current Taxation System
China collects 24 types of taxes. The central and local governments share the value added tax (VAT) and business tax revenues; the former tax is the primary revenue source for the central government, whereas the latter is the most important tax for local governments. Two other important tax sources for the central government are the consumption (excise) tax and the personal income tax. Twelve taxes are related to land and property, but most do not generate significant revenues. The business tax accounted for 14.41 percent of total central and local government revenues in 2002, but only a small portion of that amount was generated from property-related sources. The reason is that business and income taxes are collected only when land or property is rented or sold, and thus do not provide a steady stream of revenue. It is hard to imagine that any of the 12 property-related taxes could play a key role in resource allocation and local government finance over the long term.
An evaluation of the current tax system reveals additional concerns.
The shortcomings in the current taxation system have resulted in major fiscal problems for the central government, such as declining revenue mobilization and ineffective use of tax policy to leverage macroeconomic policy (Bahl 1997). When the government conducted tax reform in 1993 to overcome some of the problems, one of the largest initiatives shifted responsibility for urban and public services to local governments.
This measure was successful in improving the central government’s fiscal condition; however, the revenue share for local governments was not increased at a level commensurate with their increased responsibility. Consequently, many local governments face increasing budgetary deficits. Figure 1 illustrates the financial deficit for local governments after the 1993 tax reform. More than one-third of county-level governments have serious budget problems and over half of the local governments directly below the provincial level have budgets that merely cover the basic operations of public entities.
Public Land Leasing
One of the means by which local governments increase revenues in the absence of an effective taxation system is through public land leasing. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the state introduced market principles into the decision-making process regarding land use and allocation by separating land use rights from ownership. This separation promotes the development of land markets, which in turn have created tremendous impacts on real estate and housing development, urban land use and land allocation. Except for a short yet dramatic drop in the early 1990s due to a macroeconomic policy designed to prevent the national economy from overheating, the prices for access to land use rights and public land leasing rates have been increasing steadily.
Despite the significant number of land leasing transactions, the government closely regulates and controls the amount of land being leased by maintaining a monopoly on land supply (Ding 2003). Most land in rural areas still belongs to the collectives, and urban construction is prohibited on rural land unless it is first acquired by the state. Land developments that occur on collectively owned rural land are considered illegal, and administrative efforts such as monitoring and inspecting have been implemented to eliminate these violations.
General land use plans and regulations to preserve cultivated land further control the amount of land available for urban development. The land use plans determine the total amount of land that can be added to existing urbanized areas through an annual land supply quota. At the same time, China’s preservation policy for cultivated land influences both land supply and the location of land available for urban development. The Land Administration Law specifies that at least 80 percent of cultivated land should be designated as basic farmland and prohibited from land development. Land productivity is the dominant factor used to delineate the boundaries of basic farmland. Since most cities are located in areas with rich soil resources, farmland protection designations commonly exist in urbanizing areas. Thus farmland protection inevitably results in urban sprawl and leapfrog development patterns requiring costly infrastructure investments and land consumption.
Financing Local Government. As a result of the government’s regulations and monopoly on selling land use rights, local authorities use the public land leasing system to increase their revenues through land use conveyance fees. For instance, Hangzhou City, the capital of Zhejiang Province with a population of almost four million, is among the top five in per capita national income and GDP. The city generated land conveyance fees of more than six billion YMB in 2002, more than 20 percent of the total municipal government revenues.
Interestingly, these fees were generated largely from selling to commercial users the right to access the state-owned land, yet commercial land development represented only 15 percent of total land uses in newly developed areas. The rest of the land was allocated to users through negotiation in which the sale price either barely covered the costs of acquiring and improving the land, or land was offered free to generate competition for businesses and investments.
Local governments can raise enormous revenues from limited-market transactions of land use rights, in part because land conveyance fees represent lump-sum, up-front land rent payments for a leasing period and in part because local governments exercise their strong administrative powers to require farmers to sell their land at below-market rates. When the government later resells the land at market rates, the price could be more than 100 times the purchase price. After considering the costs of land improvement, however, net revenues may be only ten times the total cost of the land.
Rising land prices resulting from the government monopoly allow local governments to use the land as collateral to borrow money from banks. These loans plus the revenue generated from conveyance fees accounted for 40 to 50 percent of the Hangzhou municipal government budget in 2002. In turn these revenues were used to fund more than two-thirds of the city’s investments in infrastructure and urban services.
Hangzhou City specializes in textiles, tourism, construction and transportation, and generates substantial revenue from business and value-added taxes, although the city’s share of income generated through the public land leasing system is also large. Many smaller cities and towns with fewer commercial and business resources use land leasing directly through land conveyance fees or indirectly as collateral to support up to 80 or 85 percent of their total investments in urban initiatives. These smaller cities must turn to land to generate revenues to fuel economic growth, launch urban renewal projects, and provide infrastructure and urban services that were neglected for a long time prior to the reform era. Land-generated revenue is also used to improve the overall financial environment, attract businesses and investments, and support the reform and reallocation of state-owned enterprises.
Negative Consequences. Despite the importance of public land leasing for income generation, the practice of using this tool to finance local governments may have serious consequences in the long run. The fiscal incentives that compel local governments to control and monopolize the land markets will negatively impact real estate and housing development, industrialization and land use. Furthermore, land is a fixed resource and ultimately there will be no more land left to lease for revenue.
Increasing pressure to protect the rights of farmers also makes it more difficult and costly to acquire land from farmers. As a result, local governments must increase land prices or face reduced revenues from land leasing. Finally, not only does land scarcity and farmer compensation pose a challenge to income generation, but recent policy reform now permits land owned by a collective to enter the land market directly. This change will prevent local governments from acquiring collective lands and exacting conveyance fees for these transfers.
Taxation Reform: Principles and Challenges
The fiscal deficits experienced by local governments and the problems with the resulting public land leasing system provided the impetus for the central government to restructure the entire taxation system. That reform is based on four guiding principles: (1) simplify the tax system; (2) broaden the tax base; (3) lower tax rates; and (4) strictly administer tax collection and management. The central authorities in charge of tax policy and administration offer several specific goals with respect to property-related taxes.
Considerable debate exists over the merits of the proposed property-related tax reform. Despite the lack of consensus as to the best option, the costs and benefits must be assessed to effectively guide the development and implementation of a new property tax system. In addition, several outstanding issues need to be resolved in order to implement the proposed land and property tax reform.
The implementation of a value-based tax also will require the assembly and cataloguing of massive quantities of data, which historically have not been collected systematically. Furthermore, the data that have been collected are stored in different locations and in paper format. The Ministry of Land and Resources records and handles land-related data and information, whereas the Ministry of Construction is in charge of structure-related information. Matching related records from different ministries and digitizing this data will take years if not decades and will require a huge investment of resources.
The Chinese public has limited understanding of property taxation systems, so education will be required to avoid potentially significant political resistance. Capacity building within the Chinese government also will require professional training in appraisal, evaluation, appeals and collection to achieve effectiveness and efficiency in the new tax system.
Conclusions
Despite these unanswered issues and challenges, the Chinese government appears committed to implementing property taxation reform. The application of the widely used and successful gradualist approach for implementing policy and institutional reforms will ensure that the development and institutionalization of the property tax system proceeds on course. For example, data for industrial and commercial structures is more complete and of higher quality than data for residential structures. Furthermore, newer structures tend to have better records than older structures, and records are more complete for structures in urban areas than in rural areas. Thus, applying the property taxation system first to commercial and industrial structures, newly developed land with residential structures, and urban areas will allow the system to take hold before attempts are made to implement change in the areas with greater obstacles to overcome.
References
Bahl, Roy. 1997. Fiscal policy in China: Taxation and intergovernmental fiscal relations. Burlingame, CA: The 1990 Institute.
Development Research Center. 2005: Issues and challenges of China’s urban real estate administration and taxation. Report submitted to the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Ding, Chengri. 2003. Land policy reform in China: Assessment and prospects. Land Use Policy 20(2): 109-120.
Liu, Z. 2004. Zhongguo Suizi Gailan. Beijing: Jinji Chuban She. (China’s taxation system. Beijing: Economic Science Publisher).
Lu, S. 2003. YanJiu ZhengDi WenTi TaoShuo GaiKe ZhiLu (II). Beijing: Zhongguo Dadi Chuban She. (Examination of land acquisition issues: Search for reforms (II). Beijing: China Land Publisher.)
Chengri Ding is associate professor in the Department of Urban Studies and Planning at the University of Maryland, in College Park. He specializes in urban economics, housing and land studies, GIS and spatial analysis. He is also special assistant to the president of the Lincoln Institute for the Program on the People’s Republic of China.
SHARE
Harmful impacts of sprawl in terms of air and water pollution, waste of energy and time, traffic congestion and highway accidents, lack of affordable housing, increased flooding, and loss of biodiversity have been widely documented (Platt 2004, ch. 6). Also, the fiscal impacts of sprawl on local communities have been evaluated by researchers at the Brookings Institution, the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, and elsewhere.
Slaying the “beast of sprawl” has been the Holy Grail of planners and land use lawyers for decades, stimulating the development of new tools like planned unit development (PUD), cluster zoning, subdivision exactions, preferential taxation of farm and forest land, transfer of development rights (TDR), state land use planning, and growth management. Reflecting the antisprawl fervor of the 1970s, a prominent policy report titled The Use of Land euphorically declared:
“There is a new mood in America. Increasingly, citizens are asking what urban growth will add to the quality of their lives. They are questioning the way relatively unconstrained, piecemeal urbanization is changing their communities and are rebelling against the traditional processes of government and the marketplace.” (Rockefeller Brothers Fund 1973, 33)
SHARE
An architect who specializes in urban and regional planning, Eduardo Reese is the deputy administrator of the Institute for Housing of the Province of Buenos Aires, Argentina. In previous professional positions he provided technical advice for the master plans of more than 20 cities in Argentina; was secretary of socioeconomic policies at the Ministry of Human Development and Labor of the Province of Buenos Aires; adviser for the Urban Planning Counsel of the City of Buenos Aires; and planning secretary in the City of Avellaneda.
Reese also teaches at the Conurbano Institute at the National University General Sarmiento in Buenos Aires. Currently he is a professor of urban management in the Institute’s B.A. program in urbanism. He also teaches urban development at master’s programs at the School of Architecture, Urbanism and Design of the University of La Plata, as well as at universities in Mar del Plata and Córdoba. In addition, he directs the master planning of the Matanza-Riachuelo watershed in Buenos Aires.
Land Lines: How long have you been involved with the Institute’s Latin America Program?
Eduardo Reese: My relationship dates back to 1997 when we were drafting the plan for the City of Córdoba, which included several large-scale urban projects. We worked to expand the debate about the impacts of these projects on the land market and, consequently, on shaping the city. I continued to participate in various activities, and four years ago I took over the coordination of the annual lectures of the Land Management in Large Urban Projects series, following the death of Mario Lungo, who had led that program for many years.
In 2004, in conjunction with the Conurbano Institute of the National University of General Sarmiento, we conducted a course on Land Markets: Theory and Tools for Policy Management, which was the first one involving a seven-month training program for 50 Argentine students. That educational experience helped create a critical mass of technicians and professionals with an innovative vision toward the management of land policies. The program’s impact has been reflected in urban policy decisions in different municipalities (such as San Fernando and Morón in Greater Buenos Aires); in the Argentine Constitution; in the Urban Reform Movement in 2005; and in academic changes at the Conurbano Institute itself.
Land Lines: What role can large urban projects play in the quality of life of Latin American cities?
Eduardo Reese: Large-scale projects in defined sectors of the city (both central and peripheral areas) have been great protagonists of contemporary urbanism in the past quarter century. Today in Latin America there are many types and sizes of projects, even though more rigorous theoretical thinking is still needed. Important examples are the Bicentennial Portal (Portal del Bicentenario) projects in Santiago de Chile; the Integral Urban Projects (Proyectos Urbanos Integrales) in Medellín, Colombia; urban operations in different cities of Brazil; and the restructuring project in the northwestern sector of San Fernando (Argentina).
Large-scale urban operations as instruments of intervention in the city have been implemented for many decades. In Buenos Aires, for instance, the Avenida de Mayo and the Diagonals, which were planned around 1880, had important impacts on physical space as well as in social, economic, and symbolic aspects. This approach of multiple impacts undoubtedly allowed better assimilation of the Avenida de Mayo, but it also generated a huge debate over who should finance the operation and who would appropriate the land rents generated. Ultimately the Supreme Court ruled that the municipality could not finance the work with the surplus created because the rents belonged entirely to the landowners. For many years this case set a judicial precedent regarding the state’s intervention in the process of valuing land generated by a large-scale public project.
Land Lines: You have a critical view on the widely acclaimed Puerto Madero urban regeneration project in Buenos Aires. What would you do differently in other large redevelopment areas?
Eduardo Reese: Puerto Madero is emblematic of urban projects that promote a model of segregated urban planning and are now being “exported” to other countries as a basic tool to compete for international investment. In this project the state submitted to the market and allowed the construction of an exclusive neighborhood for very high-income sectors. It is a notorious example of public policy explicitly designed to favor the wealthy segments without any recovery of the huge land valuations that were the product of public policy.
Moreover, to guarantee investors an overvaluation of the properties they purchased, the venture has a number of features that cut it off (physically and socially) from the rest of the city, creating even greater value because of its segregation. Puerto Madero has no external wall, as gated condominiums have, but rather multiple implicit, explicit, and symbolic signals that clearly indicate this place is off limits to most of society.
In the end, Puerto Madero is a clear demonstration of the regressive distribution of urban planning and public policy: a trouble-free ghetto for the rich.
Land Lines: As municipalities continue to compete for outside investments, is it possible to reconcile alternative objectives such as social and environmental priorities?
Eduardo Reese: The problem in our cities is not the lack of planning, but the current exclusionary pattern of planning policies. There cannot be one law for the formal city and exceptions for the rest. It is necessary to create a new urban and legal order in Latin America based on the right to the city, the equitable sharing of the benefits of urbanization, and the social function of land ownership.
Land Lines: How does the municipality of San Fernando in the Buenos Aires metropolitan area offers an alternative to this approach?
Eduardo Reese: San Fernando is located some 30 kilometers (km) north of Buenos Aires, with a land area of 23 square km and a population of 156,000 inhabitants. A 5 km long riverside faces the Río Luján and another part of the city faces the mouth of Río de la Plata, where productive nautical activities are concentrated. This privileged location has high property values and all urban services.
The plan and model of urban land management in the city began in 2003 through an agreement between the municipality and the Conurbano Institute. In 2005, a Lincoln Institute training seminar helped broaden the local debate on land management, which led to a series of major decisions:
The urban policy focused on a set of action strategies including (1) ensuring accessibility to new public spaces for recreational, sports and commercial purposes on the riverside, especially for the use and enjoyment of the poor; and (2) the comprehensive regularization of the western sector of the municipality, where most poverty is concentrated.
To implement these strategies it was necessary to increase fiscal resources for public investment in two ways: appropriation of the profitability of land use or municipal land on the riverside through the creation of the Consortium San Fernando Marina Park Company (PNSFSA) and participation of the municipality in the surplus generated from municipal tax reform. (PNSFSA is a company created by the municipality of San Fernando to manage the riverside of the northwest sector of the city, defined as Marina Park.)
The experience of San Fernando is based on a set of management tools within an urban plan focused on the redistribution of income to build a more equitable city. Land is considered a key asset within a wider strategy of local development and, therefore, management relies on a broad mix of planning, administrative, economic, fiscal, and legal instruments aimed at strengthening the role of the public sector. The core axis of policies is the search for equity in the distribution of the costs and benefits of urbanization, within the challenging context of growing pressure on land throughout metropolitan Buenos Aires.
Land Lines: What could or should be changed in the educational system that trains urban planners and managers in Latin America?
Eduardo Reese: First, it is necessary to incorporate a greater understanding of the functioning of land markets in the present context of developing and shaping cities. Second, a more critical analysis is needed of adequate theoretical, methodological and technical instruments to undertake diagnosis and intervention in urban land issues. The 2004 course on Land Markets that I described earlier attempted to develop these kinds of materials to enable students to cover the different scales and dimensions of the problem.
Land Lines: What tensions exist between private and public interests in urban planning?
Eduardo Reese: This is a critical question because the whole history of urban land management has had a common thread: the rights of private ownership of land and the structure of ownership have always come into conflict with urban planning activity, which is a public responsibility. In that sense, there will always be tension between public and private interests in building the city.
In my view, urban projects in Latin America have the responsibility to contribute not only to the creation of new spaces for public use and enjoyment, employment generation and environmental sustainability, but also social inclusion, equity in the access to services and the redistribution of urban rents generated by the project. The four cases on Chile, Colombia, Brazil, and Argentina mentioned earlier show that these benefits are possible in many contexts.
However, instead many urban projects have been justified as necessary to attract investment and/or consumers and to ensure or reinforce the dynamic competitive advantages of the city. These undoubtedly positive goals are sometimes used as a mechanism to legitimize interventions that deepen the serious sociospatial segregation of cities. Such adverse effects of the market are not fatal to the city, but are the outcome of perverse political choices.
SHARE
Jay Espy se unió a la Fundación Elmina B. Sewall como su primer director ejecutivo en enero de 2008. Esta fundación, con sede en Brunswick, Maine, está centrada en la defensa del medio ambiente y el bienestar de los animales y los seres humanos, principalmente en el estado de Maine.
En las dos décadas anteriores, Espy fue presidente del Fideicomiso del Patrimonio Costero de Maine, una organización estatal de conservación de suelos. Durante su ejercicio, este fideicomiso aceleró sus esfuerzos de protección de suelos en toda la costa de Maine, conservando más de 50.000 hectáreas y estableciendo la Red de Fideicomisos de Suelos de Maine, que fomenta el crecimiento de fideicomisos de suelos locales en todo el estado. También lideró la exitosa Campaña de la costa del fideicomiso, recaudando más de 100 millones de dólares para conservación y duplicando la cantidad de suelos protegidos en la costa y las islas de Maine.
Espy recibió su licenciatura en Bowdoin College y un título de maestría en Administración de Empresas y Estudios Medioambientales de la Facultad de Administración y la Facultad de Estudios Forestales y Medioambientales de la Universidad de Yale. Es miembro de la junta directiva del Centro Filantrópico de Maine y la Alianza de Fideicomisos de Suelos de Canadá. Fue presidente de la Alianza de Fideicomisos de Suelos, una organización nacional que presta servicios a fideicomisos de suelos en los Estados Unidos. En octubre de 2010 fue nombrado Kingsbury Browne Fellow para 2010–2011 a través de un programa conjunto de la Alianza de Fideicomisos de Suelos y el Instituto Lincoln.
Land Lines: ¿Cómo se involucró inicialmente en el campo de la conservación de suelos?
Jay Espy: A comienzos de mi último año en Bowdoin College, un maravilloso consejero vocacional me sugirió que quizás tener alguna experiencia en el “mundo real” podría resultarme útil para conseguir un empleo remunerado. Comencé así una pasantía documentando aves marinas en la Bahía de Casco, Maine, como parte de un proyecto de planificación de contingencias en caso de un derrame de petróleo. Esta experiencia despertó en mí una intensa pasión por la costa de Maine y me sirvió de plataforma de lanzamiento para mi carrera profesional. Después de un período en el que trabajé para una empresa consultora medioambiental, realicé estudios de posgrado en Administración de Empresas y Ciencias Forestales y Medioambientales en la Universidad de Yale, y varias pasantías más, acepté entusiasmado un trabajo a nivel de principiante en el Fideicomiso del Patrimonio Costero de Maine (Maine Coast Heritage Trust, o MCHT ) en Topsham. Por aquel entonces, MCHT era un pequeño fideicomiso estatal de suelos y una buena manera de “descubrir la dura realidad” para un aspirante a conservacionista de veintitantos años de edad, prácticamente sin credenciales.
Land Lines: ¿Cuáles son algunos de los proyectos de conservación de suelos más significativos en los que estuvo involucrado?
Jay Espy: A fines de la década de 1980, una gran corporación que se estaba deshaciendo de sus activos madereros en el noreste de los Estados Unidos y el Canadá marítimo, puso a la venta una parcela de 5.000 hectáreas de suelos costeros en Down East Maine, cerca de la frontera con Canadá. Este era el bloque sin desarrollar más grande del suelo costero de Maine, y uno de los mayores de toda la costa este de los Estados Unidos. MCHT nunca había tenido un desafío tan apasionante ni de tamaña envergadura.
En asociación con el estado de Maine, el Fondo de Conservación y la Fundación Richard King Mellon, MCHT lideró un esfuerzo para adquirir la propiedad y trabajar con funcionarios locales y estatales en un plan para conservar el suelo, incorporando asimismo la gestión de bosques activos, el desarrollo de sendas recreativas y viviendas económicas en el pueblo de Cutler. Si bien no lo sabíamos en ese momento, estábamos realizando “conservación comunitaria” al hacer participar a una amplia gama de sectores con intereses variados. Este proyecto sirvió para que MCHT se iniciara en la conservación de paisajes. Desde entonces se han completado docenas de proyectos en dicha región, conocida como la Costa Escarpada (Bold Coast) de Maine. Ahora el público puede acceder a más de 32 kilómetros de impresionante costa que brindan grandes oportunidades económicas a la comunidad.
Me siento privilegiado por haber podido ayudar a proteger muchos otros suelos, tanto extensos como reducidos. La Isla Marshall, una joya de 400 hectáreas a 24 kilómetros de la península de Blue Hill, que en una época estuvo a punto de ser blanco de grandes emprendimientos inmobiliarios, ahora cuenta con un extenso sistema de sendas costeras desarrolladas por MCHT. La granja Aldermere, en Camden y Rockport, es una emblemática granja de agua salada. Albert Chatfield comenzó a criar ganado Belted Galloway aquí en la década de 1950, y la granja ha albergado a este galardonado ganado de cría desde entonces. Después de que la propiedad fue donada en 1999, MCHT ha expandido considerablemente los programas agrícolas y ganaderos para la juventud de la zona y la comunidad en general, y ha protegido tierras vecinas que se usan para sostener el creciente movimiento de alimentos locales.
Land Lines: ¿Cuándo se enteró del trabajo de conservación de suelos del Instituto Lincoln, y cómo se ha involucrado usted en nuestros programas?
Jay Espy: Mi ingreso en el campo de la conservación fue completamente fortuito. A los pocos meses de comenzar a trabajar en MCHT, fui invitado a una reunión de profesionales de la conservación en el Instituto Lincoln, co-patrocinada por la Alianza de Fideicomisos de Suelos (en ese entonces conocida como el Intercambio de Fideicomisos de Suelos). Había conocido previamente a Kingsbury Browne brevemente en una conferencia en Washington, DC, pero en esa reunión tuve la oportunidad de pasar un día entero con él y con algunos de los otros venerados líderes del moderno movimiento de conservación de suelos.
Con el transcurso de muchos años, el Instituto Lincoln se convirtió en el lugar de encuentro para los conservacionistas, muchos de ellos reunidos originalmente por Kingsbury, que fueron valiosos mentores míos a medida que iba aprendiendo este oficio. El Instituto ha seguido siendo un lugar en el que las mentes creativas se reúnen para innovar, y donde se fomentan la investigación de vanguardia y la comunicación con el resto de la comunidad de conservación de suelos. Me siento honrado de formar parte de este legado como Kingsbury Browne Fellow.
Land Lines: ¿Cuáles son a su juicio las futuras tendencias en la conservación de suelos?
Jay Espy: El campo de la conservación está creciendo, cambiando y madurando de una manera que considero muy saludable. No hace mucho la mayoría de nosotros pensábamos que la conservación tenía que ver solamente con los suelos. Recuerdo bien los primeros folletos de los fideicomisos de suelos, llenos de fotos de hermosos paisajes, pero completamente vacíos de gente. Afortunadamente, esto ya no es así.
Hoy en día, la mayoría de los que participamos del movimiento comprendemos que la conservación se refiere tanto a los suelos como a la gente. Se trata de cómo las comunidades se benefician de ecosistemas saludables; cómo las oportunidades de recreación cerca del hogar combaten la inactividad juvenil y la obesidad; cómo los suelos agrícolas protegidos contribuyen a la seguridad alimentaria y la disponibilidad de comida nutritiva local; cómo los espacios al aire libre, que incorporan artes y entretenimiento locales, contribuyen a crear centros vibrantes en las ciudades; cómo el agua limpia, los bosques y multitud de otros recursos naturales gestionados de manera sustentable pueden respaldar el desarrollo económico y la creación de puestos de trabajo; y cómo los suelos bien gestionados nos permiten vivir vidas más ricas y completas, tanto individual como colectivamente.
En todo el país, los silos que han separado el trabajo de conservación, la salud pública, las artes, la educación, el hambre, la vivienda, la producción de alimentos y el desarrollo económico están desapareciendo. Esta tendencia me resulta alentadora. El trabajo que hagamos hoy sólo perdurará en el tiempo si genera un beneficio directo y tangible para la gente a lo largo de muchas décadas. La participación colaborativa de todos con estos intereses amplios y variados es un ingrediente esencial en cualquier receta exitosa de conservación duradera.
Land Lines: ¿Cómo podemos convertir los problemas de financiamiento de la conservación en oportunidades?
Jay Espy: Tenemos, en efecto, muchos desafíos en el frente financiero. El financiamiento público de las fuentes gubernamentales estatales y federales tradicionales ha ido disminuyendo, las fundaciones privadas han sufrido una erosión de sus activos, y los donantes individuales han adoptado, comprensiblemente, una actitud más conservadora con sus inversiones filantrópicas, debido a los altibajos de la bolsa. En consecuencia, hoy se emprenden menos proyectos a gran escala de conservación de suelos que requieren decenas de millones de dólares, como los que vimos a fines de la década de 1990 y a comienzos de la década de 2000.
A pesar de ello, se sigue financiando una gran variedad de trabajos importantes de conservación en todo el país. El respaldo público para la conservación local sigue siendo alto, y la mayoría de las iniciativas de financiamiento local por emisión de bonos sigue siendo aprobada por amplios márgenes. Las donaciones individuales y de fundaciones para proyectos de conservación no se han derrumbado, como se temía. Los patrocinadores siguen proporcionando fondos, pero ahora son más selectivos. Además, los proyectos de conservación que tocan múltiples intereses humanos y que cuentan con la participación de múltiples socios están atrayendo nuevas fuentes no tradicionales de apoyo financiero. Recientemente hablé con un patrocinador de proyectos de salud que cree que es importante disponer de más suelos para la recreación pública como una medida preventiva sanitaria fundamental. El financiamiento de conservación de suelos agrícolas también ha crecido sustancialmente en los últimos años, impulsado en parte por la popularidad explosiva del movimiento por los alimentos locales.
Land Lines: ¿Puede compartir con nosotros algunos ejemplos de éxitos innovadores en la conservación de suelos?
Jay Espy: En un área remota del este de Maine, el Fideicomiso de Suelos de Downeast Lakes ha estado trabajando desde hace más de una década para proteger grandes extensiones forestales que bordean la costa cerca de la comunidad de Grand Lake Stream. Estos suelos y aguas han respaldado la economía maderera y de recreación durante más de un siglo. Con el declive de la industria del papel y la pulpa, se han vendido varias empresas comerciales madereras de gran envergadura.
En vez de esperar simplemente a que se produzca el desarrollo inevitable de casas de vacaciones y la pérdida de la cultura local, la comunidad ha trabajado de manera extraordinaria para adquirir decenas de miles de hectáreas, y varios kilómetros de suelos costeros, para usarlos como bosques que generan ingresos, preservación de la vida silvestre y áreas recreativas apartadas. Los empresarios locales, los guías de caza y pesca, los representantes de agencias estatales y federales, los miembros de la tribu indígena Passamaquoddy y funcionarios electos a nivel local, estatal y nacional unieron sus fuerzas al fideicomiso de suelos para adquirir estas propiedades y gestionarlas para obtener ingresos sustentables de la madera así como de otros usos tradicionales, incluyendo la caza, la pesca, el camping y el remo.
En el pueblo de Skowhegan, en la parte central de Maine, una joven mujer emprendedora adquirió una vieja cárcel del condado y la está convirtiendo en un molino de cereales. Una vez que entre en funcionamiento, el molino procesará aproximadamente 600 toneladas de cereales anuales, un monto que requiere alrededor de 250 hectáreas de suelos de cultivo. Esta zona de Maine fue en su momento una próspera región triguera, y se cree que suministró a las tropas de la Unión una parte importante de su pan durante la Guerra Civil. Ubicado en el centro del pueblo, el lote del estacionamiento de la vieja cárcel es ahora un exitoso mercado de granjeros locales. También se ubicarán en la cárcel una cocina comercial y varias empresas de alimentos y artesanías, ayudando a crear un “centro alimenticio”.
Skowhegan es el asiento de uno de los condados más pobres de Maine. ¿Podrá este centro alimenticio cambiar la fortuna de la región? ¿Podrá una demanda creciente de cereales revertir la pérdida de suelos agrícolas y conservar y cultivar más hectáreas de campo? Todos los signos sugieren que la respuesta a ambas preguntas es “sí”. Creo que lo que está ocurriendo en Skowhegan es un ejemplo maravilloso de la nueva cara del movimiento de conservación. Todavía no se puede reconocer a simple vista, pero sospecho que iremos conociendo mejor este tipo de enfoque comunitario en los años venideros.
Land Lines: ¿Cuáles son sus expectativas sobre el rol de la conservación en la economía volátil de la actualidad?
Jay Espy: Soy bastante optimista, porque la adversidad hace que la gente se una más. Con menos, estamos aprendiendo a trabajar colectivamente para lograr más. A medida que participa más gente en la conservación, desarrollando relaciones con y alrededor del suelo, y viendo como esas relaciones tienen un impacto positivo en sus vidas, estoy convencido de que veremos logros más extendidos, significativos y duraderos de conservación. El suelo, la gente y la comunidad están profundamente interrelacionados. Irónicamente, estos tiempos difíciles pueden estar acelerando la transformación inevitable de la conservación hacia una actividad que beneficie a más personas y más aspectos de la vida comunitaria.
SHARE
For every travel article featuring a Caribbean paradise with gentle waters lapping a sandy beach, there is an anxious news story about a brewing hurricane. The Lesser Antilles, an archipelago of small islands that form a crescent in the eastern Caribbean, have always been particularly vulnerable, thrust into the volatile waters of the Atlantic Ocean. In 1776, the Pointe-à-Pitre hurricane struck the French colony of Guadeloupe and killed 6,000, making it the deadliest Atlantic storm on record at that time. Four years later, the Great Hurricane of 1780 hit even harder, making landfall in Barbados, then ravaging nearby islands, killing at least 20,000 and wrecking British and French fleets maneuvering at the height of the American Revolution. Two centuries and dozens of storms later, even Hurricane Ivan wasn’t as deadly when it devastated Grenada in 2004, leaving the parliament in ruins and 85 percent of the structures on the island damaged.
In recent decades, climate change has heightened threats to the region. U.S. strategies employed in the wake of Hurricane Katrina or Superstorm Sandy are not especially relevant to the fragile, yet vibrant islands of the Lesser Antilles, from Puerto Rico in the north to Trinidad and Tobago in the south. With tourism-dependent economies and extremely limited amounts of developable land, especially on mountainous islands, this potpourri of independent countries, dependent territories, and overseas departments share a common land use challenge: how to grapple with development patterns oriented toward the coast while managing the growing threat of sea level rise.
One island in the region stands out for its exceptional capacity to recognize and prepare for the rising tide: Pear-shaped Barbados has become a Caribbean leader in integrated coastal zone management—the contemporary practice of integrating sectors, levels of government, and disciplines to address the coastal zone both in the water and on dry land. Coastal land use and environmental management are always contentious issues on a small island. But, as former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan once remarked, “Barbados consistently punches above its weight.” Almost 50 years since independence, the island nation has leveraged a combination of foresight, international support, and local capacity to develop planning institutions and prepare for an uncertain future.
From Sugar to Sun Worshippers
Today, Barbados is famous as a top international tourist destination, with trademark white-sand beaches, warm aquamarine water, and ample sunshine along its 60 miles of coastline. Nearly 300,000 people live on the 166 square-mile island; 44 percent of Barbadians are classified as living in urban areas, centered in Bridgetown and along the developed south and west coasts. With a per capita GDP of US$23,600 and near-universal literacy, Barbados ranks 38th in the world and first in the Caribbean according to the United Nations Development Programme’s 2013 Human Development Index. Relying on its sand and surf, Barbados derives 80 percent of its US$4.4 billion GDP from its tourism and service industries.
But this evolution is a recent one, part of a similar pattern of development across the Caribbean in light of independence movements and the advent of commercial aviation. Originally inhabited by a native Amerindian population, Barbados was first settled in 1627 by the English, who quickly turned it into one of the world’s leading sugar producers. Barbados’s colonial history is unusual for the region; unlike many other Caribbean islands that saw multiple changes of European powers, Barbados did not leave British rule until independence in 1966—earning it the nickname “Little England.”
The colonial economy was a classic model of trade to enrich the metropolis. The English imported African slaves to work sugarcane plantations, molasses refineries, and rum distilleries. As a result, 90 percent of modern-day Barbadians claim African descent. Following independence, the already-lagging sugar crop, which suffered fluctuations common to any monoculture, became even less reliable as the push for free trade led the U.K. and later the EU to slowly draw down subsidies and preferential pricing.
At the same time, Barbados invested heavily in its tourism services, which shifted the locus of development. Historically, the island was mostly rural, with sugarcane plantations carving up the interior of the country, home to slaves and, later, itinerant sharecroppers toting moveable wooden “chattel” houses, Barbados’s typical vernacular architecture. The coast was home to Bridgetown, the principal port, where a navigable river meets the ocean, and a few smaller towns and fishing villages. A deep-water port dredged in 1961 also laid the groundwork for the arrival of cruise ships. The growing number of tourists necessitated hotels, resorts, restaurants, shops, and bars, all within a stone’s throw of the ocean. This impulse led to strips of coastal development between the airport and Bridgetown, on the south coast, and along the west coast, home to the calmest water and charming Holetown and Speightstown. By the 1990s, Barbados’s Grantley Adams International Airport was receiving regularly scheduled British Airways flights from London on one of the few Concorde supersonic jets.
The Local Response to Rising Waters
Lying just east of the main arc of the other eastern Caribbean islands, outside the Atlantic hurricane belt, Barbados has a meteorological advantage. Although it’s still susceptible to major storms, it experiences far fewer hurricanes than its neighbors to the northwest. Yet any threat to the beach and coral lining Barbados would have devastating consequences, given the island’s economic dependence on the coast. Its well-being is endangered by creeping sea level rise, coupled with possible storm surge if the island suffers even a glancing blow from a major hurricane. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has strong evidence that following a period of almost no change for centuries, there was an increase in global sea level measures in the 20th century, and that trend is accelerating in the 21st century. In August, the IPCC said sea levels could rise more than three feet by 2100.
Never a major contributor of carbon emissions, small island states are disproportionately impacted by global climate change resulting from modern industrialization elsewhere in the world. Shifts in weather patterns have produced a greater number of major storm systems, increased global temperatures, melted polar ice caps, and contributed to sea level rise. While major industrialized countries such as the United States, China, and Western Europe also experience impacts from sea level rise, the vulnerable proportion of these countries is miniscule compared to the susceptible areas of Barbados. The developed world’s inability to understand the impacts and consequences of its behavior, as evidenced by political inaction on issues such as carbon cap-and-trade agreements, has forced countries in the developing world to act now or face a perilous future.
Paradoxically, Barbados’s imperial history—often a burden on postcolonial countries—has proved an advantage, in that the island has a long, uninterrupted history of British-style town and country planning. Like the United Kingdom, Barbados is administratively divided into parishes, and modern development law is based on the British Town and Country Planning Act of 1947. Once independent, Barbados established its own planning framework with the 1972 Town and Country Planning Development Order. Presently, the Town and Country Development Planning Office (TCDPO) oversees all construction on the island, with the chief town planner reporting directly to the prime minister.
The Physical Development Plan from 1988 guides development on the island. Since the document’s amendment in 2003, there has been a turn toward sustainable development, not just as a catch phrase, but as an inherent value for the government’s vision for the island. In a 2008 conference speech, the previous prime minister, David Thompson, outlined a few core ideas of the plan: protect natural, agricultural, and cultural resources; promote mixed-use centers and corridors to encourage a diversified economy; maintain central Bridgetown as the financial and commercial hub; and stimulate tourism by the modernization of older beachfront properties and development of new opportunities. Today, the current prime minister, Freundel Stuart, continues this push for sustainability, as shown by his participation in high-level panels at last year’s United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, Rio+20.
By the late 1970s, individual property owners began to notice coastal erosion affecting their land. The media began to harp on this issue, as it was concurrent with the push for tourism, quickly becoming the country’s main source of foreign exchange reserve. Prompted by this coastal erosion—but also concerned about catastrophic events such as hurricanes, earthquakes, tidal waves, volcanic eruptions, and oil spills—the Barbados government embarked on a diagnostic pre-feasibility study in 1981 with funding from the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) as part of its Coastal Conservation Program. The study focused on the west and south coasts, as these areas of the island had the greatest potential for tourism infrastructure. At that time, the government set up the temporary Coastal Conservation Project Unit (CCPU), which oversaw the pre-feasibility study and came to a series of conclusions on the causes of coastal erosion and damage to beachfronts. For example, because inland Barbados had poor water quality, the runoff polluted the sea, damaging coral reefs. Natural phenomena, such as storm swells and the occasional erratic hurricane, also caused erosion. In turn, the sea defense structures in place were poorly designed. The IDB study mandated the CCPU to continue monitoring the shorelines, to provide advice to the public on coastal matters, and to serve as an advisor to the TCDPO on waterfront development.
Coastal Zone Management Unit is Born
As the Coastal Conservation Project Unit continued its mandate for a decade, the Government of Barbados, along with additional funding from the IDB, embarked on another study, which recommended the establishment of a permanent unit to oversee the coastal zone. This Coastal Zone Management Unit (CZMU) was created in 1996 to regulate, make recommendations, and educate the Barbadian population about coastal management. Still receiving a large amount of its funding from the IDB, the CZMU is currently housed in the Ministry of Environment, Water Resources, and Drainage. As its title suggests, the CZMU manages the coastal zone, which it defines as “the transition zone where the land meets water; the region that is directly influenced by marine hydrodynamic processes; extends offshore to the continental shelf break and onshore to the first major change in topography above the reach of major storm waves.” Therefore, the unit oversees the coral reefs around Barbados and all coastal engineering projects, while serving as an advisor to the TCDPO for onshore coastal development.
Land use issues are at the forefront of the relationship between the CZMU and TCDPO. When the TCDPO receives any application for development in the coastal zone, it forwards it automatically to the CZMU for review and comment. Since the tourism industry is based mainly in the coastal zone of the island, many of Barbados’s development applications go through the CZMU for review. The unit vets the application to make sure the setbacks are correct, 30 meters from the high water mark for developments along the beach and 10 meters for developments along cliffs, measured from the landward point of undercut. In addition to verifying setbacks, the CZMU looks at drainage requirements, buffer zones, fencing restrictions, and other regulations. The CZMU then makes recommendations to the TCDPO on the application.
CZMU Acting Director Dr. Lorna Inniss, who holds a Ph.D. in oceanography from Louisiana State University, praises this process. She says, “Our interministerial collaboration is extremely high. We have the ability to establish and improve government structure that’s inclusive and consultative by nature.” The government process is admirable for its cooperation and silo-breaking tendencies; unfortunately the CZMU’s recommendations are purely advisory and have no binding power for the TCDPO to enforce. Regulations in the coastal zone are not retroactive for the legions of properties built during the resort boom, and penalties for violations also remain very low. This process is the closest Barbados approaches to a formalized environmental impact assessment, per a U.S. model, but it’s a strong first step for the Caribbean. CZMU and TCDPO have been more successful in planning for low-impact future development—along the more rugged east coast, for example, where the Physical Development Plan envisions a national park.
The CZMU is most effective in implementing coastal engineering projects to protect the coastline and stop beach erosion. The most natural conservation technique is to restore sand dunes and mangroves. Planting vegetation in the coastal areas allows the dunes to form naturally and hold back inundations from storm surges, while mangroves absorb wave action. Beach nourishment is a popular quick fix but more of a Band-Aid approach that is more costly and less effective, as currents and storms can easily erode the nourished beach.
The CZMU safeguards the coast with various physical interventions as well, including breakwaters, groynes, and seawalls. Breakwaters are concrete structures, sunken close to the beach, that force waves to break farther from the coast so they don’t directly pummel the sand. Groynes are rock structures that jut out into the ocean to disrupt the movement of sediment. Seawalls are the CZMU’s largest type of intervention. Intended to protect more populated areas, these construction projects involve either a riprap design of large rocks or a flat, concrete seawall that can create public space attractive to both tourists and residents, such as the Richard Haynes Boardwalk, partially funded by an IDB loan. Because these techniques can sometimes exacerbate erosion and require more expensive maintenance than natural interventions, their long-term efficacy is up for debate, but, in the short term, they protect the coastline and the tourism industry.
Given the island’s vulnerability to storms, engineering projects can be costly. Inniss, however, explains, “We have a policy of rigorous stakeholder consultation, and it’s not just lip service. November through April is our high season; on a recent project in Holetown, we heard from merchants that it was vital to complete work by November, so we hustled to do so. In a spirit of mutual cooperation, we can get private sector buy-in.” Hopefully, the CZMU can leverage the political capital it earns from the private sector on such projects, in order to make more demanding regulations become binding down the road.
In order to build support, the CZMU maintains a major outreach campaign to educate the island’s population, to which Inniss herself attributes the success of the CZMU internally and externally: “It begins with a nationally high level of education and literacy—over 98 percent for decades.” Former Senator Henry Fraser echoes her, “People ask, ‘Why do things work in Barbados?’ It’s largely because of the emphasis on education since emancipation. And, because it’s a small, highly religious place with people living close together, respect, tolerance, and a work ethic are greater than elsewhere.”
To deepen the educational foundation of Barbados’s cooperative approach to coastal zone management, the CZMU distributes a newsletter, maintains a strong social media presence, and produces an educational television show that explains the geological history of the island and techniques to raise awareness about sea level rise and the importance of coastal management. It also hosts many activities such as International Coastal Clean-Up Day, Sundown Beach Walks, Summer Seminar Series, and a summer internship program for secondary- and tertiary-level students. It also provides lectures for schools and educational institutions, NGOs, private organizations, and the general public.
Next Steps and Global Cooperation
The IDB continues to be a major supporter of Barbados’s efforts. The development bank’s most recent aid to the country includes a 25-year, $30 million loan to pursue a Coastal Risk Assessment and Management Programme. Inniss is excited by the confidence that such support expresses, as it indicates the government’s belief that the CZMU can execute a project that will create enough value to repay the money. “It will be a next level, state-of-the-art integrated coastal zone management strategy that will involve a series of stakeholders: tourism, rum distilleries, light and power utilities, marinas, boaters, commercial fishermen, the port, divers,” Inniss details. “Key decision makers have recognized that coastal zone management is important not just as an environmental program but to grow the economy of Barbados.” Hopefully other Caribbean countries have taken notice, as Inniss herself has provided technical assistance to St. Lucia, Trinidad and Tobago, and St. Vincent and the Grenadines—while in turn taking cues from New Zealand, Hawaii, and Fisheries and Oceans Canada as a model of how to implement international standards.
Of course, there is still room for improvement. Even as the CZMU works closely with TCPDO on land use planning, with national marine parks to conduct ecosystem-based monitoring, and with civil engineers from the Ministry of Public Works, CZMU is still not fully integrated with the Ministry of Agriculture and Fishing. For example, Inniss acknowledges, “We know scientifically that agricultural runoff is the biggest contributor of marine pollutants.”
Indeed, on a small island, the land and water are intrinsically interconnected. While Barbados continues to do its part in the battle against global climate change—another IDB loan signed alongside the coastal management funding will establish an Energy Smart Fund to reduce dependence on fossil fuels—it cannot sit tight and wait for the larger countries of the world to act. As small, developing island states in the Indian and Pacific oceans face the prospect of resettling their populations in other countries a few decades down the road, Barbadians plan to stay and protect their piece of paradise.
About the Authors
Gregory R. Scruggs was a consultant to the American Planning Association for Latin America and the Caribbean from 2010 to 2013. He is currently pursuing a master’s in regional studies of Latin America and the Caribbean at Columbia University. Contact: gscruggs.apa.consult@gmail.com.
Thomas E. Bassett, a senior program associate at the American Planning Association, works on the Energy and Climate Partnership of the Americas grant from the U.S. Department of State as well as the domestic Community Assistance Program. Contact: thomas.e.bassett@gmail.com.
Resources
Bassett, Thomas E. and Gregory R. Scruggs. 2013. Water, Water Everywhere: Sea level Rise and Land Use Planning in Barbados, Trinidad and Tobago, Guyana, and Pará. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy Working Paper WP13TB1. https://www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/dl/2282_1621_Bassett_WP13TB1.pdf.
Belle, N. and B. Bramwell. 2005. Climate change and small island tourism: Policy maker and industry perspectives in Barbados. Journal of Travel Research 44: 32–41.
Dharmartne, G. and A. Brathwaite. 1998. Economic valuation of coastline for tourism in Barbados. Journal of Travel Research 37: 138–144.
Inter-American Development Bank. 2010. Indicators of disaster risk and risk management, Program for Latin America and the Caribbean, Barbados. September. Accessed July 9, 2012. http://idbdocs.iadb.org/wsdocs/getdocument.aspx?docnum=35160015.
Phillips, M. R. and A. L. Jones. 2006. Erosion and tourism infrastructure in the coastal zone: Problems, consequences, and management. Tourism Management 27: 517–52.
