Amid rising home values, cities and states need to provide targeted relief to keep property taxes affordable while avoiding overly broad measures that could undermine the largest source of local revenue, a new report finds. 

In the Policy Focus Report Property Tax Relief for Homeowners, Lincoln Institute scholars Adam Langley and Joan Youngman evaluate more than a dozen common tools for tax relief and explain how state and local policy makers can keep tax systems fair and fiscally sustainable. They recommend a mix of sound tax administration, highly targeted relief, and robust state funding. 

“An approach that includes policies such as circuit breakers, deferrals, sound assessment and collection practices, and well-designed state aid formulas will promote a tax system that is fair and affordable for taxpayers while providing the revenue needed to maintain quality public services,” the authors write. 

The report addresses a challenging aspect of the property tax: higher home values do not always equate to greater cash flow for homeowners. Thus, keeping tax bills stable is essential.  

In an attempt to provide stability, states sometimes enact ineffective measures that destabilize state and local budgets, reduce the quality of public services, and deliver disproportionate benefits to wealthier homeowners. The most common among these are far-reaching limits on local tax rates, revenues, and taxable property values. 

“All state-imposed tax limits reduce local control over budget decisions, and so diminish the capacity of local governments to respond to taxpayer preferences and changing circumstances,” Langley and Youngman write. 

Instead, policy makers can employ targeted approaches that keep tax bills as stable as possible and provide relief to those who need it. 

Regular and accurate assessment of property is critical. Without it, assessed values stay artificially low until they eventually spike after a long-delayed revaluation. Further, if property values increase faster than incomes, policy makers need to reduce tax rates accordingly to stabilize tax bills. 

While sound assessment and rate-setting practices go a long way to prevent financial hardship, targeted tax relief is needed to support some homeowners, such as seniors with fixed incomes, people who have lost their jobs, or lower-income residents of gentrifying neighborhoods, whose property tax bills are still growing relative to their income. 

Langley and Youngman recommend circuit breakers, which provide property tax relief to those whose tax bill exceeds a certain percentage of income—so named because they function like a switch that cuts off an electrical circuit when too much current flows. They also recommend deferrals, which delay taxes until the property changes hands, enabling homeowners or their heirs to use proceeds from the sale of the home to pay off the taxes. Finally, they recommend monthly payment options so that homeowners do not face a large bill once or twice per year.  

While cities and towns can administer such programs, states play a critical role. They need to remove legal barriers that prevent local governments from effectively administering the property tax and provide robust aid to make up for gaps in real estate values among different cities and towns. Adequate state funding ensures that even low-wealth jurisdictions can provide quality local services at affordable tax rates. 

“If policy makers are sincere about providing targeted property tax relief for homeowners that has the fewest unintended or spillover effects, they would benefit from serious study of the concepts and approaches presented in this report,” said Alan Dornfest, property tax bureau chief for the Idaho State Tax Commission. “It could not be more timely or more complete.” 

The report is available for download on the Lincoln Institute’s website.

Image: Mailboxes along Route 66, Arizona. Credit: libre de droit/iStock/Getty Images Plus.

The following is an excerpt from Equitably Developing America’s Smaller Legacy Cities: Investing in Residents from South Bend to Worcester, a Policy Focus Report recently published by the Lincoln Institute. The Lincoln Institute’s Legacy Cities Initiative offers additional strategies and resources. 

In 2020, leaders of smaller U.S. legacy cities confronted more than their usual challenges. The COVID-19 pandemic and the Black Lives Matter movement laid bare persistent racial and income segregation common in these postindustrial centers. A long history of discriminatory and failed policies contributes to these conditions.  

This report does not serve as a treatise on eradicating injustice from small legacy cities. Instead, the report focuses on the significant opportunity that these cities now have to combat inequity and increase economic competitiveness by embracing policies that support equitable development. 

America’s smaller legacy cities—such as Akron, Ohio; Erie, Pennsylvania; Kalamazoo, Michigan; and Worcester, Massachusetts—are well positioned to promote development that includes and benefits all residents while improving economic competitiveness. This report shows local changemakers how to incorporate equity into the traditional suite of revitalization strategies by focusing on both physical development and investment in residents. The report makes a case for why local changemakers should care about equity and offers ways to shape development policies and actions to make them equitable. Most of these strategies are tailored to the unique conditions of smaller, weak-market legacy cities and can, for the most part, be implemented at the local level. Case studies further illustrate each of these strategies. 

An earlier Policy Focus Report from the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and Greater Ohio Policy Center, Revitalizing America’s Smaller Legacy Cities, discusses smaller legacy cities and the economic and historical dynamics that shape them, including a detailed analysis of their demographics (Hollingsworth and Goebel 2017). The 2017 report provides a more detailed foundation for the equitable development strategies discussed here. 

The Equitable Development Imperative: How Greater Equity Can Support Growth 

Chris Benner and Manuel Pastor (2012, 2015) assert the economic imperative for addressing long-standing inequality by demonstrating that racial and income inequality are not just outcomes of a postindustrial world, but also drivers of current and future regional economic stagnation. Specifically, they found that “high inequality, measured in a variety of different ways, has a negative impact on growth and that these impacts are in fact stronger in regions with what many in the literature call ‘weak market’ central cities” (Pastor and Benner 2008). While this “dragging effect” of inequality on financial strength is concerning, a growing and encouraging body of research offers a path forward, validating the economic advantages of improving equity (Pastor and Benner 2008). 

Research by the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland supports this, finding that “a skilled workforce, high levels of racial inclusion, and progress on income equality correlate strongly and positively with economic growth” (Benner and Pastor 2012; Eberts, Erickcek, and Kleinhenz 2006). 

Persistent disparities can depress a city’s economy. Revitalization without a deliberate equity component does little to address underlying injustices. Alan Mallach’s 2014 analysis of traditional legacy city revitalization shows us how development designed for high-income residents in the downtown or central business district alone does not improve inequities citywide. Mallach found that traditional revitalization in some legacy cities failed to improve economic and quality-of-life indicators for the least advantaged residents: “Revitalization, at least at the scale and of the character that is being experienced in these cities, does not confer citywide benefits; if anything, it may even redirect jobs, resources, and wealth away from large parts of the city, concentrating them in a smaller area and leaving the rest worse off than before” (Mallach 2014). 

Urban Institute researchers, in their analysis of how larger cities recovered from the Great Recession, concur with Mallach’s finding. They write, “Across all types of cities, local leaders are beginning to recognize that economic growth does not automatically lead to inclusion; rather, intentional strategies are needed” (Poethig et al. 2018). Federal Reserve researchers also weigh in on this, saying: “The pursuit of societal goals, such as racial inclusion and lower income dispersion, are very compatible with economic growth” (Eberts, Erickcek, and Kleinhenz 2006). 

Sidebar: What are equity and equitable development?

This report uses the term “equity” broadly to refer to an overarching goal: to make opportunity accessible to all, regardless of background and circumstance, and to make a special effort to improve outcomes for low-income populations and communities of color to bring them into parity with other populations. Greater equity is possible when poverty and disparities in wealth, employment, and health shrink as incomes and access to employment increase. In equitable cities, decision makers value the perspectives of all residents and ensure that anyone who wants to participate in civic life can have a seat at the table. 

“Equality” and “equity” are not synonymous. Many scholars of equity and inclusion have argued that equality means funding, access to support, and decision-making power are shared equally, and one solution applies to all (Blackwell 2016). But treating all issues equally does not correct underlying inequities; instead, it perpetuates them, because policies and practices impact individuals and communities differently. Committing to equity means tailoring solutions and supports to local needs and circumstances so that everyone thrives. 

The process of equitable development must include diverse stakeholders who provide critical input and take leadership roles. Equitable development must also protect residents from being physically or culturally forced out of their homes while improving market strength and encouraging new market-rate development. Practitioners need to be patient and strategic, understanding that it takes time to realize the desired outcomes. In the meantime, changemakers can track progress with data and make course corrections as needed. 

Unique Challenges and Opportunities for Equitable Development in Smaller Legacy Cities 

One major advantage that smaller legacy cities have when advancing equitable development is that their leaders often already have meaningful relationships with each other. When intentionally nurtured, these connections can lead to fruitful coalitions. The path to better economic times is through collaboration; this was true in the aftermath of the Great Recession, and it is likely to continue to be true in the pandemic era (Brachman 2020). Conversely, strained or poor relationships resulting from competition over scarce resources or other factors can impede progress for smaller legacy cities. Steps for dealing with these conflicts are addressed later in this report. 

Another advantage is that the relative lack of market pressures in smaller legacy cities means leaders can take their time to get plans right without rapid development threatening to get ahead of the planning process. Additionally, the smaller size of these places makes them an ideal environment for testing ideas and changing paradigms, eloquently described in the Ferguson Commission report (2015) as encouraging a “culture of trying.” Smaller legacy cities can make course corrections and quick pivots—critical pieces of “trying”—by expeditiously seeking residents’ input and regularly checking back in for feedback. 

An equity agenda cannot be built entirely on a city’s real estate market. This is especially true in smaller legacy cities, which often lack the market strength to support development impact fees or exactions—payments made by developers to local governments to deliver public goods associated with a project, such as infrastructure, open space, or affordable housing. 

Because those strategies may not be suitable for all smaller legacy cities, this report describes alternative routes to equity that do not require waiting for a strong real estate market. For example, leaders in Dayton, Ohio, co-located a number of similar community programs when they renovated the Dayton Arcade. This facilitated more coordinated, collaborative, and efficient delivery of small business development services. Because revitalization work must extend beyond the physical environment, many strategies presented in this report seek to increase human capital. Case studies focus on coalition building, planning, and workforce development. Research supports this need for a breadth of strategies. In an examination of how to improve upward mobility for low-income families and families of color in America’s metro areas, researchers from the U.S. Partnership on Mobility from Poverty found, “The evidence suggests that full-scale transformation will result not from any single policy endeavor, but through a long-term process that extends beyond investments in the distressed neighborhoods themselves to also address the economic, political, and social systems that helped create and sustain neighborhood disparities” (Turner et al. 2018). 

The case studies included here from larger cities or healthier markets can be adapted for smaller legacy cities. Many of the examples come from Ohio, which is home to 20 smaller legacy cities (a relatively high number for one state), and a state policy environment that is not particularly city-friendly. As such, Ohioans have been innovating at the local level for decades. Additionally, this report purposefully prioritizes equitable development strategies that can start at any time, regardless of market strength, and are primarily within the control of local leaders.  

Equitable Development in the COVID-19 Context 

Without a doubt, the COVID-19 pandemic has heightened challenges faced by leaders in small legacy cities. Already weak housing markets are further strained as tenants and owners face job losses and increased financial instability. When limited resources force city leaders to make difficult strategic investment decisions, residents may sometimes view these choices as picking favorites. This dynamic erodes trust and underscores how essential it is to develop a defensible plan and an inclusive process to guide decision making. COVID-19 has also increased food insecurity and presented public health challenges such as caring for sick residents and administering vaccines. These new fiscal demands, along with concurrent or projected declines in local tax revenue, make financing revitalization even more difficult in smaller legacy cities. Yet these challenges often provide the impetus for new partnerships.  

Constrained resources can motivate committed local leaders to forge a sense of common destiny and develop strategic partnerships. Today’s conditions may further broaden awareness about existing challenges and generate momentum for new collaborations, while also encouraging leaders to strategically stretch every dollar to yield the most significant impact. 

When the pandemic began, many local governments were already financially fragile. They had not yet recovered from the Great Recession, more than a decade after its official end. Nationally, cities anticipate losing 10 to 15 percent of their revenue in 2021, and the actual amount may be more significant, depending on the type of tax revenue cities depend on (Greater Ohio Policy Center 2020; McFarland and Pagano 2020). 

These revenue challenges are compounded by a dramatic need for initiatives to help support residents and retain small businesses, such as establishing non-congregate shelters, increasing food access, offering small business grants and loans, and expanding internet access. Many local governments have already cut spending by shelving or scaling back scheduled capital projects and laying off staff, actions that then challenge their ability to undertake strategic investments. 

COVID-19 has exacerbated racial disparities in both physical health and economic well-being. While low- and moderate-income people, many of whom are people of color, have benefited from various protections against eviction in the short term, renters worry that they may not be able to pay their accumulated debt. Local landlords who are financially dependent on rental income often dominate the rental market in smaller cities, and the pandemic puts their income at risk, too. 

The long-term consequences for the economies of smaller legacy cities are ultimately unknown—but worrisome. Nevertheless, leaders of smaller legacy cities consider these challenges a setback, not a death knell. Many of Ohio’s smaller legacy cities even report that their traditional economic development efforts were extraordinarily successful in 2020 despite the effects of the pandemic. Linking these economic development successes to equity goals remains a challenge for some, but more stakeholders are growing aware of the issue thanks to an increasing number of conference panels, training sessions, and informal conversations. 

The COVID-19 pandemic also creates a unique opportunity for legacy city leaders to prioritize equity through recovery. A growing national focus on racial justice is underscoring the pandemic’s disproportionate impacts on communities of color. Racial justice protests have occurred in many smaller legacy cities, and many communities have declared racism a public health crisis (Walliser-Wejebe 2020). 

Such protests hold the potential to build dialogue among residents and municipal governments, including police (Frolik 2020; Petersen 2020). Legacy city leaders can seize the moment and fully acknowledge long-standing racial and economic disparities within their cities, as well as the fact that recent economic growth has not benefited all residents equally (Economic Innovation Group 2020). This increased awareness in an environment of heightened urgency paves the way for a more equitable strategic plan for recovery from a pandemic-driven recession and a more inclusive future for smaller legacy cities. 

Addressing Concerns About Gentrification in Smaller Legacy Cities 

An enduring tension within revitalization efforts is between the need for new market-rate housing and residents’ fears of displacement. Declining populations and low incomes in small legacy cities prompt the need to attract new and higher-income residents to approach a healthy bell-curve distribution of incomes (Mallach 2018). Many smaller legacy cities in the Midwest have weak housing markets that require interventions to strengthen the market. 

However, city leaders and developers must authentically acknowledge community concerns as they begin to bring investments to these neighborhoods. Leaders can build trust by bringing a community together to address the need for a mix of incomes, while also acknowledging and mitigating cultural changes and fear of displacement in an open, honest, and transparent way—as in the case of the Bowman Creek Educational Ecosystem in South Bend, Indiana. Physical redevelopment can meet equitable development objectives and maintain a neighborhood’s sense of cultural identity by preserving important community assets such as churches, parks, retail corridors and the long-standing merchants within them, and community and recreation centers. More strategies for addressing these dynamics are considered in the full report. 

A Common Destiny 

Today, smaller legacy cities continue to lose major employers, jobs, and in some cases residents. These trends are exacerbating long-standing racial and income disparities, which have been deepened by COVID-19’s infection rates and economic impacts. The need to address the persistent racial and income segregation common in smaller legacy cities is more urgent than ever. Equitable development offers a new playbook to address inequality while increasing economic competitiveness. 

Strategic work to improve these indicators will provide more opportunities for many residents and will increase potential for broader economic recovery. New investment needs to include deliberate interventions to correct these damaging inequalities. Some smaller legacy cities are experiencing revitalization, but the investments typically do not benefit the city as a whole (Mallach 2014). To reach everyone, revitalization strategies need to be deliberately designed to improve equity outcomes. This report offers numerous examples of how smaller legacy cities can enhance equitable development and set the stage for healthy, sustainable economic recovery. Our strategies acknowledge the importance of relationships and trust in sustaining meaningful, equitable development work. This work can lead to a sense of common destiny among diverse groups and help address disparities and improve economic prospects for the whole city. 

Erica Spaid Patras is the senior manager of special projects at the Greater Ohio Policy Center. She studies the impact of potential public policy changes on the real estate market, manages a community of practice focused on expanding access to capital in underinvested neighborhoods and communities across Ohio, and evaluates the impact of transportation policy in Ohio. She holds a master of city planning degree from the University of California, Berkeley, and a B.A. from Macalester College in St. Paul, Minnesota. 

Alison Goebel is the executive director at the Greater Ohio Policy Center. She is responsible for charting the center’s strategic direction; directing the research, advocacy, and outreach teams; and securing resources for this work. She is the author of numerous research reports and policy briefs on the revitalization of weak-market cities, transportation funding, and local governance structures in Ohio. She holds a Ph.D. and an M.A. in anthropology from the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, and a B.A. from Miami University in Oxford, Ohio. 

Lindsey Elam is the manager of research at the Greater Ohio Policy Center. She has a master’s degree in city and regional planning and a B.S. in social work, both from the Ohio State University. She is a certified planner (AICP) with the American Planning Association and a LEED Green Associate through the U.S. Green Building Council, and she has completed trainings through the Form-Based Codes Institute.

Lead image: The Erie Downtown Development Corporation, a nonprofit in Erie, Pennsylvania, has increased Erie revitalization capacity and redevelopment funding—and also sponsors the annual Celebrate Erie festival, which traditionally includes this community-driven Chalk Walk. Credit: Robert Frank.

References 

Benner, Chris, and Manuel Pastor. 2012. Just Growth: Inclusion and Prosperity in America. New York, NY: Routledge.  

———. 2015. Equity, Growth, and Community: What the Nation Can Learn from America’s Metro Areas. Oakland, CA: University of California Press. 

Blackwell, Angela Glover. 2016. “Equity Is . . .” Putnam Consulting Group. October 5. https://putnam-consulting.com/practical-tips-for-philanthropists/equity-is. 

Brachman, Lavea. 2020. The Perils and Promise of America’s Legacy Cities in the Pandemic Era. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. 

Eberts, Randall, George Erickcek, and Jack Kleinhenz. 2006. Dashboard Indicators for the Northeast Ohio Economy: Prepared for the Fund for Our Economic Future. Cleveland, OH: Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland. 

Economic Innovation Group. 2020. “Neighborhood Poverty Project, Interactive Map.” https://eig.org/neighborhood-poverty-project/interactive-map. 

Ferguson Commission. 2015. Forward Through Ferguson: A Path Toward Racial Equity. St. Louis, MO: St. Louis Positive Change. 

Frolik, Cornelius. 2020. “More Than 100 Volunteer to Help Dayton Develop Police Reforms.” Dayton Daily News. June 30. www.daytondailynews.com/news/local/100-people-agree-help-dayton-reform-police/lfxIZ7GOeZhZCVeXk663KK. 

Greater Ohio Policy Center. 2020. A Mortal Threat to Ohio’s Economic Competitiveness: SB352, HB754, and the Buckeye Institute Lawsuit. Columbus, OH: Greater Ohio Policy Center. 

Hollingsworth, Torey, and Alison Goebel. 2017. Revitalizing America’s Smaller Legacy Cities: Strategies for Postindustrial Success from Gary to Lowell. Policy Focus Report. Columbus, OH: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and Greater Ohio Policy Center. 

Mallach, Alan. 2014. The Uncoupling of the Economic City. Washington, DC: Urban Affairs Review. 

———. 2018. The Divided City: Poverty and Prosperity in Urban America. Washington, DC: Island Press. 

McFarland, Christiana K., and Michael A. Pagano. 2020. City Fiscal Conditions 2020. Washington, DC: National League of Cities. 

Pastor, Manuel, and Chris Benner. 2008. “Been Down So Long: Weak-Market Cities and Regional Equity.” In Retooling for Growth: Building a 21st Century Economy in America’s Older Industrial Areas, ed. Richard M. McGahey and Jennifer S. Vey, 89–118. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. 

Petersen, Anne Helen. 2020. “Why the Small Protests in Small Towns Across America Matter.” BuzzFeed News. June 3. www.buzzfeednews.com/article/annehelenpetersen/black-lives-matter-protests-near-me-small-towns. 

Poethig, Erika, Solomon Greene, Christina Stacy, Tanaya Srini, and Brady Meisell. 2018. Inclusive Recovery in U.S. Cities. Washington, DC: Urban Institute. 

Turner, Margery Austin, Solomon Greene, Anthony Iton, and Ruth Gourevitch. 2018. Opportunity Neighborhoods: Building the Foundation for Economic Mobility in America’s Metros. Washington, DC: U.S. Partnership on Mobility from Poverty. 

Walliser-Wejebe, Maria. 2020. “Communities Across the State Declare Racism as a Public Health Crisis, the State Considers It.” Greater Ohio Policy Center blog. July 21. https://www.greaterohio.org/blog/2020/7/16/communities-across-the-state-declare-racism-as-a-public-health-crisis-the-state-considers-it. 
 

Among its many consequences, the pandemic ushered in a period of experimental, rapid-fire adjustments to public space. Cities were suddenly tweaking zoning rules to allow more outdoor dining, blocking off streets to give pedestrians and bicyclists more space, and figuring out how to respond to dramatic upticks in food and retail pickup and delivery. It has been a pivotal stretch, in short, for managing the curb. 

Even before the lockdowns began, the increasing popularity of transportation network companies—from ridesharing services like Uber and Lyft to scooter firms like Bird and Lime—had made curb management a rising priority for many cities. “In today’s urban fabric, few spaces are more contested than the curb,” the American Planning Association declared back in the before-times of 2019. 

But the welter of recent experiments, some involving deployment of new technologies, seems even more significant. Consider the case of Aspen, Colorado. Aspen is an unusual municipality, with a downtown business district that is geographically modest, at just 16 square blocks. Nevertheless, it’s extremely busy: the retail and restaurant businesses there rack up a collective $1 billion a year. The inevitable upshot is that demand for curb space—for parking, for deliveries—can outpace supply. And that makes Aspen a useful curb-management lab. 

In February 2020, Aspen joined a group of municipalities exploring pilot programs with a start-up called Coord, one of a number of “smart city” tech companies with a curb-management bent. “I’m a data freak,” explains Mitch Osur, Aspen’s director of parking and downtown services. He figured that at the very least, Coord’s platform—which integrates “smart zones” with a payment app used by delivery drivers (and a separate app for enforcement officers)—could give him fresh insight into how the downtown streets are really being used. 

The city identified what it believed were its busiest loading zones. Starting in November 2020, using these zones required booking space through Coord’s app, at a cost of $2 an hour. While regular street parking in downtown Aspen can cost $6 an hour, the city (like many others) had never previously charged for loading, but figured it was necessary to get delivery fleets’ attention. In the end there wasn’t much pushback; most drivers appreciated being able to capture a time slot. When one shipping fleet manager questioned the scheme, Osur explained that the shipper could use other loading zones, but the data Aspen was collecting would affect policy decisions about curbs across the downtown area. “If you’re not part of the program, your data won’t count,” he added. Moreover, he was sharing data with participants and soliciting their input. The shipper signed on. 

Because the Coord platform tracks actual usage of the smart loading zones, Osur did indeed get plenty of fresh data. Some was expected, some surprising. He figured average “dwell times” were about 30 minutes, and found they were averaging 39 minutes and 13 seconds. The dwell times were longer in the morning and shrank to about 15 minutes after 2 p.m. He was surprised to learn that the busiest days weren’t Monday and Friday, as expected, but Tuesday and Thursday; Wednesday’s loading zone use was half that of peak days. Based on these insights, Aspen is planning to change the rules for some zones, converting them to regular parking at 11 a.m. on some days rather than 6 p.m. (Osur has seen other changes as a result of adopting Coord; drivers have stopped snagging space early and eating lunch in loading zones, a previously routine practice.) 

Coord has run similar pilots in Omaha, Nashville, and other cities. But it is just one entity involved in curb-management experiments. Cox Communications, through its Cox2M “internet of things” division, is testing curbside kiosks that can essentially monitor dwell times in loading zones and present a countdown clock warning drivers not to overstay their time on the curb; the technology can alert city enforcement when drivers linger. Las Vegas is running a pilot program with the technology, which can also be used to manage commercial deliveries, a Cox official told Government Technology. Columbus, Ohio, and Washington, DC, have run pilots with another app, curbFlow, designed to coordinate deliveries from multiple services along particularly busy curb stretches. 

Technology such as video kiosks and app-based location trackers adds both new options and new complexity to the business of managing curbs. Traditionally, defining curb use has involved signage and paint, which are hard to tweak quickly, notes Anne Goodchild, professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of Washington, whose Urban Freight Lab has focused on public-private efforts to address evolving delivery logistics and planning. 

Perhaps because of the pandemic, cities have been more willing to try new options. Before the pandemic, a curb change would have entailed lengthy public processes. The crisis showed that a more nimble alternative was possible. “We did some things differently,” Goodchild says. “For example, we changed curb allocations literally overnight.” 

The pandemic pushed a fast-forward button on both new patterns of street usage and policy responses to those patterns, says Heather Hannon, associate director of planning practice and scenario planning at the Lincoln Institute. During the pandemic, the organization’s Big City Planning Directors Institute shifted from a twice-yearly gathering to a monthly one (held virtually, of course). The pandemic, she points out, “was a reason to try new things.” 

Hannon has observed a spike in interest in scenario planning for potential futures among U.S. communities since the pandemic began. She also points out that curb management isn’t merely an issue for downtowns or commercial districts, noting that it tilts into residential neighborhoods as well. The demand for home delivery has soared: food-delivery apps doubled their revenues in a six-month period during 2020 compared to the same period in 2019, and e-commerce in the United States grew 44 percent in 2020 compared to the previous year. These trends will only be complicated by the experiments with robots and drones that policy makers increasingly have to accommodate. 

Aspen, meanwhile, has expanded its pilot program, adding new loading zones to the experiment as the number of participating drivers keeps growing. While it is just one experiment in a small city, it overlaps with a singular moment in the way citizens and businesses use technology to interact with planned spaces, opening a window onto how planners and policy makers might think about the future of the curb. “This is totally scalable,” Osur says, referring not to any specific app or technology but to the general idea of cities using new tools to more actively manage the curb. “This is the future.” 

Rob Walker is a journalist covering design, technology, and other subjects. He is the author of The Art of Noticing. His newsletter is at robwalker.substack.com. 

Image: Curb management has become a rising priority in cities including Las Vegas, where Cox Communications is piloting curbside kiosks that monitor dwell times in loading zones. Credit: Courtesy of Cox Communications.

This content was developed through a partnership between the Lincoln Institute and the American Planning Association as part of the APA Foresight practice. It was originally published in APA’s Planning magazine. 

“The world turns and we get dizzy.” That’s how Bono would put it.

He’s right: the world’s accelerations, constant technological disruptions, social inequalities, and changing climate are only a few of the dizzying, mind-boggling challenges today’s planners face. Many of them have been with us for a while. But then came COVID-19, which has catalyzed technological disruptions, amplified our awareness of the effects and pervasiveness of social injustice, and sparked countless other challenges.

Some of these trends have such big implications, are so urgent, or are just moving so fast that planners and the profession have no choice but to stay on top of them. That’s where APA Foresight comes in. In partnership with the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, APA’s research team has been looking into existing and emerging trends in the profession so that we can understand the drivers of change, learn how we can prepare for them, and identify when it is time for planners to act. For this article, we explore what you need to know about seven of the most pressing trends for the profession today.

1. Transit ridership has dropped low. Planners will need to aim high. During the COVID-19 pandemic, transit ridership tanked. New York City saw a 60 percent decrease in subway riders, while San Francisco reported a 90 percent loss of passengers using Bay Area Rapid Transit. The national number of vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) has returned to pre-pandemic levels, but transit ridership is only slowly recovering (and in some places, barely so). There are other modes, like active transportation and shared micromobility options—plus potential newcomers in the next five to 10 years like autonomous vehicles and urban air mobility—that may seem like competitors to transit instead of promising partners.

A pandemic made it even more obvious that, in most cities, people who can afford to live close to transit are not always those who rely on it for mobility. Essential workers without the option to work remotely have faced service disruptions—and there were already access and quality issues before. On top of that, most cities’ transit systems were designed to serve downtown commuters working nine-to-five jobs, which captures a fraction of the transit need, and is even more clear as city centers continue to be underused.

As in-person activities resume, transit agencies and planners will need to rebuild confidence in local transit systems. Ridership patterns before the pandemic—and what became standard during the pandemic—should not be the baseline for transportation planning going forward. 

Agile transit solutions are needed to allow for more flexible options outside a nine-to-five work schedule and to accommodate changing mobility needs and behaviors. Equitable transit is imperative to serve those who need it. Partnerships and collaboration with emerging transportation systems will enable transit agencies to be nimble and ensure fair access for all. Meanwhile, transit systems need to expand their capabilities by making immediate improvements in service and reliability, as well as committing to long-term investments. 

2. Technology is transforming communities. Planners will need to adapt to capture the benefits. In the last two decades, we have moved from an information age to a digital era. Today, advances in digital technology affect almost every aspect in life: how people live, work, play, and move around town; how businesses communicate with their customers; and even how people make decisions on what jobs to apply for, who to befriend, or who to go on a date with. Though this digital era started only two decades ago, it has been accelerating at an unprecedented pace.

The concept of “smart cities” is a logical consequence and a development of this era, prompting the digital transformation of entire cities and communities. It includes not just the operation of a city and related processes, systems, and communication streams, but also the processes planners use to make plans for a community, collect and use data, and implement their plans.

In this digital era, it is vital that planners learn about smart city concepts and how they can use smart tech to achieve community goals so their communities can benefit from them instead of being harmed by them. Adjusting planning processes to this digital environment and adding new tools, relevant skills, and knowledge to the planner’s repertoire will be crucial for planners to be able to continue creating great communities for all. (A forthcoming PAS Report on smart cities will help fill the knowledge gap, defining smart cities as those that equitably integrate community, nature, and technology and that foster innovation, participation, and co-creation. The report, due later this year, also will explain the role of the planner and identify necessary skills, methods, and approaches. Stay tuned!)

3. Artificial intelligence is on the rise, but the human factor in planning is still crucial. Artificial intelligence has been in development since the 1950s. However, because of the availability of big data and increased computing power, the AI market has grown substantially over the last decade and is expected to grow 20 percent annually over the next few years. While the data-based automated decision-making capabilities of AI will create myriad opportunities to improve current planning processes, data gaps and algorithmic bias pose the risk of exacerbating existing inequalities—and even creating new ones.

Planners and allied professionals should have a strong understanding of the potential impacts and benefits posed by AI on the profession and their communities. AI is already reshaping the local landscape, and it is important to understand how planners can use AI equitably and sustainably. Some important issues to consider are privacy concerns, data quality, and the potential bias of AI.

Additionally, it will be important to emphasize the human factor of planning. While AI will enable us to automate repetitive and tedious tasks such as traffic counts, checking boxes on a list, or certain permitting processes, it won’t be able to replace the human being behind the planner, the change agent who can connect with the individual community members, and the facilitator who can listen to people’s needs and concerns.

4. High and varied demand on public space will require a balancing act. More and more activities are vying for a limited amount of public space. Sidewalks aren’t just pedestrian paths to a destination anymore (but were they ever?). They are also hubs for outdoor dining and farmers markets. When streets are too dangerous and bike lanes are nowhere to be found, sidewalks accommodate scooter riders and bicyclists. Soon, they might even become a path for little robots making autonomous deliveries. Meanwhile, plazas and parks are sites for public gatherings—from protests to picnics to concerts. Roads might handle automobile traffic on weekdays, but during weekends or evenings, they could seamlessly reconfigure into “no car zones.” And curbs are especially in high demand, whether they are for parking cars and micromobility vehicles, dropping off transit or rideshare passengers, or serving as zones for traditional or last-mile autonomous delivery.

People are always going to find a way to creatively shape the public realm. Planners need to foster spaces that are adaptable and responsive to the different types of people who use them. The key focus for planners will be to ensure accessibility and minimize exclusion when balancing these activities. Every community wants bustling public spaces, but planners understand that this should not come at the expense of people’s well-being.

With multiple players, functions, and purposes, planners need to redefine what “shared streets” can mean. They especially need to advocate for the most vulnerable (and traditionally, least protected) people who need and deserve access to public space, such as people with disabilities and those experiencing homelessness.

5. Climate action will take center stage—and have greater urgency. The first 100 days of the Biden administration established a promising policy environment for climate change action at all levels. Now, it’s up to planning practitioners to advance (or initiate) climate-related projects and plans.

Local and state officials have undoubtedly been leading the push for climate action in recent years. With renewed commitment at the national level, they can breathe a little easier. But the situation still requires urgent action. As hundreds of scientists recently announced, this is not a climate crisis anymore; it’s a climate emergency.

Planners can take advantage of federal and state funding, tools, and incentives to implement climate change mitigation and adaptation activities. This might include reducing carbon emissions by investing in renewable energy or supporting the green economy.

State and local governments can also expect more opportunities to engage with federal policy makers and to represent their unique perspective on climate action. And even though COVID-19 recovery might be a top priority in the short-term, climate action is compatible with these activities and can’t be pushed off any longer.

6. Communities are more diverse than ever. So are their needs and experiences. The increase in population diversity requires new planning approaches that can reflect the realities of people across various identities, such as race, age, gender, ability, or religion. This demands that planners view people as more than neat and tidy population groups, but rather as fully realized individuals with unique experiences and needs.

Most practitioners already recognize that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to planning. But the profession also needs to start reconsidering the idea that planning is neutral.

Integrating the context and situation of a community when choosing effective practices and solutions can lead to more conscious, intentional planning. In other words, planning needs to be more dynamic—not neutral—in order to be ready for diversity in the communities that planners serve.

Practitioners should be able to quickly tailor planning solutions to the needs of the least supported, most vulnerable individuals in a community. By pursuing planning exercises that consider life at the individual level, the profession can be more mindful of those who exist at the intersection of multiple identities and how planning solutions might impact them. This can humanize the individuals within a community instead of assuming the experiences of population groups are homogenous, resulting in more dynamic planning with more equitable results.

7. The future of work and workplaces will impact how we use urban space. During the COVID-19 lockdown in the spring of 2020, more than 60 percent of the U.S. workforce was working from home, and many continue to do so. The pandemic has accelerated the digitalization of work. Meanwhile, companies are rethinking their office space needs and considering work-from-anywhere policies or hybrids that allow for smaller to no office space, which comes with significant cost savings. The shift from central business districts to a decentralized, work-from-anywhere approach could bring myriad opportunities to change how we use urban space for the better, if planners are ready.

Previously residential-only neighborhoods will have to accommodate their remotely working residents, adding retail, restaurants and coffee shops, parks, and other amenities typically adjacent to offices. For workers who don’t have the space for an office at home or simply don’t want to stay home all day, neighborhood coworking spaces will be needed. Homogenous places will shift to mixed-use, walkable neighborhoods that allow the community to socialize and connect with one another.

Vacant office and retail spaces can be repurposed to affordable housing or coliving and coworking spaces. Obsolete parking spaces can be converted into neighborhood parks. Creative thinking can lead to solutions to the housing crisis, as well as the mental health crisis that stems from extended isolation and other traumas experienced during COVID-19.

Ultimately, if jobs are not a reason to move to a city anymore, improved quality of life will become the main attraction. So planners may need to redefine what gets prioritized in their communities accordingly.

The world keeps turning and change stops for no one. That’s why APA Foresight is here. APA researchers, in partnership with the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, are already preparing for our next cycle of trend research to help the profession learn with and prepare for an uncertain future. 

City planners are emerging from behind the scenes to help address some of society’s most complex challenges, including building equity and fighting racism. This summer a coalition of planners came together to acknowledge past discrimination in urban development policies and commit to becoming “change agents” to help create more racially equitable communities.

The new approach starts with a better community engagement process, says Eleanor Sharpe, executive director at the Philadelphia City Planning Commission and a coauthor of the newly released Commitment to Change. Sharpe is one of 20 urban planners across the United States who have signed the statement; the group is inviting other planning directors, in cities and towns of all sizes, to sign on.

Sharpe joined Andrea Durbin, director of planning and sustainability for the city of Portland, Oregon, and a fellow signatory, on Land Matters, the podcast of the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Sharpe and her colleagues have embraced the idea of “moving at the speed of trust,” she says, describing the process as “very slow, very intentional, very careful listening, hearing, learning. . . . We want to amplify the lived experience of the people, and that this is not just solely professional planners who are making determinations.”

The planners’ initiative is part of a reckoning about structural racism in American society—economic forces, institutions, and interactions that have discrimination baked in. That includes buying a home, for example, because of racial covenants and the practice of redlining, which saw federal lending guidelines deny loans to those in neighborhoods with people of color or immigrants. Such policies denied the wealth that comes with homeownership—an impact felt over generations.

Governments implemented other harmful policies: the bulldozing of Black neighborhoods during the time of urban renewal; plowing freeways through those same neighborhoods, casting shadows and blighting everything nearby; setting zoning to favor the white and wealthy in single-family homes; and designing poor-quality public housing in isolated locations.

The harsh treatment of these communities “wasn’t an afterthought,” said Sharpe. “It was deliberate.”

Although city planners were not directly or solely responsible for each of those decisions, the planning profession has been in some ways complicit in setting the stage for racial segregation, according to the planners’ statement.
 
“We’ve seen the impacts of past policies across our nation,” says Durbin. “The planning directors that we’re working with are coming together and saying . . . that we need to recognize that, we need to own that, acknowledge it, and make changes.”

Joining several other cities, Portland recently banned zoning that allows only single-family houses, opening the way for more affordable multi-family housing in prime neighborhoods. “Our first zoning code was adopted in 1924, and back then, single-family zoning was applied to the 15 highest quality neighborhoods . . . embedding exclusionary practices into our zoning policies from the very beginning,” Durbin says. “These are areas that are near transit and other key amenities, good schools. We needed to provide more [housing] choices for our residents.”

This kind of work can be fraught. Cities that change zoning to encourage more housing development, or take advantage of federal funding to dismantle urban freeways, face the specter of fueling gentrification.

“This is the ultimate conundrum, especially in cities that have challenging areas of poverty and disenfranchisement—the fear [that] any improvement will result in a completely new population moving in, displacing the existing population, some of whom have lived in these areas through all its challenges,” Sharpe says.

The planners acknowledge they are stepping out with more prominence than has generally been the case for the profession, but they say the moment calls for a new approach.

“We just need to flip the script,” says Durbin. “The question is, how do we use our tools, land use planning, zoning tools to advance racial equity, build community wealth, increase economic opportunities for Black, Indigenous, and communities of color? We need to be intentional about who benefits, who’s burdened, and ensure that community benefits and public good are centered in our planning processes, and that we’re planning for those who’ve been most underserved.” 

The new initiative emerged from a network of planners from major U.S. cities, who convene each year to exchange ideas, with facilitation by the Lincoln Institute, the American Planning Association, and the Harvard University Graduate School of Design. In this 75th anniversary year—the Lincoln Institute started as the Lincoln Foundation in 1946—the Lincoln Institute is exploring how this program and others have evolved over the years, and how they are being applied now to some of the world’s most pressing challenges.

You can listen to the show and subscribe to Land Matters on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

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

Lead Photograph: Eleanor Sharpe, executive director at the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. Credit: Altamira Film Co.

Related Content

Philadelphia 2035

Reimagine Philadelphia Steering Committee Begins Work

Philadelphia Department of Planning and Development Cultural Resources Survey Request For Qualifications

Portland 2035 Comprehensive Plan

Portland’s Residential Infill Project

Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability Anti-Displacement Action Plan Foundation Report released

History of Racist Planning in Portland

American Planning Association, Equity Diversity Inclusion

Land Lines: Think Land Policy Is Unrelated to Racial Injustice? Think Again.

Land Lines: Race and Rezoning: Louisville Designs a More Equitable Future by Confronting the Past

CityLab: What It Looks Like to Reconnect Black Communities Torn Apart by Highways