SHARE
Since first holding democratic elections at the national and provincial levels in 1994, South Africa has undertaken far-reaching constitutional changes. Arguably, the most fundamental transformation is taking place at the local government level, where the divisions created by apartheid were most severe. These changes were set in motion by the Local Government Transition Act of 1993, and during 1994-1995 the formerly racially segregated urban local authorities were amalgamated into a variety of non-racial transitional councils:
In non-metropolitan areas, the former regional services councils were transformed into district councils, thereby retaining a secondary tier of local government in rural areas.
In March 1998 the national government published the White Paper on Local Government, which set out its vision for the future of local government. The White Paper resulted in passage of the Local Government Demarcation Act and the Local Government: Municipal Structures Act. Under the Demarcation Act, the Municipal Demarcation Board was established to assign new boundaries for the different categories of municipal governments throughout the country. The present 843 transitional municipalities are to be severely reorganized after the local elections in November 2000 into 284 newly demarcated municipalities (see Table 1).
Within the six metropolitan areas to be established, single-tier metropolitan municipalities will replace the TMCs and TMLCs. In the non-metropolitan areas 47 district municipalities will replace the present 42 district councils. Each district municipality will consist of two or more (primary-tier) local municipalities to replace the present local and rural councils. A typical future local municipality will consist of a number of neighboring towns and their rural hinterland. In sparsely populated rural areas where the establishment of a local municipality is not viable (designated as district management areas), a district municipality will be the only form of local government.
Municipal Finance Reform
The structural reforms at the local government level also require reform of municipal finances. The government is currently preparing two important pieces of legislation in this regard, the Local Government: Property Rates Bill (dealing exclusively with property taxation) and the Municipal Finance Management Bill.
Section 229 of South Africa’s Constitution guarantees “rates on property” (i.e., the property tax) as an autonomous source of revenue for municipalities. It states that the “power of a municipality to impose rates on property…may be regulated by national legislation.” National framework legislation regarding the property tax is indeed needed for the following reasons:
Therefore, the Local Government: Property Rates Bill, currently in its 10th draft, is to be welcomed, at least in principle. It has not yet been published for public comment and may be further amended. However, when this bill is eventually passed into law, it will regulate the levying, assessing and collection of property taxes by municipalities.
Policy Issues in the Property Rates Bill
Diversity of Tax Bases
Urban municipalities generally have a choice between three tax bases, which are spread remarkably evenly throughout the country:
Earlier drafts of the Property Rates Bill retained this diversity as well as local choice. However, clause 5(1) of the 10th draft of the bill now states that a rate levied on property “must be…an amount in the Rand (South Africa’s currency) determined by the municipality on the improved value of the property.” Although it seems that government has opted for a single tax base (i.e., improved capital value), the bill goes on to provide that a rate levied on the “improved value of property may be composed of separate amounts on the site value of the property and the value of the improvements.” By implication, therefore, composite rating and site rating have been retained (if the amount in the Rand on improvements is set at zero).
Extension of the Tax Base and Possible Exclusions
In principle a municipality may tax “all property in its municipal area,” including areas where the property tax has not been levied before, such as agricultural and tribal land. However, the bill also allows a municipality to exclude a category or categories of property from rating. These excluded properties need not be reflected in the valuation roll.
McCluskey and Franzsen (2000) suggest several reasons why municipalities should include all properties in the valuation roll, and then allow specific exemptions rather than exclusions from the taxing process. First, it can be difficult to justify and defend exclusions constitutionally; second, it is politically easier to phase out an exemption than to introduce a tax on formerly excluded properties; and third, if properties are not valued and thus not reflected in the valuation roll, the extent of the tax base relinquished through exclusions is not known.
“Public infrastructure” is to be excluded from the tax base. This will have significant implications, particularly for municipalities with large tracts of land owned by public utility companies, and may need to be reconsidered in light of privatization. International practice suggests that public utilities should be rated at least on their operational land.
Differentiation and Phasing-in of Rates
Current legislation only provides for rate uniformity throughout a municipal area. However, municipalities sometimes achieve effective differentiation by granting arbitrary rebates to certain properties on the basis of zoning. For example, all improved residential properties in the Pretoria TMLC are presently granted a 35 percent rebate.
The bill provides that different rates may be levied for different categories of property according to use, status or location-a critical point in light of the extension of municipal boundaries into rural areas. For example, it would be possible for a future local municipality (comprising various small towns, commercial farmland and tribal land) to have the following different property categories (and therefore different tax rates):
However, a municipality will have to justify its differential rate schedule in an annually revised rates policy document presented to all taxpayers. Although municipalities may be permitted to treat ratepayers differently, they must justify this action. The bill also allows for the phasing-in of rates over a three-year period with respect to property not subject to property taxation before 1 July 1999 (e.g., tribal land). In certain instances the period may be extended for a further three years.
Tax Rates
The bill (clause 5(2)) states that municipalities may set their own tax rates. However, the Minister for Local Government, in concurrence with the Minister of Finance, may set a limit or rate cap on the amount. Apart from reducing municipalities’ fiscal autonomy, rate caps set nationally may not reflect differences in taxing capacity that exist between municipalities (see Table 2).
An alternative, and more practical, “capping” measure that has been inserted in the 10th draft (clause 5(3)(a)(ii)) is to limit the annual tax rate increases, not unlike one part of Proposition 13 in California.
Extension of Property Tax to Tribal Land
Extending property taxation to tribal land is an area of major political concern and is fraught with practical problems. “Ownership” of tribal land is not uniform, and some tribal authorities are not prepared to accept any form of local government within their area of jurisdiction, let alone any form of taxation of “their” land. Identifying the taxpayer may be problematic. Furthermore, formal ownership of tribal land seldom reflects the complex system of tenure rights of the individuals entitled to the use of that land. Even if it were possible to identify a taxpayer and establish an assessed value for (tribal) “property,” the abject poverty and inability of residents in many tribal areas to pay any tax will have to be considered. In fact, few tribal areas presently receive municipal services that could justify the introduction of a property tax.
Rates Policy
Clause 13 of the bill requires municipalities to adopt a rates policy and then levy rates accordingly. This is a welcome change. The rates policy, which is to be reviewed annually, must explain and justify the provision of exemptions, rebates, reductions and relief for the poor. This policy should significantly enhance the transparency, efficiency and accountability of municipal councils, and perhaps encourage compliance.
Valuation Quality Control
Another welcome aspect in the bill concerns monitoring valuation quality for equity and consistency across the country. However, the bill (clause 64) confers this responsibility on the Minister responsible for local government. McCluskey and Franzsen (2000) suggest that an independent and professional valuation agency, preferably at the national level, should be established for this highly technical task. Such agencies exist in Australia, New Zealand and Canada. In South Africa, this type of agency should perform the following primary tasks:
The monitoring service could well be expanded to provide valuation advice, expertise and data to municipalities. Such an agency could also undertake valuations of property for other taxes levied at the national level, such as estate and gift taxes.
Conclusion
The Local Government: Property Rates Bill should provide a solid framework for property taxation as South Africa begins to implement its new local government structure. If municipalities adhere to the principles articulated in the bill, a more uniform, equitable and efficient property tax system will play an even more important role in the future.
Riël C.D. Franzsen is professor in the Department of Mercantile Law at the University of South Africa in Pretoria, South Africa. His research on property tax reform in South Africa has been supported in part by the Lincoln Institute.
References
Budget Review 2000: Chapter 7. South Africa Department of Finance. http://www.finance.gov.za/b/budget_00/default.htm
Franzsen, R.C.D. 1999. Property taxation in South Africa. In W.J. McCluskey (ed.) Property Tax: An International Comparative Review. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 337-357.
Local Government: Property Rates Bill. 2000. 10th draft. South Africa Department of Provincial and Local Government.
McCluskey, W.J., and R.C.D. Franzsen. 2000. Some policy issues regarding the Local Government: Property Rates Bill. SA Mercantile Law Journal 12: 209-223.
Over the last two decades, and especially in the last few years, land regularization and upgrading programs have been implemented in informal settlements by central, regional and local governments in several Latin American countries. Important lessons must be learned from this incipient practice of urban policy making, not only to contribute toward improving existing experiences, but also to guide those governments that are confronting the phenomenon for the first time, or more likely are confronting the need to design policies to deal with significant increases in informal urban development.
To address this need, the Lincoln Institute sponsored its third offering of the course Informal Markets and Land Regularization Programs in Urban Areas, in November 2003. It was held in Recife, Brazil because of the city’s historic tradition of urban policy making, including its regularization program (PREZEIS), which for the past 20 years has been a pioneering instrument, despite its many shortcomings. The course brought together about 35 people with varied academic backgrounds and institutional positions representing 10 Latin American countries: Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela.
The 13 intertwined lessons offered here draw on the papers presented in Recife and on experiences discussed in the two previous courses in 2001 and 2002, as well as ideas generated in the meeting of the Institute’s Latin American Network on Land Regularization in Brasília, Brazil, in July 2003. This brief, critical analysis of land regularization programs reflects contributions from many people, but the authors take full responsibility for any misrepresentations that a general synthesis like this one may produce (see Figure 1).
1. The Process of Favelización
The process of informal production of urban space is increasing at a significant pace in Latin America, despite the fact that, unlike Africa and Asia, the region has been solidly urbanized for many decades. Occupied areas are becoming denser, and new settlements are being formed daily. Increasingly, these occupations encroach on environmentally sensitive areas, near protected water reservoirs, on public land, and in other areas not suitable for human occupation or economically feasible in the formal land market. This process has created all sorts of harmful repercussions—socio-environmental, legal, economic, political and cultural—not only for the millions of residents living in informal settlements, but also for city governments and the entire urban population. Despite the many regularization and upgrading programs implemented in the last few decades, the development rate of new informal settlements has been twice and even three times that of urban population growth. Thus, increasing informality is not exclusively the result of demographic change or even the increase in urban poverty, which also has been growing but at a much lower rate.
2. The Vicious Cycle of Informality
Multiple factors are responsible for the establishment of informal settlements. Over and above demographics and macroeconomic factors affecting urban poverty (employment and income policies), local variables contribute to the “unexplained variance” of increasing informality. By acting or failing to act, local authorities have fomented the growth of the phenomenon through exclusionary land use regulation, favoring wealthy neighborhoods in the spatial allocation of public investments, outright complicity with the delinquent practices of land subdividers, and inadequate local fiscal policies.
The corollary of this tolerance of informality is of great importance for land pricing policy. The informal market values and benefits from greater regulatory freedom and from the social values associated with traditional networks among residents within the settlements. Both of these dynamics affect prices in the informal market, which are reaching absurd levels. For example, a 6-square-meter (60-square-foot) wooden shack on a mangrove swamp in Recife has been valued at US$1,300. Such extremes and variations in prices reflect the diversity of informal processes at work in the access to urban land and housing, both among different settlements and within each settlement. Attacking the factors responsible for the vicious cycle of price formation should be an indispensable ingredient of any policy seeking to mitigate the consequences of informality.
3. A World of Diversity
Far from being a homogeneous phenomenon, informality manifests itself in many forms, contexts and places. Enormous differences may be found within and between settlements in the same city, not to mention among cities within a country and among cities in different countries. Each informal area has good and bad neighborhoods; relatively high-valued and low-valued areas; an uneven distribution of whatever services are available; and properties with different types of tenure rights. The income levels of many families in informal areas also are variable and in some cases are well above those of families in formal areas who are typically expected to pay for certain publicly provided services and benefits.
In comparing the archipelago of informal settlements distributed within formal neighborhoods in Latin America, property price gradients have been found to be uncorrelated, revealing altogether different market forces. Although both formal and informal areas are subject to vigorous land markets, the intervening price determinants are of different orders of magnitude. As mentioned above, regulatory freedoms, as well as longstanding informal networks that support the exchange of intangible benefits, affect property values. These realities must be taken into account when designing regularization programs that can offer positive reform of traditional practices.
There is also a need to adjust the programs to the different conditions of newly occupied areas and long-established settlements in consolidated areas. A clearer chain of market transactions can be traced in the newer occupations, whereas there is usually no linear succession of transactions in older areas. Furthermore, established settlements reflect a complex overlay of informally defined rights and transactions, such as rooftops sold to a third party as buildable “land,” which in turn may give rise to an additional living space. It is by no means clear whether regularization programs should start with recent occupations, where the costs of upgrading are lower and degrees of freedom are greater, or with older, consolidated areas that present more pressing social consequences, but where some legal rights may already exist.
4. Tolerance of Informality
Despite all the negative implications, public authorities have tolerated informal urban development processes, whether because of neglect, political convenience, ambiguous actions or even direct promotion of informal occupations. There is, however, little understanding that such tolerance generates rights over time and little information about the extremely high costs, both absolute and relative, of what is involved in upgrading programs. At the same time, tolerance of informal occupations is accompanied by a growing acceptance by both public authorities and public opinion that consolidated settlements should be upgraded with services, equipment and infrastructure. A recent study conducted by Cities Alliance in Brazil shows that the decision to regularize an irregular settlement is often made more quickly than the decision to approve a new regular settlement (six months versus two or three years).
This official tolerance also applies to the acceptance of “second-class solutions” for “second-class citizens” and often results in the early deterioration of upgraded areas. The combination of poor-quality materials and low-cost, unconventional techniques used in upgraded areas, as well as greater pressure on the existing infrastructure because of increased densification, renders the infrastructure obsolete and incurs high maintenance costs. Moreover, upgraded areas usually are not properly integrated into the municipal fiscal system. Throughout the region, the fiscal irresponsibility of municipal administrators is aggravated further by their failure to take responsibility for the broader scope of territorial development, as well as for their negligence or at best paternalistic attitude toward these regularized settlements.
5. Expectations and Land Values
Regularization programs to date have addressed a very small percentage of existing informal settlements, and as a result the vast majority of people living informally have not benefited from any type of public intervention. Furthermore, many regularization programs have been formulated without a proper understanding of the causes of informality, and they often deliver counterproductive results that contribute to the process of increasing socio-spatial segregation.
The mere expectation of upgrading puts a premium value on the land designated for improvements, thus significantly impacting prices in the informal market. The higher the expectation that an area will be regularized in the future, the higher the premium on that land and the higher the market demand for lower-priced subdivisions elsewhere. This suggests two approaches to upgrading: comprehensive programs for everyone in a few places coordinated with policies to change future expectations about cost recovery schemes; or partial upgrading in all informal areas of the city so expectations about market activity will be more balanced and consistent. The importance of integrating upgraded areas into municipal fiscal systems is not yet properly understood.
6. Isolated and Fragmented Policies
Public intervention in informal settlements through regularization programs has been promoted in an isolated, sectoral way without the necessary integration between such programs and the wider context of urban land management policies that have a direct bearing on such settlements. These policies include construction of social housing; rehabilitation of dilapidated urban centers; occupation of vacant areas and buildings; broader spatial allocation of public investments in urban infrastructure and services; modernization of tax collections and cadastres; and public-private partnerships. Moreover, most regularization programs have been limited to residential areas and have rarely been extended to informal industrial and commercial businesses, vacant public buildings and land in central areas, or informal settlements in rural areas.
At all levels of government, regularization programs have been marked by structural fragmentation— within programs, between secretariats and ministries, and among national, state and local levels—and as a result existing resources are often misspent or fail to reach all intended beneficiaries. The programs also have suffered from a lack of administrative continuity due mostly to changes in local political contexts. Rather than supplementing other initiatives, regularization programs often absorb much of the (limited) financial capacity of local municipalities, causing other social housing programs to be sacrificed or neglected. This problem has its origins in both the broad credit lines opened by national and international multilateral agencies and the absence of a requirement that local administrations match the financial burden of the program with efforts to expand their own revenue sources. In general, credit lines for regularization programs have been established without careful consideration of the financial capabilities of municipalities.
7. Lack of Financial Resources
As if the above problems were not enough, regularization programs have not been supported by adequate financial resources. The budgetary provisions are not compatible with the proposed and sometimes ambitious objectives, and often there are no specific funds for the programs. Revenues resulting from urban planning operations (such as earmarking resources from the sale of building rights in formal and high-income areas) have not been properly used to support upgrading. Resources from international agencies have been poorly spent, especially because there has not been a rigorous evaluation of the programs, nor a firm demand that their targets or objectives are fully accomplished. In addition, there are no adequate micro-credit policies in place to support or encourage community organizations.
8. Dissociation Between Upgrading and Legalization
Although it could be argued that illegality is a consequence of the insufficient supply of serviced land at affordable prices, in the vast majority of regularization programs the greater emphasis on upgrading has been dissociated from housing improvement and socioeconomic programs aimed at integrating communities, as well as from specific policies to legalize areas and plots. The components of upgrading and legalization have been conceived as if they were separate processes, or, frequently, as if legalization were an automatic result of the upgrading process. Most upgrading programs seem to fall short of what is required for land occupations to be legalized in the first place. As a result, those few programs that have reached the legalization stage have had to invent legal-political solutions, which often do not reflect the urban conditions actually in force in the area.
Despite the publicity given to regularization programs, the number of titles that actually result in a document issued by the property registration office is disappointingly low. The complexities imposed by law and the resistance and conservative attitudes of notaries and registration offices have been identified as some of the most critical bottlenecks to overcome. It should be added that most families, once they receive a title recognizing their legitimate right to their property, simply do not bother to complete the registration process, often because they do not understand its legal overtones or because it is too expensive or cumbersome. This situation has led to an outcry for the simplification of titling and registration systems and an associated need to disempower the existing bureaucratic entities.
9.The Importance of Titling
Given these problems, few programs have reached the legalization stage, and even fewer have achieved the registration of legalized plots. Perhaps because of that failure, many analysts have come to believe that titles are not important, that the mere perception of security of tenure would suffice. Although it is true that such a perception is indeed the main factor that encourages people to start investing in their houses, titling is important for two reasons: the personal interests of the occupiers (security of tenure, protection against forced eviction, domestic conflicts, marital separation, inheritance, problems with neighbors, access to an address and to forms of credit); and the interest of the city as a whole, since legal titling can contribute to the stabilization of land markets and allow for more rational and better articulated forms of public intervention.
There is still great resistance to land titling programs, especially on the part of the judiciary and the general public. However, it is important to note that individual beneficiaries of titling programs often do not have a full understanding of the protections and limitations of their title—What is it good for? Why does one need to actually register the title? All this suggests that educational programs for both city officials and residents should accompany the introduction of any regularization programs.
In addition, there has been little reflection on the implications of the kinds of instruments used to legalize plots. The emphasis placed on individual freehold titles has ignored the need for collective legal solutions for collective social problems; whenever such legal instruments have been used, they have not been introduced in a way that renders the new legal order compatible with the existing urban order and with the legal implications of the instruments. Most existing legal options have not been fully explored and generally lack creativity. Moreover, a consistent effort has yet to be made to have the new legal instruments fully validated by credit agencies, and by society at large.
10. The Fallacy of Popular Participation
The political quality of regularization programs has varied enormously, but in general the processes of popular participation in formulating and implementing the programs have been of little significance. This situation has been further aggravated by the creation of artificial forms of participation as a result of demands from financing agencies. The designed mechanisms for popular participation are in general a sheer formality, if not a farce from the outset. Very few programs have assimilated solutions proposed by the affected community. The political-institutional and cultural framework within which most regularization programs have been formed, along with the constraints imposed by the way these programs are financed, virtually eliminates any room for a truly effective public role, since public participation normally implies major challenges to the status quo. Regularization programs are more often perceived as solutions from or for the establishment than as a response to the real needs of the majority of the low-income population.
11. Compatible Scale, Patterns and Rights
Perhaps the main problem with regularization programs is the difficulty in making the scale of the interventions compatible with the technical, urban and environmental patterns proposed for the settlements, as well as with the nature of the rights to be recognized for the occupiers. These factors of scale, patterns and rights have to be discussed together to guarantee the sustainability of the programs and their impact on reality.
12. The After-effects of Regularization Programs
After an area is upgraded or a settlement is legalized, the public authorities normally do not maintain their presence in the areas. They should perform many important functions, from monitoring and evaluating the maintenance of installed equipment (notably water and sewage systems) to creating new guidelines or rules governing new occupations. As a result of the absence of official oversight and intervention, many areas rapidly begin to deteriorate. Moreover, the legitimization provided by the regularization program may make neighboring (originally formal) areas more prone to being “contaminated” by new informal land use practices. In general, regularization programs have not led to the promised urban, social and cultural integration of upgraded areas, and the informal areas remain stigmatized as second-rate long after they have been upgraded. The idea that regularized areas are placed in a new, virtuous trajectory rarely survives beyond the original documents setting the justifications for the program.
13. Balancing Individual Freedoms and Public Functions
In spite of their concern with the need to guarantee that the beneficiaries of public intervention are indeed the occupiers of informal settlements, regularization programs have not met a proper balance between respect for individual rights and freedoms and the programs’ public functions (the recognition of the social right to housing and the need to set aside urban areas for that purpose). Frequently the adopted legal solutions embed restrictions intending to freeze the mobility process within the areas (affecting terms of sale, acquisition, rent and so forth), which only helps to generate more informality.
The strategy of focusing on an area or social group seems to ignore the very nature and origins of informality, which is in fact a Catch-22 situation. The lack of sufficient finances in most programs would, on one hand, suggest that beneficiaries should not be able to cash in their benefits and move on to a new informal occupation to be similarly regularized in the future. On the other hand, the cost of monitoring and controlling such practices may be too high, if not unfeasible. Restrictions on transactions would simply generate new kinds of informal arrangements.
Interestingly, very few regularization programs actually accommodate or adjust to the potential upward and downward mobility of the affected occupants. They are formulated with a static community in mind. Intra-urban mobility, particularly among informal settlements and between formal and informal areas, is not well understood and thus is largely ignored. A possible way out of this conundrum would be to establish a cost-recovery scheme or value capture mechanism at the very beginning of planning for a new regularization program.
Conclusion
Regularization programs are typically not formulated with well-defined goals and timetables, and the problem is made worse by the lack of suitable evaluation indicators. In short, the declared objectives of regularization programs in Latin America (promotion of security of tenure and socio-spatial integration) have not been translated into an adequate combination of a comprehensive diagnosis, effective instruments and a clear implementation strategy, not to mention deficiencies in management capacity. As a result, the Latin American experience with regularization so far can not be considered fully successful.
It may be said, however, that regularization programs have shown merit in raising public awareness about the legitimacy of claims for more effective and comprehensive responses to the needs of a significant and growing group of citizens now excluded from the formal socioeconomic system. These programs have enabled some of the urban poor to remain in central, serviced areas of Latin American cities and have improved the livelihood and conditions of those living in regularized settlements, notwithstanding this discussion of their shortcomings. Given the cruel dynamics of socio-spatial segregation in the region, this fact is in itself of great importance.
Edésio Fernandes is a part-time lecturer in the Development Planning Unit of University College London.
Martim O. Smolka is senior fellow and director of the Lincoln Institute’s Program on Latin America and the Caribbean.
Related Land Lines Articles
Angel, Shlomo, and Douglas Keare. 2002. Housing policy reform in global perspective. April: 8–11.
Calderon, Julio. 2002. The mystery of credit. April: 5–8.
Fernandes, Edésio. 2002. The influence of de Soto’s The Mystery of Capital. January: 5–8.
———. 2002. Faculty profile. July: 12–13.
Smolka, Martim O. 2003. Informality, urban poverty and land market prices. January: 4–7.
Smolka, Martim O., and Laura Mullahy. 2003. A decade of changes: A retrospective of the Latin America program. October: 8–12.
Figure 1:
Dos and Don’ts of Regularization Programs
Dos
Don’ts
SHARE
The property tax has been subject to much popular criticism and political pressure in recent decades. Several states have implemented, or are considering, a variety of caps and limits on property assessments, property tax rates, or total revenue raised from the property tax. Perhaps the best-known example is California’s Proposition 13, which ties property assessments to the purchase price of a dwelling (rather than its current market value) and limits the tax rate that can be levied on homes. It is worth taking another look at the property tax and considering its strengths and weaknesses as a source of funding for local government services.
How will local government finances be affected by the large and increasing burden to pay for previously obligated pension costs? How, in particular, will these pension legacy costs change residents’ perceptions of the local property tax and their willingness to pay? As a first step in a larger Lincoln Institute of Land Policy research agenda on these questions, we ask: What is known–and just as importantly, what is not known–about the magnitude of unfunded local government pension liabilities in the United States? (see Gordon, Rose, and Fischer 2012)
It is a first principle of public finance that current services should be paid with current revenues and that debt finance should be reserved for capital projects that provide services to future taxpayers. This principle is violated when pension liabilities associated with current labor services are not funded by current purchases of financial assets and instead have to be paid for by future taxpayers.
Alas, principles of prudence in public finance are not always observed, and local governments in the United States have accumulated substantial unfunded pension liabilities in recent years. This situation breaks an important link in the relationship between taxpayers and the services they receive–the rough correspondence between the overall value of public services and the resources taken from the private sector. There is considerable debate about the strength of this correspondence and how price-like the relationship is between value paid and value received for individual taxpayers, but there can be little question that using current revenues to pay for past services weakens the link.
Growing Public Awareness
State and local government employee pensions are in the headlines almost daily (box 1). Only a few years ago, they were the nearly exclusive province of a few elected officials, appointed boards, investment advisors, actuaries, and credit rating agencies. What changed? The most immediate answer is the Great Recession, which sapped not only state tax revenue but also the value of pension plan assets. In particular, state and local pension fund equity holdings lost nearly half of their value, dropping from a peak of $2.3 trillion in September 2007 to a low of $1.2 trillion in March 2009 (Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System 2012).
———–
Box 1: Where Are Local Pensions in Trouble?
To understand where local pensions were experiencing particular difficulties, Gordon, Rose, and Fischer (2012) used media monitoring software to conduct a search of all U.S. domestic news outlets for the first three months of 2012. To satisfy the query, articles had to include the word “pension” in conjunction with terms that identify local governments (e.g., municipality, city, or county) and descriptions of funding problems (e.g., liability, deficit, underfunded, cut, default, reform, or problem). The search yielded over 2,000 separate articles from places all over the country.
Their analysis suggests several types of places are experiencing pension troubles. One group consists of jurisdictions that have been losing people and jobs over time. A prominent example is Detroit, Michigan, which has twice as many retirees as active workers. Also in this category is Prichard, Alabama, which has lost more than 45 percent of its population since 1970 and by 2010 had fewer than 23,000 residents. It simply stopped sending pension checks to its former employees in September 2009 and declared bankruptcy one month later. For such communities, pension problems may also be a symptom of larger fiscal distress or political dysfunction.
Another group of jurisdictions rode the housing boom and bust. Examples include fast-growing California cities like Stockton, which just entered bankruptcy proceedings this year, the largest city ever to do so. More puzzling are relatively affluent places, such as New York’s Suffolk or Nassau Counties, which appear unable to make tough spending cuts or raise taxes because of political gridlock. Instead, many of these jurisdictions have turned to borrowing to meet their pension obligations.
Only two recent municipal bankruptcies (Vallejo, California, and Central Falls, Rhode Island) stemmed from public pensions and employee compensation pressures together with falling revenues. Other places such as Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, and Jefferson County, Alabama, are struggling with poor investment decisions. Also, major cities such as Atlanta, San Francisco, and New York have taken steps to limit pension growth, often with cooperation from local public employee unions. Central Falls managed to extract concessions from active police officers and fire fighters as well as current retirees, but even this was insufficient to stop the slide toward bankruptcy.
Although stock markets have largely recovered and state and local plan equity holdings have climbed back over $2 trillion, public pensions remain under scrutiny. Credit rating agencies increasingly are taking unfunded pension liabilities into account when developing their assessments of state and local government borrower risk. In addition, analysts are growing more vocal in their criticisms of methods commonly used to evaluate pension funding levels.
The federal government is also paying attention. Alarmed by the prospect of defaults, Congress held a series of hearings into state and local government finances in early 2011. More recently, the Republican staff of the Joint Economic Committee (JEC) has issued reports raising the specter of a Eurozone-like crisis due to unfunded state pension liabilities (JEC 2011; JEC 2012).
In light of these criticisms and concerns about growing pension costs, 43 states enacted significant reforms to their pension systems between 2009 and 2011 (Snell 2012). The most common changes were: increased employee contribution requirements (30 states); raised age and service for eligibility (32); adjusted formulas for calculating benefits (17); and reduced cost of living increases (21). In some states the changes applied to new employees only, but in others they affected active workers and current retirees. The latter actions have proven especially controversial, prompting lawsuits in Colorado, Minnesota, New Jersey, and South Dakota.
Most of the heightened attention to government employee pensions has concentrated on state government plans, while local public employee pensions remain relatively unexplored. Although local plans represent a modest share of total public pension membership (10 percent) and assets (18 percent), their failures could be devastating. Mobile residents and businesses could flee communities that levy higher taxes to rebuild pension assets rather than to provide basic services. A shrinking tax base would leave the fund even worse off and potentially less able to pay promised benefits. The result could be more cities like Prichard, Alabama.
Looking at State and Local Pension Plans Together
State and local pensions are an important part of the nation’s retirement system. Figure 1 shows the distribution of the total of $15.3 trillion in retirement assets at the end of 2011 by type of plan. State and local public employee retirement funds held a combined $2.8 trillion in assets, or almost one-fifth of the total.
Every state has at least one public employee pension plan and some have many. There are more than 220 state plans—some of which are state-administered plans that cover local government workers—and almost 3,200 local government plans (table 1). Together these plans cover 14.7 million current workers, 8.2 million current beneficiaries, and 4.8 million people eligible for future benefits but not yet receiving them.
State and local pensions are all the more important because 27.5 percent of government employees do not participate in Social Security (Nuschler, Shelton, and Topoleski 2011). These uncovered public employees are highly concentrated in a handful of states. Figure 2 ranks the 16 states with the highest concentrations of government workers not covered by Social Security. Almost all state and local government employees in Ohio and Massachusetts and more than half in Nevada, Louisiana, Colorado, California, and Texas are not covered.
Another key feature of state and local pensions is that they are mostly defined benefit (DB) plans. Benefits are calculated by a formula, typically something like:
(Average salary in final 3 years) x
(Years of service) x
(2% for each year of service) =
Benefits
Most state and local government pensions also include a cost of living adjustment. A minority of public sector workers are enrolled in defined contribution (DC) plans where a specified amount is put in a retirement fund for each year of work. Compared to DC plans, DB pensions protect employees from investment, inflation, and longevity risks. As of 2009, nearly 80 percent of state and local workers were enrolled in DB plans and just over 20 percent were in DC plans. Private sector workers had the opposite mix: 20 percent in DB plans and 80 percent in DC plans (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2011).
DB plans used to be more prevalent in the private sector but have been disappearing partly because the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) imposed minimum funding standards, required insurance contributions, and other administrative burdens on them.
The weaker funding and reporting requirements that apply to public pensions allow governments to shift labor costs into the future. This is an implicit form of borrowing that can evade balanced budget rules and avoid the voter approval usually required for issuing bonds.
Funding and Reporting Requirements for State and Local Pensions
For most of their history, state and local pensions were financed out of general revenues on a pay-as-you-go basis. The current practice of prefunding state and local pension plans began in the 1970s and 1980s. While public sector plans were not covered by ERISA, the act did mandate a report on their practices. The 1978 report found a “high degree of pension cost blindness . . . due to the lack of actuarial valuations, the use of unrealistic actuarial assumptions, and the general absence of actuarial standards” (Munnell et al. 2008, 2).
This wake-up call led to voluntary increases in funding levels by many plans and increased attention to actuarial and accounting standards. The Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) was formed in 1984, issued its first rules for pension plans in 1986, and extensively revised its actuarial valuation standards in 1994. Compliance with these rules is voluntary, but is rewarded by credit rating agencies, auditors, and other data consumers. Unlike ERISA rules that require specific valuation methods for all private plans, GASB sets out criteria that allow some latitude as to which specific methods are used by public plans. As a consequence there are serious transparency and comparability concerns with the self-reported data on state and local pension plan liabilities.
Employer Contribution
The calculation of a plan’s Actuarial Accrued Liability (AAL) requires the following information: ages and salary histories of members; assumptions for salary growth, retirement ages, asset earnings, and inflation; longevity probability tables; and a discount rate to translate estimated future values into present values. Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability (UAA L) equals AAL minus plan assets.
The “Normal Cost” of a pension plan is the increase in AAL due to the current year of service by existing employees. ERISA requires that normal cost be covered by employee and employer contributions. GASB specifies an “Annual Required Contribution” (ARC) of normal cost plus a 30-year amortization of UAA L. The problem is that, contrary to its name, payment of ARC is not strictly required in most jurisdictions.
Choice of Discount Rate
The issue that has received the most recent attention is the choice of discount rate. Current GASB rules allow discounting future liabilities based on projected investment returns, which averaged 8 percent per year prior to the recession. But most economists and financial theorists would agree with Brown and Wilcox (2009, 538) that “the discount rate used to value future pension liabilities should reflect the riskiness of the liabilities,” not the assets. Constitutional and other legal guarantees make government pensions of low risk, while historical investment returns include a risk premium.
State and local governments cannot avoid longterm risks such as a protracted productivity slump or a decade-long down market. Therefore, the historical long-term rate of return on an equity-heavy portfolio–before risk adjustment–is too high a discount rate. Higher discount rates can make pensions appear better funded than they truly are. This reduces contribution requirements and imposes unwarranted obligations on future taxpayers if the high rates of return are not achieved. Worse, there is an incentive for plan managers to seek high-risk portfolios in order to get a higher discount rate and lower ARC.
There are strong arguments that the 8 percent discount rate used by many public pension plans is too high, but there is less agreement on just how much lower the appropriate rate should be. Rather than review the arguments, we report one estimate of just how much of an impact a lower rate would have. Munnell et al. (2012) calculate the would-be change in reported liabilities if all plans used a 5 percent rather than an 8 percent discount rate. They estimate that state and local liabilities would increase from $3.6 trillion to $5.4 trillion and aggregate funding ratios (Assets/AAL) would fall from 75 to only 50 percent. This is a huge change, and represents a doubling of unfunded liabilities (UAA L = AAL – Assets).
Recent Changes in GASB Standards
GASB (2012) has released new accounting standards to take effect in 2013 and 2014. The key change requires state and local governments to apply different discount rates to the funded and unfunded portions of liabilities. An earnings-based rate will still be applied to the funded portion, but a lower, riskless rate will be applied to UAA Ls. The impact of this change on reported liabilities depends on how well funded a plan is: no change for fully funded plans; a small change for well funded plans; and large increases in reported liabilities and decreases in funding ratios for poorly funded plans. The new standards also require that the UAA L be shown on the government’s balance sheet, which will increase the visibility of unfunded liabilities to voters.
What Do We Know About Local Pensions?
Despite mounting concerns about the fiscal health of local pension plans, systematic knowledge about them is rare. The best available information comes from the U.S. Census Bureau’s (2012) Annual Survey of State and Local Public Employee Retirement Systems. Detailed data for each government entity is reported every five years. Plan-level data for a sample that includes roughly half of the 3,200 local plans is reported each year and is used to create estimates of totals for each state by type of government. Tables 1 and 2 exemplify the types of information in the survey.
The main virtues of the Census Bureau’s employee retirement survey are its quality and comprehensiveness. A key disadvantage is lack of timeliness, since the most recent local data available is for fiscal year 2010. Another problem is that the Bureau only recently began reporting plan liabilities, and it does so only for state plans. Like other pension data sources, the Census Bureau does not collect information on DC plans or other post-employment benefits (OPEBs).
Nevertheless, the employee retirement survey provides some insights into local pensions. For example, the number of local plans per state varies greatly: 7 states have no local plans; 20 states have fewer than 10; Florida and Illinois have over 300 each; and Pennsylvania has over 1,400. The number of active members per beneficiary is a crude measure of how well employee contributions can fund the plan. Table 1 indicates the national average for local plans is 1.4 workers per retiree, but there is considerable variation across states. This support ratio is less than 1 in 12 states; between 1 and 2 in 31 states; and over 2 in 7 states, with Utah having the highest ratio at 6.8.
Neither of these pieces of information tell us how well funded local pensions are. For this information, we must turn to independent surveys. Most have good coverage of state plans, but they generally survey only a few of the larger local plans: e.g., the National Association of State Retirement Administrators’ (NASRA ) annual survey of member plans. A small number of national studies have focused on local, as opposed to state, pension liabilities. For example, Novy-Marx and Rauh (2011) analyze local pension finances using data from Consolidated Annual Financial Reports (CAFRs) for city and county plans holding more than $1 billion in assets as of 2006.
The Boston College Center for Retirement Research (CRR) maintains a Public Plans Database (PPD) for the largest state and local plans with data from individual plan actuarial reports and local government CAFRs. Using the PPD plus information on some additional local plans, CRR recently issued a report with data for 2010 from a sample of 97 plans in 40 states (Munnell et al. 2011). This is a modest sample relative to the total of 3,200 local plans, but by concentrating on large plans it covers 59 percent of local pension assets and 55 percent of participants.
An important finding is the wide dispersion around the average funding ratio of 77 percent in 2010 (figure 3). Of 95 large plans in the CRR sample with usable information, only 16 had assets covering more than 90 percent of liabilities. At the other tail are 9 plans with below 50 percent funding (Munnell et al. 2011). This study also shows the ARC as a percent of local government payroll. The overall average for 2010 is 22 percent, and again there is wide dispersion (figure 4). Of 91 large plans in the CRR sample with usable information, more than half (49) have ARC below 20 percent of payroll, but 16 have shares in the less manageable 30 to 80 percent range. Five plans have such large pension obligations that if paid in full they would cost more than 100 percent of payroll.
Keep in mind that local governments in most states are not required to pay the full amount of the ARC. We do not have data at the local level, but a state-level study reported wide variation in the percent of ARC actually paid across plans, across years, and across states (State Budget Crisis Task Force 2012). Munnell et al. (2011) calculate pension payments actually made as a share of local budgets and again find considerable variation, with 14 percent of the sample governments devoting more than 12 percent of their budgets to pay for pensions.
Conclusions
Local government pensions are on average significantly underfunded. The key reason is that, absent a legal compulsion to do so, many governments have not set aside enough funds each year to cover the extra pension liabilities incurred in that year, much less to amortize unfunded liabilities from earlier years. In effect, they are borrowing to pay for current labor services and shifting the burden to future taxpayers.
We know much less about the 3,200 locally administered plans that we do about the 220 state plans. The best information on local plans comes from researchers who review the detailed financial reports of the plans and local governments. Of necessity, these studies concentrate on the larger plans. We do know that there is wide variation across plans on key measures: the share of liabilities that are covered by assets; the would-be full contribution to cover both current year pension costs and amortization of unfunded liabilities (ARC) relative to payroll or annual revenues; the share of ARC that is actually paid; and the share of the current budget that goes to pension costs. A significant fraction of local governments are in trouble by one or more of these measures.
Worse, what we know about liabilities comes from municipalities’ self-reported data and their own choice of discount rate. In almost all cases this discount rate is inappropriately high, and the use of a lower discount could more than double unfunded liabilities. The result is a big problem with local pension liabilities that threatens local government finances, but we do not know how big, and we do not know how unequally it is distributed.
About the Authors
Richard F. Dye is a visiting fellow of the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. He is also a professor at the Institute of Government and Public Affairs, University of Illinois at Chicago, and professor of economics emeritus at Lake Forest College.
Tracy Gordon is a fellow in Economic Studies at the Brookings Institution, Washington, DC. Her research focuses on state and local public finance, political economy, and urban economics.
References
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. 2012. Flow of funds accounts of the United States, June 7. http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/current/data.htm
Brown, Jeffrey R., and David W. Wilcox. 2009. Discounting state and local pension liabilities. American Economic Review 99(2): 538–542.
Gordon, Tracy M., Heather M. Rose, and Ilana Fischer. 2012. The state of local government pensions: A preliminary inquiry. Working Paper. Cambridge MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB). 2012. GASB Improves Pension Accounting and Reporting Standards. Press Release. June 25. http://www.gasb.org/cs/ContentServer?c=GASBContent_C&pagename=GASB/GASBContent_C/GASBNewsPage&cid=1176160126951
Joint Economic Committee (JEC). 2011. States of bankruptcy, part I: The coming state pensions crisis. Republican Staff Commentary, Washington, DC, December 8.
Joint Economic Committee (JEC). 2012. States of bankruptcy, part II: Eurozone, USA? Republican Staff Commentary, Washington, DC, May 15.
Munnell, Alicia H., Jean-Pierre Aubry, Josh Hurwitz, and Laura Quimby. 2011. An update on locally administered pension plans. Center for Retirement Research at Boston College Policy Brief, July.
Munnell, Alicia H., Jean-Pierre Aubry, Josh Hurwitz, and Laura Quimby. 2012. The funding of state and local pensions: 2011–2015. Center for Retirement Research at Boston College Policy Brief, May.
Munnell, Alicia H., Kelly Haverstick, Steven A. Sass, and Jean-Pierre Aubry. 2008. The miracle of funding by state and local pension plans. Center for Retirement Research at Boston College Policy Brief, April.
Novy-Marx, Robert, and Joshua Rauh. 2011. The crisis in local government pensions in the United States. In Growing old: Paying for retirement and institutional money management after the financial crisis, Robert Litan and Richard Herring, eds., 47–74. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Nuschler, Dawn, Alison M. Shelton, and John J. Topoleski. 2011. Social Security: Mandatory coverage of new state and local government employees. Congressional Research Service, July. http://www.nasra.org/resources/CRS%202011%20Report.pdf
Snell, Ronald K. 2012. State pension reform, 2009–2011. Washington, DC: National Council of State Legislatures, March.
State Budget Crisis Task Force. 2012. Report of the State Budget Crisis Task Force. http://www.statebudgetcrisis.org/wpcms/wp-content/images/Report-of-the-State-Budget-Crisis-Task-Force-Full.pdf
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2011. Employee benefits survey, retirement benefits: access, participation, and take-up rates. March.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2012. 2010 annual survey of state and local public employee retirement systems. http://www.census.gov/govs/retire
SHARE
Una versión más actualizada de este artículo está disponible como parte del capítulo 4 del libro Perspectivas urbanas: Temas críticos en políticas de suelo de América Latina.
Los instrumentos de captura de plusvalía, aunque difíciles de aplicar, son ampliamente reconocidos como mecanismos beneficiosos de planificación fiscal. En América Latina, Colombia se ha destacado por su larga y particular tradición de institucionalización de la captura de plusvalías mediante la contribución de valorización (una especie de tasación especial) y la contribución de desarrollo municipal (Ley 9 de 1989), la cual antecedió al actual instrumento de participación en plusvalías.
Desde 1921, año de introducción de la primera de estas leyes, Colombia ha desarrollado una cultura fiscal en la cual los ciudadanos están conscientes de los instrumentos de captura de plusvalía, y los aceptan como un mecanismo legítimo de recaudación de ingresos. Como ejemplo, en 1968 (en su época de mayor uso), la contribución de valorización representó el 16 por ciento de los ingresos municipales en Bogotá y aproximadamente el 45 por ciento en Medellín; a principio de la década de 1980 recaudó un 30 por ciento de los ingresos totales en Cali. No obstante, debido a que el suelo aún desempeña un papel importante como defensa contra la inflación en países como Colombia -donde los mercados de capital no están muy desarrollados-la puesta en práctica de tales instrumentos sigue enfrentando una fuerte resistencia política por parte de muchos y variados grupos de interés, desde propietarios y promotores poderosos hasta familias de bajos y medianos recursos para quienes la tierra es una importante fuente de ahorros.
Sobre la base de esta experiencia, la Ley 388 de 1997 que creó la participación en plusvalías decreta que todas las municipalidades deben diseñar y aprobar un plan maestro de diez años (el Plan de Ordenamiento Territorial o “POT”) y adoptar la plusvalía como una de las fuentes principales de ingresos del plan. Las entradas recaudadas por las plusvalías deberán utilizarse principalmente para la provisión de infraestructura y viviendas sociales a vecindades pobremente dotadas de servicios públicos, así como también para obras públicas de interés general. La ley establece tres condiciones administrativas para poder aplicar las plusvalías como parte del POT, a saber:
La participación en plusvalías se basa en el derecho público y legítimo de participar en la captación de los aumentos del valor de la tierra generados por acciones administrativas tales como cambios en zonificación o densidad, que pueden generar ganancias sustanciales para el propietario de la tierra.Es importante notar que este instrumento no es un impuesto ni tampoco una contribución o tarifa, sino más bien un derecho de la comunidad a “participar” en los beneficios resultantes de las funciones gubernamentales orientadas a mejorar el desarrollo urbano. La Ley 388 y sus decretos acompañantes definen los parámetros generales para utilizar las plusvalías, pero se requiere que las municipalidades determinen sus procedimientos específicos. Sin embargo, a muchos alcaldes y funcionarios públicos les preocupan las ambigüedades de la ley, y les está costando el proceso de su aplicación, así como la del instrumento de plusvalías.
Con el objeto de abrir un espacio de debate sobre este problema entre funcionarios públicos y otros expertos, el Instituto Lincoln y el Departamento de Planeación de Bogotá organizaron un seminario en diciembre de 1999, antes de la fecha límite de aprobación del plan maestro legal (POT) (31 de diciembre). El seminario reunió a representantes de entidades y participantes activos en el proceso de ejecución, entre ellos directores de planificación de ciudades importantes, representantes de ministerios y organismos públicos nacionales, representantes de instituciones encargadas del avalúo inmobiliario, abogados y especialistas participantes en el diseño del instrumento. Un resultado inmediato del seminario fue la formación de un grupo de presión que logró cambiar la fecha límite al 30 de junio de 2000, alargando así el tiempo disponible para revisar las estipulaciones problemáticas del POT.
Aspectos claves de la implementación de la ley
Aplicación de plusvalías a diferentes situaciones.
La mayoría de los representantes municipales que asistieron al seminario coincidieron en que las plusvalías deben ser utilizadas únicamente en situaciones que redunden en ganancias claras y sustanciales, a fin de procurar una mayor aprobación por parte de los ciudadanos y de simplificar el proceso administrativo durante la primera fase de la ejecución. El consenso general es que los propietarios han aceptado la contribución de valorización y han estado dispuestos a pagar porque han entendido claramente que el aumento en el valor del suelo se debe a la inversión pública. En Bogotá, por ejemplo, la contribución de valorización ha sido una de las principales fuentes de financiamiento para la construcción de calles nuevas desde 1969.
En comparación, las plusvalías se aplican únicamente en situaciones en que el aumento en el valor de la tierra puede atribuirse específicamente a una decisión sobre el uso de tierra pública definida en el POT, tal como un cambio en la categoría de la tierra, su densidad o su uso. Una situación para la cual se evidencia el cambio en el precio de la tierra, es la extensión del perímetro urbano a fin de incluir suelo rural que podría desarrollarse en años subsiguientes. La mayoría de los representantes de municipalidades opinaron que este escenario es el más obvio para la aplicación de la ley, y que debe constituir el enfoque del instrumento durante su etapa inicial.
Exactitud de los avalúos del suelo.
La Ley 388 sugiere establecer la fecha de julio de 1997 (fecha de aprobación de la ley en el Congreso), como base de referencia para establecer las ganancias en el precio de la tierra. Sin embargo, aún no está claro cuándo ni por qué método los municipios podrán determinar el precio de la tierra en los años sucesivos. El problema es que el valor base inicial podría ya haberse alterado por los “rumores” que hayan corrido acerca de las designaciones de suelo en los planes maestros. En vista de ello se plantean varias interrogantes, por ejemplo: , ¿debería calcularse el valor antes de la circulación de rumores sobre los cambios urbanísticos, o justo antes de tomarse la decisión formal? ¿Cómo deberían las ciudades tratar los incrementos en el valor del suelo atribuidos a acciones ejecutadas entre esa fecha base y la aprobación del POT? ¿Cuánto tiempo dura la validez del avalúo? ¿Qué pasa después de cierto tiempo (por ejemplo, 15 ó 20 años)?
Estas preguntas adquieren aún más relevancia si consideramos que las normas del uso de la tierra establecidas recientemente en algunas ciudades ya han sido capitalizadas en precios de la tierra, y por ende han reducido sustancialmente los márgenes actuales para la aplicación de la participación en plusvalías.
Además, existen diferentes implicancias legales acerca de los valores relacionados que deben considerarse, es decir, el “uso real” versus el “mayor y mejor uso”. ¿En qué debe basarse el aumento del valor del suelo?: ¿en el uso potencial? ¿en el real? Y en lo que se refiere a la fórmula definida legalmente para hacer los avalúos, ¿debería aplicarse dicha fórmula al área potencialmente desarrollable, incluso si el constructor no está solicitando una autorización para desarrollar el sitio hasta su máxima densidad admisible? ¿Qué pasa si una propiedad avaluada en cierta fecha no se termina de construir? Aunque la ley define el concepto de zonas con características geoeconómicas similares, no está claro si el terrateniente puede solicitar legalmente que el avalúo se haga sobre la base de “propiedad a propiedad” o sobre la base de “zonas homogéneas”.
Otra fuente de preocupación la constituyen las estrictas fechas límites establecidas por la ley para calcular los precios comerciales antes del plan maestro y los nuevos precios de referencia después de la adopción del plan. Por ejemplo, la ley otorga a la alcaldía apenas cinco días después de la aprobación del nuevo POT para determinar los nuevos precios en las áreas afectadas, e impone además realizar todos los cálculos en el transcurso de los próximos 60 días. No está clara la estructura legal de adopción de procedimientos de costo simplificados que permitan efectuar los avalúos en áreas homogéneas de la ciudad, y no en lotes individuales.
Definición de categorías de suelo.
Las diferencias de las categorías de suelos para las leyes 9 de 1989 y 388 de 1997 conducen a interrogantes sobre su aplicabilidad. La Ley 9 incluyó una categoría de suelo suburbano que podía ser desarrollado en densidades moderadas en la periferia de las ciudades. Por ejemplo, toda la tierra desarrollable hacia el norte de Bogotá cae ahora en esa categoría suburbana, la cual permite densidades residenciales de 160 habitantes por hectárea. La zonificación propuesta por el nuevo plan maestro permite un aumento para llegar a densidades de entre 180 y 220 habitantes por hectárea. La Ley 388 establece la posibilidad de gravar la conversión del uso rural a urbano, pero no contempla la categoría suburbana, aun cuando el suelo suburbano ya posee poderosos derechos de desarrollo. Debido a estas dificultades, y para evitar problemas adicionales de implementación, muchas ciudades prefieren tratar el suelo “suburbano” como “urbano”.
Exenciones y casos especiales.
Aunque las viviendas para la población de bajos ingresos están exentas de las plusvalías, la ley impone de todas maneras calcular los aumentos en el valor del suelo. Esto constituiría un costo adicional innecesario, considerando que el 80 por ciento de todas las viviendas a construirse en Bogotá durante los próximos diez años estarán destinadas a la población de bajos recursos. ¿Qué efecto tiene este cálculo sobre la imparcialidad de este instrumento para el 20 por ciento restante de las viviendas? ¿Qué tan eficaz es la plusvalía como un instrumento de planificación que busca disminuir la especulación en la tierra designada para viviendas populares?
Otro asunto se refiere a la designación de zonas de conservación o áreas designadas para protección ambiental mediante la transferencia de derechos de desarrollo. Las protestas de agentes privados sobre las apropiaciones hechas en contra de sus derechos de propiedad plantean importantes interrogantes de compensación. Además, para el caso de áreas ya designadas para desarrollos de alta densidad pero que aún no están totalmente desarrolladas, hay también preguntas sobre las “expectativas” de los valores del suelo.
Obstáculos políticos y operativos.
Una fuente continua de confusión y malentendidos se refiere a la eficacia del cálculo del incremento en el valor del suelo. ¿Puede o debe implementarse este cálculo en los casos en que, debido a una recesión económica generalizada, los valores del suelo estén supuestamente en declive? Si el propietario pierde dinero al vender la tierra, o si no está desarrollando sus propiedades en absoluto, entonces sencillamente no habrá plusvalías disponibles para la administración local. Teóricamente bastaría con hacer una distinción entre los efectos generadores (acciones administrativas) y las tendencias en los mercados de tierras. Sin embargo, tal como está sucediendo actualmente en Colombia, en la práctica es fácil entender que los instrumentos de captura de plusvalías son más poderosos y políticamente aceptables durante los períodos de ascenso de los ciclos de precios del suelo que durante los períodos de descenso.
Las connotaciones políticas del tema se ponen de relieve si se consideran las sustanciales carteras de tierra normalmente apartadas por los promotores para fines de planificación estratégica e incluso de especulación. En efecto, muy a menudo los planificadores urbanos se ven obligados a ser más flexibles (si no magnánimos) y a aflojar los reglamentos urbanísticos a fin de motivar a los promotores durante las épocas de recesión. Claro está que esta presión por parte de los promotores podría sencillamente ser un intento de recuperar pérdidas incurridas por las decisiones equivocadas sobre inversiones en el pasado.
Algunas veces los promotores se quejan de que la municipalidad está fijando una tarifa de plusvalía demasiado alta en tiempos de economía deficiente, cuando la recesión puede desalentar las inversiones futuras en mejoras de construcción. Sin embargo, la experiencia habida con la contribución de valorización ofrece un contraargumento, sugeriendo que si la cantidad de plusvalías generadas por el cambio en el uso de la tierra se consideran sobrevaluadas, significa que el cambio carece de una buena razón costo/eficacia y por tanto no debería proponerse. Otra posibilidad es que quizás se cometió un error en los estudios o cálculos de viabilidad.
Por encima de estas dificultades prácticas, la ley impone ciertos requisitos de aplicación que afectan su operación, tales como la necesidad de notificar directamente al propietario que su propiedad está sujeta a obligaciones por plusvalías. ¿Debería esta responsabilidad correr por cuenta de la administración pública o del propietario? Existen también dificultades legales respecto a cuándo se deben cobrar las plusvalías al propietario (¿durante la liquidación de las propiedades? ¿cuando el propietario solicite la licencia de conversión del uso del suelo?). De la misma manera, si un área que se va a densificar (o sufrir cualquier cambio de zonificación) recibió una infraestructura adicional por la cual se le impuso la contribución de valorización, el propietario estaría sujeto a una doble tributación, algo que sin duda constituiría una fuente de malestar. Tal como lo establece la nueva ley, la contribución de valorización es independiente de las plusvalías, lo cual es importante debido a la opción existente de calcular y cobrar las ‘plusvalías por las obras públicas designadas por el Plan de Ordenamiento Territorial (POT).
Ajustes propuestos por funcionarios municipales
Los funcionarios públicos presentes en el seminario realizado de diciembre en Bogotá sugirieron unas cuantas maneras de simplificar la ejecución de la Ley 388, las cuales sacrifican la precisión en el cálculo de las plusvalías a cambio de conveniencia, transparencia y cumplimiento. Esta perspectiva se basa en que la voluntad política puede ser más importante que la “exactitud” técnica, al menos en las etapas tempranas y de transición de la puesta en marcha, a fin de mejorar las posibilidades de éxito a largo plazo. Un ejemplo útil y descriptivo fue el citado por los funcionarios de la ciudad de Cartagena (500 000 habitantes), la cual desde 1992 ha estado aplicando exitosamente la contribución de desarrollo municipal. Esta experiencia demuestra que los cambios de densidad de un nuevo lote deberían tener un efecto similar en la generación de las plusvalías, al de la tasa generada por el mismo tipo de cambio de densidad observada en un área distinta pero comparable de la ciudad.
Los participantes también propusieron restringir la aplicación de las plusvalías a las áreas más estratégicas y dinámicas de la ciudad, donde el potencial de ganancias sea más evidente que en áreas con poco aumento en el valor del suelo. Además, la valoración de las plusvalías debe basarse en zonas homogéneas, y no en lotes individuales. Es necesario también que el instrumento de plusvalías pase por varias fases de desarrollo escalonado conforme las municipalidades ganan conocimiento y destrezas en técnicas de valorización y avalúos. Así, el período establecido de nueve años para la validación de los avalúos de los incrementos en el valor del suelo debería ser sujeto a revisiones peródicas más frecuentes. Igualmente, la emisión de algunas reglas prácticas de transición (ausentes en la formulación original de la ley) facilitarán la introducción de un nuevo sistema fiscal.
Se hicieron otras sugerencias respecto a la adopción de planes maestros (POT). Las municipalidades deberían utilizar tales planes, en vez de algún otro mecanismo de valoración externo al POT, para identificar áreas en donde habrá un cambio en la utilización del suelo a fin de determinar si dicho cambio trae consigo un aumento en las plusvalías. Antes de adoptar el POT, las municipalidades deberán identificar tales áreas con el fin de poder tener a tiempo las técnicas de valoración y avalúos y para mitigar la sensación de incertidumbre. Algunos participantes incluso sugirieron utilizar el POT para definir el valor “anterior”, y así poder determinar el incremento neto en el valor del suelo.
En general, los participantes coincidieron en que tanto el concepto como la orientación del plan maestro y del instrumento de plusvalías son aceptables y deseables. Muchos de los problemas y asuntos discutidos en el seminario y en todo el país se refieren a la ejecución de cualquier esquema de captura de plusvalías, o simplemente de cualquier nueva legislación normativa o fiscal. En este caso el diseño de los procedimientos de ejecución puede mejorarse, dado que siempre será más fácil cambiar los aspectos operativos que la ley en sí. Sin embargo, y por encima de todas las dificultades formales remanentes, se ha demostrado claramente que la voluntad política, la experiencia técnica acumulada y el compromiso ético de los participantes son factores críticos para perfeccionar este instrumento de política del suelo y poner en práctica los principios muy encomiables que lo inspiran.
Carolina Barco de Botero es la Directora de Planeamiento de la ciudad de Bogotá, Gerente Consultora de Ciudades, Ltda. en Bogotá y forma parte del Consejo Directivo del Instituto Lincoln. Martim Smolka es Senior Fellow y Director del Programa para América Latina del Instituto Lincoln. Fernanda Furtado, Fellow del Instituto Lincoln, también participó en la elaboración de este artículo. Recientemente terminó su tesis de Ph.D. (en portugués) sobre la captura de plusvalías en América Latina, en la Facultad de Arquitectura y Urbanismo de la Universidad de São Paulo, Brasil. En uno de los capítulos de su tesis se describe la situación de Colombia.
Argumentos en favor y en contra de la participación en plusvalías
A favor
En contra
