Una versión más actualizada de este artículo está disponible como parte del capítulo 2 del libro Perspectivas urbanas: Temas críticos en políticas de suelo de América Latina.

Al acentuarse las disparidades socioeconómicas y espaciales en las ciudades de América Latina ha resurgido el interés en políticas gubernamentales orientadas hacia la equidad que buscan reducir dichas disparidades. Sin embargo, las soluciones para los problemas urbanos más graves que aquejan a las ciudades actualmente deben cubrir más que la mera implementación de medidas incongruentes y de escasa definición. Las soluciones deben garantizar la equidad para todos los sectores de la sociedad. Son demasiados los casos en que vecindarios enteros se ven forzados a habitar en condiciones deplorables mientras las dependencias del gobierno buscan desalojar a los residentes en nombre de la protección del medio ambiente. Es evidente que la legislación urbana no puede seguir ignorando los derechos de las personas a tener un lugar donde vivir con seguridad y dignidad.

El impacto crítico de la desigualdad en la tenencia de la tierra en el entorno urbano exige que la población urbana pobre tenga acceso a la información técnica necesaria para negociar mejor sus inquietudes con los funcionarios públicos. En mi investigación exploro el papel de la educación ambiental en las comunidades de pocos ingresos de los países en desarrollo. Adoptando una perspectiva basada en la creación propia de capacidad, mi objetivo es desarrollar programas de capacitación para los dirigentes comunitarios en los niveles más básicos para manejar con más eficacia los conflictos locales sobre el uso del suelo y los riesgos ambientales.

Repercusiones del acceso desigual a la tierra

Al igual que muchas otras ciudades latinoamericanas, Río de Janeiro está seriamente afectada por la pobreza reinante y la degradación del medio ambiente. Intervienen factores complejos, tales como: Inestabilidad económica, tenencia desigual de la tierra, políticas de desarrollo deficientes y carencia de un sistema democrático que propicie los derechos humanos y las libertades. En mi opinión, los problemas que ha enfrentado Río de Janeiro durante las últimas décadas son el fruto de suposiciones existentes sobre la planificación urbana tipo “apartheid” y la falta de voluntad política para integrar a los sectores populares en el diseño de políticas para el uso del suelo.

En la región de Baixada de Jacarepaguá –en pleno corazón del área de expansión de Río de Janeiro– el extraordinario proceso de crecimiento urbano ocurrido desde 1970 ha provocado cambios drásticos en el paisaje, así como numerosos problemas ambientales. En medio de la espectacular belleza natural de los ecosistemas de lagunas, selvas de manglares y ciénagas, la región sigue albergando una enorme población de habitantes urbanos pobres que viven en favelas –comunidades de chabolas que son el resultado de un descontrolado proceso de urbanización del suelo público–.

Durante los años 1980 y a principios de la década de 1990, el desarrollo en la región tuvo un auge sin precedentes que ha dado pie a patrones insostenibles en el uso del suelo. La discriminación contra los habitantes pobres y las desigualdades en la tenencia de la tierra permitieron que los propietarios y especuladores se aprovecharan del auge mediante la obtención formal de títulos de propiedad y la subdivisión del suelo. Por otra parte, un grupo selecto de constructores privados se introdujo por sí solo en la escena local gracias a múltiples permisos judiciales para desarrollar en la región condominios residenciales para la clase alta, locales comerciales y empresas industriales.

El aumento de las presiones sobre el suelo se transformó rápidamente en una enorme variedad de protestas entre los sectores populares y los poderosos promotores inmobiliarios, lo que planteaba la amenaza de desalojo forzoso de los habitantes pobres. El descontento acumulado contra el gobierno por su incapacidad para controlar la especulación urbana y garantizar leyes de protección generó una situación sumamente peligrosa. La violencia y la persecución cobraron la vida de 30 dirigentes comunitarios, presidentes de asociaciones locales de vecinos, sus familiares cercanos y otros parientes. Los asesinatos fueron cometidos por escuadrones conocidos en la región como “grupos de exterminio” y no se ha llevado a cabo investigación criminal alguna.

El ciclo vicioso de la pobreza y la degradación ambiental

Dada la interdependencia que hay entre la pobreza y la degradación del medio ambiente, cabe pensar en los problemas ambientales en términos de la justicia social. Mi investigación gira en torno a la problemática de la desigualdad y los riesgos ambientales que enfrentan los residentes de Via Park, un asentamiento informal ubicado en la región de Baixada de Jacarepaguá. Una pregunta básica que surge de esta investigación es en qué medida la mejora del acceso equitativo al suelo contribuye verdaderamente para atenuar los factores que estimulan la degradación ambiental. Al relacionar los problemas del uso del suelo con el proceso de aprendizaje de la educación ambiental, la investigación demuestra que la degradación del medio ambiente es un fenómeno recurrente que se manifiesta en las maneras desiguales en que se ha usado y distribuido el suelo en la región.

El poblado de Via Park se ha visto atrapado en una lucha acérrima por el uso del suelo desde los años 1970, cuando el desarrollo urbano comenzó a afectar muchas comunidades pesqueras tradicionales en el área. Los constructores estaban deseosos de influir en el gobierno para quebrar el sistema de tenencia de la tierra de los pescadores, que estaba impuesto por la ley, para así entregar el suelo a las fuerzas del mercado. En la década de 1980, el área fue designada como patrimonio nacional para la conservación del medio ambiente, consagrada en el artículo 225 de la Constitución de Brasil (1988). Puesto que el poblado estaba ubicado en suelo protegido, las autoridades de la ciudad a cargo de la planificación arguyeron entonces que los residentes de Via Park no tenían derechos legítimos de propiedad.

En una atmósfera de temor y viéndose a merced de los promotores inmobiliarios y especuladores que seguían proliferando, los residentes de Via Park comenzaron a realizar subdivisiones ilegales y a vender pequeñas parcelas de tierra a los nuevos habitantes. El crecimiento de la población pobre y la concentración de la propiedad del suelo y la especulación contribuyeron a la expansión de los mercados inmobiliarios informales hacia comunidades cercanas de ingresos bajos.

Estas prácticas llevaban implícito un esquema complejo de transacciones comerciales y relaciones civiles que controlaban la invasión de terrenos baldíos, así como la división y venta de parcelas. En todo Río de Janeiro, el desarrollo urbano a través de canales informales es el “pacto territorial” predominante mediante el cual los grupos locales desfavorecidos han podido obtener acceso al suelo y la vivienda. Al mismo tiempo, los agentes del “mundo formal” han concretado acuerdos políticos para respaldar los mercados inmobiliarios informales y sacarles ventaja.

Fue en este contexto que se concibió un programa de mejoramiento ambiental a nivel comunitario, el cual vendría a implementarse en el poblado de Via Park. No obstante, debido a la larga historia de exclusión –que llegaba hasta las amenazas de desalojo forzoso– que habían sufrido, los residentes seguían mostrándose desconfiados. Se hizo claro que el éxito de la implementación del programa dependería de las estrategias de una gestión basada en una visión integrada del ambiente geográfico-ecológico y sociocultural.

Para que de verdad pueda resolverse el dilema de la pobreza y la degradación ambiental, la tarea de mejorar el medio ambiente debe ser compatible con la lucha por la equidad del suelo. Este novedoso enfoque de la educación ambiental se diferencia de la metodología tradicional, la cual suele centrarse más en la mera introducción de cambios físicos en el medio ambiente. La clave está en centrarse en las condiciones favorables para el desarrollo y el ejercicio de un sentido de “pertenencia a la comunidad” –una expresión tangible de sentimientos, valores e identidades en común en la que el suelo se percibe no sólo como fuente de riqueza, sino como un lugar de convivencia compartida con significados simbólicos–.

Lecciones aportadas por el poblado de Via Park

Si bien no existe una solución única para la vulnerabilidad social y ambiental de la población urbana pobre que reside en Via Park, su experiencia sí ofrece cierta perspicacia. Una alternativa propone crear “reservas naturales urbanas” incorporadas en la comunidad donde aquellos amenazados con el desalojo forzoso reciben estímulo para mantener su estilo de vida tradicional. A cambio, todas las instancias de autoridad gubernamental asumirían la obligación de promover la equidad del suelo, garantizando la tenencia y la protección de aquellos que forzados por las circunstancias viven en asentamientos informales.

Los aspectos del programa de educación ambiental iniciado en el poblado de Via Park son aplicables a otras ciudades de América Latina. El principio fundamental se basa en asegurar el respeto por la identidad propia de la comunidad. La experiencia de los residentes de Via Park demuestra que la actuación local puede contribuir con la consolidación de una lucha sociopolítica por la equidad del suelo en conjunción con la protección del ambiente. Esto está en sintonía con la corriente de pensamiento actual acerca del uso del suelo y la gestión ambiental, la cual sugiere un enfoque integrado que reconoce la función de liderazgo de los residentes locales.

El caso de Via Park revela que una excusa usada con frecuencia para justificar los desalojos es la “protección del ambiente”. En otras palabras, los habitantes urbanos pobres a menudo acusados de ser los principales protagonistas de la degradación del medio ambiente son en realidad las mayores víctimas. Para los 450 residentes del poblado de Via Park, el trauma de ser desalojados por la fuerza de sus hogares nunca será superado. Cinco personas, entre ellas dos niños y una mujer, perdieron la vida en la confrontación. La aldea de Via Park, que fuera destruida por excavadoras, sigue siendo un recordatorio de que la esperanza por la equidad del suelo radica en la solidaridad comunitaria, la administración pública eficaz y la democracia.

Sonia Pereira es docente invitada del Lincoln Institute. También está preparando su tesis doctoral del Instituto de Ciencias de la Tierra de la Universidad Federal de Río de Janeiro, con el apoyo de una beca Fulbright. Como abogada ambientalista, bióloga, psicóloga social y activista por los derechos humanos, ha recibido amplio reconocimiento por su labor en el campo de la protección ambiental para comunidades de escasos recursos en Brasil. Ha sido galardonada con el premio “Citizen of the World” (otorgado por Universidad para la Paz Mundial, 1992) y el premio “Global 500” (otorgado por el Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Medio Ambiente-PNUMA, 1996).

My father John C. Lincoln (1866-1959) had a strong code of ethics that played a prominent role in both his practice of business and his ideas about land. In 1895 he founded the Lincoln Electric Company of Cleveland, Ohio, which became the world’s leading manufacturer of arc welding equipment. He drew his ideas about land from the 1879 book Progress and Poverty, by the American political economist and social philosopher Henry George.

My father’s core ethical principle was to treat people as you would like to be treated. This implied the following precepts:

1) Treat people with absolute fairness. This means all people. In business it includes all the constituents of a company—employees, customers, owners, and the community. In society it means government must treat individuals fairly, and vice versa.

2) Whoever creates something should be entitled to keep it. Receiving the fruits of someone else’s labor—a windfall—often occurs. But for each windfall there is a wipeout—someone doesn’t get all he or she produced. Both the windfall and the wipeout are unethical.

3) People are important. They should be treated with respect and dignity, not as machines or cogs in a wheel.

Ethics in Business

Largely as a result of following these principles, the Lincoln Electric Company has demonstrated superior performance for its entire 100-year history. Many things have to happen to run a business ethically. One of them is making an adequate profit, which benefits the shareholders. But in my opinion, any company and all its constituents are better served if the customer comes first.

At Lincoln Electric, most employees are on piece work. If they produce more, they get more. The company has an annual bonus program, and the kitty for this bonus is composed of the extra profit beyond the returns required to run the business. Running the business includes providing a fair but not excessive dividend to shareholders and investing in new products and production methods. Beyond these costs, employees at Lincoln Electric get to keep any extra profit they produce. Recently bonuses have been about 50 to 60 percent of annual salaries. There are no windfalls, and no wipeouts.

Nowadays, manufacturing is no longer as much the “thing” as it once was. Making Lincoln Electric a successful global company requires more emphasis on company-wide teams. Individual pay is more dependent upon cooperation across departmental lines. This can work just as well as more individual programs of the past, but it is more difficult to manage. Incentives must be tailored to each location where we operate.

Ethics in Land

The heritage of the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy stems from my father’s interest in the ideas of Henry George, especially the land value tax. The ethics of this tax concept are parallel to those used at Lincoln Electric.

Someone who works the land should be entitled to keep the fruits of his labor. If he produces more because of increased skill or effort, he should reap a higher reward. However, Henry George said that land is a natural monopoly. Its value is largely created by things unrelated to the actions of the land’s owner, such as population pressure or mineral deposits. The landowner or user has nothing to do with these factors, yet if they cause the land value to increase, the owner gets a windfall.

This ethical dilemma disturbed my father, as it disturbs me. He subscribed to the remedy proposed by Henry George, which is to take as a tax each year the full rental value of land produced by natural or social factors. This would eliminate the windfall. It would still leave for landowners and users the value created by their own investments and labor.

A hundred years ago land was considered one of the three factors of production, along with labor and capital. Land was essential as both a place to work and a source of raw materials. Things are more complex today. A great deal of the economy has to do with telecommunications and computer software, which allow businesses to locate anywhere and use few or inexpensive natural resources. These changes may not negate the basic economic theories of Henry George’s time, but they do make it a bit more difficult to analyze the role of land in the economy.

There are many positive illustrations that ethical business practices lead to economic success. Unfortunately, there are not clearcut illustrations showing that land value taxation produces broad economic benefits. Nevertheless, economic research suggests that land value taxation could encourage the productive and careful use of land. Individuals who used the land in ways that increased its production would be able to keep the full value they had created, and society would keep the value it created.

I believe ethical practices will benefit all sides in any transaction. Ethical land taxation should lead to an improved economy, just as ethical business practices lead to more successful companies. One should get to keep the fruits of one’s labor, but the fruits of speculation or monopolies should accrue to the community as a whole, not to individuals as windfalls. Both the private sector and the public sector would benefit. Good ethics is good business. Good ethics is good for society as well as the economy.

___________________

David C. Lincoln, president of the Lincoln Foundation and former chairman of the Lincoln Institute, presented the annual Founder’s Day lecture on August 1 at Lincoln House. He had served as chairman for the Institute’s first 22 years before stepping down in May 1996. His talk, excerpted here in part, commemorated the 130th anniversary of the birth of his father, John Cromwell Lincoln, the Cleveland, Ohio, industrialist who founded the Lincoln Foundation in 1947.

Lavea Brachman is a lawyer and a city planner who has worked and taught in the area of community involvement in brownfields redevelopment projects for the last decade. She is currently director of the Ohio office and associate director of the Chicago-based nonprofit, the Delta Institute, which engages in the policy and practice of improving environmental quality and promoting community and economic development in the Great Lakes region. She is also an adjunct professor at The Ohio State University in the City and Regional Planning Department. Last year, pursuant to passage of legislation and approval of a statewide bond bill, Ohio Governor Bob Taft appointed Brachman to serve on the Clean Ohio Council, which is charged by the legislature with selecting and disbursing $200 million for brownfield projects throughout the state.

Brachman developed and taught a new course at the Lincoln Institute last spring, called “Reusing Brownfields and Other Underutilized Land: A Seminar for Senior Staff of Community-Based and Non-profit Development Agencies,” and she will teach a similar course in 2003. She also wrote an article on “Key Success Factors in Brownfield Property Redevelopment” for a forthcoming Lincoln publication on redevelopment of vacant land.

Land Lines: How did you become involved in and concerned about brownfield redevelopment?

Lavea Brachman: Brownfield redevelopment was just emerging as a special focus of urban planning in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when I was working on my master’s degree in city planning at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). As a student, I joined a student-professor team on an early brownfields project for the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) to determine what it could do with some previously utilized property it owned in Quincy, Massachusetts, just south of Boston. We assessed three primary aspects (social, legal and physical) to determine the site’s redevelopment potential.

That experience and the challenge of dealing with multiple parties and multiple issues that brownfield redevelopment entails peaked my interest intellectually, and I recognized that changing land uses could have profound and positive implications for social change. Previously, as an attorney with a Washington, DC, law firm, I had practiced in the environmental and land use areas, so the interdisciplinary nature of brownfields redevelopment seemed to bring together my legal and planning training with my professional skills and areas of knowledge and expertise.

LL: What are the primary obstacles to brownfield redevelopment and how have these changed over time?

LB: Contrary to general public misperceptions, the primary obstacle to brownfield redevelopment today is not environmental contamination per se, even though the prior use and associated environmental conditions of these properties distinguish them from other underutilized properties. The primary obstacle to redevelopment remains the threat of liability that by statute arises from acts that cause or contribute to contamination and/or to those with an ownership interest in the property. A second major obstacle is financing, since brownfields are many times more expensive to redevelop than regular real estate projects. The liability threat also has dampened interest from investors or banks that might be perceived as being in the chain of title.

A third obstacle can be lack of local support. The need for public involvement in brownfield redevelopment, from financing, to regulatory oversight, to local zoning and planning, means that community support is instrumental to making brownfield redevelopment work. The potential fear and lack of understanding about the impact of contamination on a community can also interfere with local support. A fourth obstacle is obtaining site control or clear title to the property. Many brownfield properties are tax delinquent or burdened with liens, and the title may remain in the name of a defunct company. Of all the obstacles, the solutions to title problems vary most widely from state to state.

A final obstacle is location, because many of these properties are found in areas that are littered with multiple vacant properties or they are not readily accessible to all-important interstate highways or rail networks. Sometimes brownfield sites with a long history of use were at one time accessible to key transportation lines, but those roads or rails have been superseded by new highways located several miles or more away, leaving the abandoned sites isolated from current development activity.

LL: How has the brownfield redevelopment practice evolved over the last decade?

LB: A decade ago, brownfields were not identified or defined as such. They were the legacy of a manufacturing and industrial economy that left behind vacant properties and blighted urban areas and the remnants of laws that, through the nature of the liability schemes, provided disincentives for cleanup. The federal government had not formally recognized the value of redeveloping these properties, and those of us who were involved in the field early on worked with regulators to convince them to pay more attention. Also, the fear of another Love Canal (that is, illness among residents arising from property contamination) was still fresh, so there was little flexibility in cleanup standards. Brownfields were redeveloped, if at all, outside the regular, legal constructs or under special agreements between owner and regulator, or by using special contracts such as prospective purchaser agreements, which prevented a future buyer from being held liable for previous contamination.

Now brownfield redevelopment has been increasingly streamlined, approached by developers as a real estate deal with a twist—the environmental cleanup. Many of the primary obstacles mentioned above remain, although they have been somewhat diminished over time, as new state and federal policies, laws and regulations have been passed and implemented to address the specific issues with brownfields liability, provide new funding sources, alter title processes for expunging tax delinquent and other liens, and even require community involvement. Last December, for example, Congress passed the “Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act of 2001,” which provides for additional grants and loans for certain activities as well as clarifications on liability.

Brownfields offer an interesting case study of how informal processes that originally emerged out of necessity outside the legal, policy and financing mainstream have been increasingly institutionalized. For instance, where once a property would remain unremediated and fenced off because the cleanup was too burdensome and expensive, or the cleanup would be the subject of years of litigation, now a property that is marketable can act as an incentive for all parties to proceed rapidly.

In the strong market of the 1990s, the real estate pressures allowed even some hard-to-develop properties, like long-abandoned brownfields, to be redeveloped, although it was primarily the “low hanging fruit” or the brownfields that were already either well-located, had minimal contamination, or were not complicated by multiple parties contributing to past contamination. The liability on these properties could be capped and financial institutions thus could reduce their risk. Also the regulatory climate has become less aggressive with the passage of “voluntary cleanup statutes,” which allow cleanups to be accomplished without regulatory oversight in many states. The ultimate carrot is a government agreement not to hold future owners liable (that is, a covenant not to sue) if they meet certain standards. To date, fewer cleanups that predicted have actually been accomplished under these new state laws, but they create a climate ultimately more conducive to redevelopment. Nevertheless, in the weaker economic market of 2002, with greater risk, more uncertainty and less development generally, there will be less brownfield redevelopment, particularly of those sites that do not have the easily marketable attributes.

LL: Who are some of the key players involved in successful brownfield redevelopment projects?

LB: Like most real estate deals, brownfield redevelopment inherently involves multiple parties. Public-private partnerships are particularly crucial to the success of brownfield redevelopment projects, because of the quasi-regulated nature of the cleanup and the complicated financing arrangements. The list of potential key players is a long one. It includes state and or federal regulators, elected community officials and other community leaders, private developers (both for-profit and not-for-profit), past and future property owners, private financial institutions or investors and public funding sources. Often those essential parties are traditional adversaries. For instance, designating the future use of a brownfield property must involve a state (and sometimes federal) regulatory agency, which can approve the cleanup standard for the particular use (normally higher for residential and lower for industrial) and plan to remove the contamination, as well as previous and/or future owners who under previous legal standards would have been held liable by the regulatory agency.

Funding for the cleanup and redevelopment inevitably comes from a variety of sources. Notably, up to 70 to 80 percent of funding for brownfield projects can be from public funding sources, but usually those public monies are predicated on private (often local) institutional financing as well, making the public-private nexus very important.

LL: What is the role of community-based organizations in brownfield redevelopment and to what extent is this type of redevelopment an extension of broader community planning efforts facing many urban neighborhoods?

LB: Community support and leadership from the local government are essential to the successful redevelopment of a brownfield property. For instance, localities often must be the applicant for the essential public (state or federal) funds needed to accomplish the project. If zoning or subdivision changes must be made through local boards, local support and leadership is crucial. Community-based organizations such as community development corporations should play an active role in brownfield redevelopment as well, particularly in areas that are not as naturally attractive to private market actors, either due to location and limited access of the properties or to general neighborhood blight and lack of economic activity. In these areas, broader community planning efforts undertaken by community groups, such as community-wide master plans, are often productive starting points if multiple brownfield and other underutilized properties need to be addressed. Master plans encompassing these properties should take into account neighborhood and community needs, such as local stores, recreational areas, and other facilities. The biggest barrier to brownfield redevelopment in these areas is the market and the physical and economic condition of the surrounding area.

Nevertheless, to many community groups these sites remain intimidating for several reasons: the technical aspects of the contamination; the stigma attached to the properties by their condition; their negative impacts on surrounding properties; and, as mentioned, their location in generally blighted and hard-to-market areas. Furthermore, brownfield sites present more upfront barriers not present in the kinds of housing development projects traditionally undertaken by community-based organizations, such as site remediation, title issues, the assembly of multiple parcels, and the complex financing that is necessary from multiple sources. Getting community organizations past these threshold issues through capacity building and training in technical skills will position them to address more strategic brownfield redevelopment challenges.

Given recent state and federal statutory changes and multiple sources of public funding, the redevelopment of single brownfield properties in stable or improving markets now involves fewer legal and financial barriers. It also requires a very different strategy from developing properties in declining markets where there are other non-brownfield barriers to be overcome. The challenge for addressing brownfield properties in these latter areas remains to be solved, but community involvement is certainly a key aspect to its resolution.

In June 2003 the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and the Sonoran Institute established a Joint Venture project to assist diverse audiences in improving state trust land administration in the American West. The goal of this partnership project is to ensure that conservation, collaborative land use planning, and efficient and effective asset management on behalf of state trust land beneficiaries are integral elements of how these lands are managed. The two institutes seek to utilize their core competencies to broaden the range of information and policy options available to improve state trust land management. This article introduces the Joint Venture and describes some of the work now under way in Arizona and Montana.

State trust lands are a phenomenon that dates back to the Northwest Ordinance of 1785. With this ordinance, the U.S. Congress established a policy of granting land to states when they entered the Union as an asset to generate funding to support the public education system, a fundamental state responsibility. Starting with Ohio in 1785 and ending with Arizona and New Mexico in 1910, each new state received a set of federal lands that, under federal enabling legislation and the corresponding state constitution, were to be held in trust for the benefit of the public schools. The trust mandates established by the U.S. Congress and the states are clear: to generate revenue to support the public schools and other institutions. In some cases there are other minor institutional beneficiaries as well, but the public schools (K–12) are by far the largest beneficiary throughout the state trust land system. That singularity of purpose continues today and distinguishes state trust lands and the state programs that administer them from other types of public lands.

While Congress intended state trust lands to be perpetual, the lawmakers expected that over time some lands would be sold to produce revenue. Initially Congress provided little guidance to states on how they should manage their state trust lands. Many states that entered the Union soon after 1785 quickly sold all or most of those lands for profit, and today little remains of that heritage. Because of these actions, Congress placed increasingly stringent requirements on new states in order to limit the use of state trust lands. Since most western states entered the Union in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, they retain most of the original state trust lands designated at the time of statehood.

Today these lands continue to be managed to generate income for the authorized beneficiaries. This revenue is either made available in the year in which it was generated (typically from leasing activities) or, in the case of outright sale of land or nonrenewable resources, deposited into a permanent fund that generates annual income for the beneficiaries. In Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and Wyoming these permanent funds or endowments are in excess of one billion dollars each.

What Is a Trust?

A trust is a legal relationship in which one party holds property for the benefit of another.

There are three participants in this relationship: a grantor or “settlor,” who establishes the trust and provides the property to be held in trust; a trustee, who is charged by the settlor with the responsibility of managing the trust in keeping with the settlor’s instructions; and a beneficiary, who receives the benefits of the trust.

The trustee has a fiduciary responsibility to manage the property held in trust (the trust corpus) in keeping with the instructions of the settlor and for the benefit of the beneficiary. This fiduciary responsibility can be enforced by the beneficiary if the trustee fails to meet the obligations outlined in the trust documents.

Fifteen western states continue to own and manage appreciable amounts of state trust land (see Table 1). The nine states with the largest and most significant holdings are the initial focus of the Lincoln Institute and Sonoran Institute Joint Venture: Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming (see Figure 1). Collectively these states manage more than 40 million acres of state trust lands. The landholdings are as diverse as the states that manage them and include coastal forests in Washington, mountaintops in Montana and low deserts in Arizona.

Traditionally these lands have been managed almost exclusively for natural resource production, with the leasing and sale of natural products being the principal sources of revenue. The reliance of state trust land management on natural resource extraction is understandable in the context of the natural resource–based economies of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. But today, as the West continues to urbanize and the region’s economies shift to the information age, trust land managers are recognizing a need to broaden the land use activities of their trust land portfolios. Invariably that means rearranging the portfolio from one that is overly reliant on natural resource extraction to one that recognizes the real estate value associated with commercial, industrial and residential development, as well as recreation and conservation.

Like many land use decisions, particularly in areas experiencing explosive growth, state trust land administration is increasingly controversial. As on federal public lands, traditional uses (i.e., cropland, grazing and timber production, and oil, gas, coal and mineral extraction) are at odds with public interests in recreation and natural open space. Efforts to sell and lease lands for commercial and residential development can create tensions between a state agency acting as a trustee and a local community vested with managing growth. Balancing the protection of the public values inherent in many of these lands with traditional and new uses, all within the context of the state trust’s fiduciary responsibilities, is a challenge for trust land managers.

At the same time, population pressures in the West have increased demands on public education funding. State trust lands are one obvious source of revenue to meet these funding demands, which in turn may generate even more pressure on trust land managers who as trustees of a permanent trust need to achieve both short- and long-term financial returns from the trust’s assets. An additional complexity is that the application of trust principles varies among the states, based in part on differing state trust land enabling legislation created in each state at the time of statehood.

Recognizing the value of bringing diverse interests together and providing solid information to stakeholders and key decision makers in land use planning and development environments, the Lincoln Institute and Sonoran Institute Joint Venture project seeks to

• facilitate efforts to modernize state trust land laws and regulations in key western states
• foster education and research efforts that focus on key issues related to state trust land administration
• increase public awareness of the resource and economic values of state trust lands along with the impacts of state trust land management decisions on local communities, including implications for public finance
• develop and implement on-the-ground model projects designed to explore innovative approaches to collaborative land use planning and conservation management of state trust lands
• provide relevant technical information and tools to decision makers and agency staff involved in state trust land management.

Trust Land Reform in Arizona

Arizona is in the midst of a three-year discussion among diverse stakeholders to reform its laws governing state trust lands. Arizona is noteworthy because the burgeoning growth of Phoenix and Tucson is reaching significant tracts of state trust lands. These lands are some of the most valuable real estate holdings in the Intermountain West and comprise 12 percent of the land in the state. Unlike many other western states, Arizona has long recognized the real estate value of its holdings and has an active real estate disposition program that has sold thousands of acres into the urban marketplace. The revenue from these sales has been deposited into the permanent fund of the state trust entity, and the income from the fund is directed to the trust’s beneficiaries. The permanent fund is now valued at more than one billion dollars and is predicted to double in value over the next 10 years.

In the mid-1990s state trust land sales in metropolitan Phoenix came to a screeching halt when the development interests of the Arizona State Land Department encountered conflict with the goals of local communities interested in preserving some of this land as natural open space. Attempts to accommodate local concerns through state legislation have met with mixed results due to the strictures of the Arizona enabling act and state constitution. Several key court decisions interpreting these laws have constrained the Arizona State Land Department from conserving open space or enabling the department to achieve the highest and best use on these lands when sold or leased for residential and commercial purposes. An attempt in 2000 to secure voter approval to revise aspects of Arizona’s constititution and modernize state trust land management failed at the ballot box in the face of unanimous opposition from the conservation community.

This situation has set the stage for a diverse group of interests to convene in the hopes of developing a comprehensive reform proposal that the Arizona legislature and governor’s office will consider. Even with their support, the final package will need voter approval to amend the state constitution, followed by changes in the federal enabling act that will require the approval of the U.S. Congress.

The Joint Venture directed its initial efforts toward working with the conservation organizations participating in the stakeholder group. We provided analyses of the current laws and proposed changes, with assistance from the law firm of Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, to help the conservation community promote a constructive agenda that has been incorporated into the package. In addition, our information related to land use planning was useful to other stakeholders in developing elements of the package that will ensure more collaborative planning between the Arizona State Land Department and local governments charged with land planning responsibility, while also increasing the range of tools available to local communities to protect natural open space on state trust lands.

We are also working with officials from the City of Tucson (the second largest city in Arizona) and the Arizona State Land Department to assist their efforts to develop 10,000 acres in the city’s growth corridor. This Houghton Area Master Plan includes more than 7,500 acres of state trust lands. Our work is directed toward the planning effort by providing examples of smart growth development at the urban edge. A key element is to document evidence that greenfield projects are not necessarily synonymous with sprawl and that a number of examples of recent master-planned communities at the urban edge are incorporating smart growth elements, such as interconnected open space for active and passive recreational use, pedestrian orientation, mixed-use development accessible to public transit, and a diverse mix of housing types, sizes and prices. As important, these progressive master-planned communities are achieving success in the marketplace, which is a preeminent concern of the Arizona State Land Department.

While the City of Tucson, in partnership with the Sonoran Institute, is working to promote infill and brownfield development, even under the most optimistic of scenarios more than 50 percent of the city’s explosive growth will be greenfield development. If successful, this master-planning effort will guide development on 50 square miles of state trust lands within the city and can serve as a local land use planning model for other state trust lands.

Trust Lands in Montana

The Joint Venture has also initiated an assessment of policy issues affecting state trust lands in Montana. Working with a local advisory group chartered by the Department of Natural Resources (the manager of Montana’s state trust lands), we have provided information that will help guide land use planning on 12,000 acres of state trust lands in Flathead County at the gateway to Glacier National Park. This effort will serve as a template for future department plans for land uses other than grazing and forest management. For example, the department has shown an interest in generating revenue from leasing land for conservation, recreational, residential, commercial and industrial uses. Increasing interest in these “special uses” is creating a paradigm shift in how the Department of Natural Resources interacts with local governments and how local governments interact with state trust lands.

As growth expands throughout much of western and central Montana, the department seeks to capture additional revenue opportunities through the development of special uses. While local communities are recognizing that state trust lands can be a source of economic growth and can contribute positively to meeting growth demands, they are also requiring those land uses to be responsive to local community values and concerns. Sound, objective land planning and valuation information are essential to the development of policies that will guide Montana state trust land management in the future.

Final Comments

In the brief time since the Joint Venture was established there has been no shortage of issues that could benefit from better information and collaboration among diverse parties. This fall the Lincoln Institute and the Sonoran Institute will convene a small group of experts from academia and the public and private sectors to identify the issues of greatest concern that will guide further research efforts. Our work in Arizona and Montana will continue as we seek to develop a broad-based approach to increasing awareness about state trust lands. The successful resolution of the issues affecting state trust land management will benefit not only local school children, but also many conservationists, developers, ranchers and businesses throughout the West.

Reference

Souder, Jon, and Sally K. Fairfax. 1996. State trust lands: History, management and sustainable use. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.

Andy Laurenzi is the program director for state trust lands at the Sonoran Institute, a nonprofit organization established in 1990 to bring diverse people together to accomplish shared conservation goals. The Sonoran Institute is based in Tucson, Arizona, with offices in Phoenix and Bozeman, Montana (www.sonoran.org).