One of every three urban citizens lives in slum conditions across the world today. According to the United Nations Human Settlement Programme, in 2006 there were nearly 1 billion people who could find housing only in slum settlements in most cities of Latin America, Asia, and Africa, and a smaller number in the cities of Europe and North America (UN Habitat 2006).

The central question facing land conservationists today is how to scale up efforts to protect entire landscapes and whole natural systems. The land trust movement has been built on the individual successes of conserved private properties, but increasingly both conservationists and landowners entering into conservation agreements want to know what is being done about their neighbor, their neighborhood, and most significantly their landscape (Williams 2011).

Farmers and ranchers talk of the need to sustain a continuous network of working lands—a critical mass of agricultural activity—or risk losing the supporting businesses and community cooperation they require to survive. Firefighters say that keeping remote lands undeveloped reduces the hazards and costs of firefighting for local communities. Sportsmen are losing access to public lands and wildlife when scattered rural development fragments habitat. Conservation biologists have long suggested that protecting bigger places will sustain more species, and conversely that fragmentation of habitat is the leading cause of species decline and loss. Finally, a rapidly changing climate reinforces the need to protect large, connected ecosystems to be resilient over the long term.

With many funders and public partners seeking to focus on collaborative, landscape-scale conservation efforts, the land trust community has an excellent opportunity to leverage its good work by engaging in landscape partnerships. Land trusts, with their grassroots base and collaborative working style, are in a good position to help support local initiatives. The process of building these efforts, however, requires a commitment beyond the urgency of transactions and fundraising, and necessitates a sustained focus that is much broader than the immediate objectives of many land trusts.

What Does Success Look Like?

Montana’s Blackfoot River was made famous in Norman Maclean’s 1976 story, A River Runs Through It (Maclean 2001), but what really stands out about the Blackfoot region is how the community has worked together over many decades to sustain this special place. Building on conservation work initiated by local landowners in the 1970s, the Blackfoot Challenge was established in 1993 to bring the area’s diverse interests together around consensus-based approaches to sustaining the rural character and natural resources of the valley. Rancher Jim Stone, chairman of this landowner group, says “we were tired of complaining about what we couldn’t do, so we decided to start talking about what we could do.”

This collaborative effort has used innovative conservation approaches for the Blackfoot that have been replicated in many other places. The group’s work began with a focus on better managing increased recreational use of the river and protecting the river corridor. The first conserva-tion easement secured in Montana was on the Blackfoot in 1976 as part of this pioneering effort. From that initial success grew more ambitious initiatives with engagement from an expanding set of partners.

When landowners said they were not getting enough help to control weeds, the Challenge established one of the largest weed control districts in the West. When landowners argued there were not enough resources for conserving working ranches, the Challenge helped create an innovative U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) program to purchase conservation easements with the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), which historically has been used for public land acquisition.

When landowners were concerned about the potential sale of vast forest lands in the valley, the Challenge launched a comprehensive acquisition plan that linked protected private ranches on the valley floor with forested public lands at higher elevations. When landowners recognized the need for systemic river restoration, the Challenge and the Big Blackfoot Chapter of Trout Unlimited helped restore more than 48 tributary streams and 600 miles of fish passage for native trout and watershed health (Trout Unlimited 2011).

The Blackfoot Challenge partners with more than 160 landowners, 30 businesses, 30 nonprofits, and 20 public agencies. Clearly, the Challenge’s vision for the area is not limited to just a few ranches, but rather is focused on the long-term health of the entire river valley, from “ridge to ridge” in Jim Stone’s words (figure 1).

The wonderful aspect of the Blackfoot story is that it is no longer a rare exception but an emblem of a much larger movement of collaborative conservation efforts around the country. These landscape partnerships confirm an emerging consensus about the need to protect and sustain entire landscapes that are vital to the health of fish and wildlife, as well as to the vitality of local communities, their economy, and their quality of life.

Landowner-Driven Conservation Efforts

The Blackfoot story underscores one of the most important lessons emerging from community-based conservation initiatives—local landowners should be in front and everyone else behind. An example from the Yampa River in western Colorado illustrates this approach. In the early 1990s, conservation groups were trying to protect the area, but were met with major mistrust by the local ranchers. The valley had no shortage of community visioning exercises and groups trying to conserve the region, but none of the ideas had really taken hold in a meaningful way, precisely because local landowners were not in the lead.

That dynamic was then turned on its head by several landowner initiatives, the most significant being the Routt County Open Lands Plan. The plan’s recommendations grew out of a series of local landowner meetings held throughout the county. The plan called for eight significant measures to better manage explosive growth in the valley, ranging from a right-to-farm ordinance to a purchase of development rights program on working ranches. Routt County became one of the first rural counties in the West to raise public funds through a local ballot measure to protect working ranches.

The Malpai Borderlands is another enduring example of how landowner leadership can break through decades of gridlock. After years of conflict between ranchers and federal agencies over the management of public lands around the Animas Mountains in the boot heel of New Mexico and southeastern Arizona, Bill Macdonald and other neighboring ranchers helped spearhead a landowner collaborative called the Malpai Borderlands Group to reintroduce fire for the health of grasslands and the local ranching economy. That effort grew into an innovative partnership among ranchers, conservation groups, and public agencies to conserve and sustain this one-million-acre working wilderness through conservation easements, grass banking, and a more integrated stewardship approach to the system as a whole.

Land Trusts and Public-Private Partnerships

As significant as landowner leadership is to collaborative, landscape-scale conservation efforts, land trusts and agencies also can play a vital role in leading from behind as a reliable partner with deep local ties, knowledge of outside resources, and an ability to implement research and conservation projects. On Montana’s Rocky Mountain Front, for example, local ranchers are working together with several land trusts and the USFWS to protect working lands through conservation easements. The local landowner committee has been led by several local ranchers, but their 20-year friendship with Dave Carr of The Nature Conservancy has been pivotal in their staying engaged. Greg Neudecker of the USFWS’s Partners for Wildlife Program has played a similar role in the Blackfoot, given his 21-years of service to community collaboration there.

Many landowners and land trusts hesitate to bring public agencies into landscape partnerships because they often pride themselves on achieving conservation through private action. When engaged as part of landscape partnerships, however, state and federal agencies can be very effective allies. In the Blackfoot, the science, research, monitoring, funding, and restoration work delivered by the State of Montana and the USFWS has made a huge impact on the recovery of the river system.

On the land protection front, public acquisition of extensive timberlands in the Blackfoot has complemented private land trust work by consolidating public lands and maintaining community access to those lands for grazing, forestry, and recreation. Recognizing the problems associated with a century of fire suppression, the U.S. Forest Service has initiated experimental thinning projects of small-diameter stands to restore the structure and function of forestlands and reduce the fire threat to the valley. That work is now being expanded through a new federally funded Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program (CFLRP) across the Blackfoot, Clearwater, and Swan valleys.

The larger principle is that all the major stakeholders have to be at the table, working together toward their common ground. David Mannix, another Blackfoot Challenge rancher, explains what they call the 80–20 rule: “We work on the 80 percent we can agree on and check the other 20 percent at the door with our hat.” Jim Stone claims that when people show up at a Blackfoot Challenge meeting, “We ask you to leave your organizational agenda at the door and put the landscape first,” focusing on the health of the land and the community so closely tied to it.

What’s really important is having the “right people” at the table for private-public partnerships to work—creative individuals motivated by a common vision and humble enough to recognize that they do not have all the answers. Collaboration takes time. Once common-ground approaches are developed, it is critical to have initial success, however small, that can build the kind of foundation needed for bigger solutions down the road.

The Need for Funding

The most serious barrier for local collaborative groups to achieve landscape-level goals is the lack of adequate funding. Without sufficient financial support, collaborative efforts often lose momentum, which can set back this kind of work for years.

Funding is not a static element, but it is responsive to the scale of the outcomes that can be achieved and the breadth of the constituency engaged. Neither private nor public funders want to participate in partial success unless it is a step toward a long-term, sustainable goal. And they do not want to fund places where groups are competing. Increasingly, land trusts and agencies have come to realize the potential of what can be achieved through collaboration. Donors consistently have led on this issue because they understand a resource-constrained world and the value of leveraging diverse strengths and funding.

Even when great collaborative efforts come together around common goals and achieve a heightened threshold of success, a serious funding gap often exists in achieving truly landscape-scale conservation. Mark Shaffer, former director of the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation’s Environment Program, estimated this gap to be about $5 billion per year in new funding and tax incentives needed over the next 30 years to conserve a network of important landscapes in the United States.

The land trust community is now conserving land at the rate of about 2.6 million acres per year—a cumulative total of about 37 million acres according to the last census in 2005 (Land Trust Alliance 2006). However, to sustain whole landscapes before urgent threats close the window of opportunity, that rate needs to double or triple, and efforts must be conducted in a more focused way.

Emerging Opportunities for Landscape-Scale Conservation

There are several major trends and near-term opportunities that could enhance landscape-scale conservation efforts, but their success hinges on land trust engagement and leadership. First, it is critical that Congress make permanent the enhanced deductions for conservation easements. The Land Trust Alliance (2011) points out that these deductions can protect more than 250,000 additional acres per year. Given the current congressional focus on spending cuts and tax cuts, this is one of the few conservation finance tools that may be achievable in the near term. Over the longer term, a national transferable tax credit program, similar to those in Colorado and Virginia, could create an enormous incentive for securing conservation easements.

The second trend relates to increasing the federal focus on protecting whole landscapes by empowering communities that are already working together. In 2005 the Bush administration launched a Cooperative Conservation Program that provided improved agency coordination and capacity grants for local collaborative work. In 2010, the Obama administration launched the America’s Great Outdoors Initiative to help communities better sustain their land and water resources through locally driven partnerships and to reconnect America’s youth to the natural environment (Obama 2010).

While federal resources are highly constrained in the near term, existing programs and funding could be more focused on whole landscape conservation projects. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack has announced a major policy shift for the department to an “all lands” approach to conserving and restoring the big systems of the United States. For example, the Natural Resources Conservation Service recently announced that it would reinvest $89 million of unspent Wetland Reserve Program funds to purchase conservation easements over 26,000 acres of working ranches in the Florida Everglades. The opportunity facing the land trust community is to ensure that these projects are implemented in a manner that builds broad support for this work over the long term.

The third opportunity is passing local and statewide measures to increase funding and tax incentives for conservation. Despite the weak economy and pervasive talk of less government and lower taxes, voters in the 2010 elections passed 83 percent of the ballot initiatives presented nationwide to fund land and water conservation. Overall, 41 of 49 funding measures passed, generating more than $2 billion for land, water, parks, and farmland conservation over the next 20 years (The Trust for Public Land 2010).

The final trend and opportunity for the land trust community is partnering with private capital funders on major land conservation projects. Between 1983 and 2009, more than 43 million acres of forest lands traded hands (Rinehart 2010). New private equity groups, called Timber Investment Management Organizations (TIMOs) and Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs), picked up 27 million acres of this land in a very short period, and many of these investment groups, including Lyme Timber, Conservation Forestry, Ecosystem Investment Partners, Beartooth Capital Partners, have conservation as part of their business model.

The Question of Scale

An ongoing trend in conservation has been an expanding focus from individual properties to neighborhoods, landscapes, ecosystems, and now networks of ecosystems. For example, landowners in the Blackfoot, Swan Valley, and Rocky Mountain Front have come to realize that the health of their landscapes depends on the health of the larger Crown of the Continent (figure 2).

Surrounding the Bob Marshall Wilderness and Glacier-Waterton International Peace Park, the 10-million-acre Crown is one of the most intact ecosystems in North America. Thanks to a century of public land designations and 35 years of private land protection by local communities, this ecosystem has not lost a single species since European settlement. Landowners and other partners have been reaching across the Crown in a variety of ways to see how they can work together more closely for the good of the whole.

Even in the Crown’s large expanse, the sustainability of its wildlife populations depends on their connections to other populations throughout the Northern Rockies. That even larger network of natural systems can only be realized, however, if critical linkage areas can be sustained. For this reason, land trusts in Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, and Canada have been collaborating through a framework called the Heart of the Rockies to identify common priorities and conservation needs. This level of regional collaboration has resulted in both a new level of conservation and more attention from funders. It has also been pivotal for land trust collaboration around common policy priorities.

Organizing at these larger scales is truly imperative if we are to sustain well-connected natural systems, but it is also important to understand what can be achieved at each scale. Large regional initiatives are important for creating a broad, compelling vision, but not for implementing conservation on the ground. Such large-scale approaches are good at applying science at nature’s scale, creating regional collaboration around common priorities and a forum for exchange on innovative ideas, and bringing greater attention to the area. They also provide an important context for why local work is so significant.

Melanie Parker, a local leader for collaborative conservation efforts in the Swan Valley, cautions: “We need to aggregate our efforts across the larger region to influence policy and to access resources, but anyone who thinks that conservation work can or should be done at the scale of 10 million acres is seriously misguided. This kind of work has to be done at the scale at which people live, work, and understand their landscapes.”

Local people are moved to act by the power of their own place and in their own way. Designing strategies at a large scale is often too abstract for landowners at best, or outright alienating at worse. As in politics, all conservation is local. Likewise, politicians are most responsive to homegrown projects devised and backed by local residents. How large place-based efforts really can be and still hold community cohesion is an important question, but certainly the Blackfoot, Rocky Mountain Front, and Swan Valley are pushing the outer limits. Each is addressing lands at the scale of 0.5 million to 1.5 million acres.

Land trusts can add value to local efforts through regional collaboration. While landowners and local residents often do not have the additional time to participate in these larger initiatives, they want their place and specific issues to be well-represented. Land trusts and conservation organizations can play the very important role of connecting local, place-based groups, but they need to coordinate with those groups and not get out in front of them. In the end, the land trust community could be well served by strengthening its collaborative work, by deepening its engagement in landscape partnerships, and by working at larger scales to achieve conservation success.

Conclusion

After many decades of outstanding work, the more than 1,700 land trusts across the country can use their momentum to conserve the large systems that matter for people and nature. Indeed, this is what communities are asking for and what nature needs to survive. Moving beyond isolated victories to a more interconnected conservation vision is just as important for local sustainable economies and recreational access as it is for wildlife corridors and healthy watersheds. To be successful at this scale requires real collaboration and a reorientation for everyone involved. With the many opportunities currently rising for whole-landscape conservation, the moment is ours to seize.

References

Land Trust Alliance. 2006. 2005 national land trust census. Washington, DC. 30 November.

———. 2011. Accelerating the pace of conservation. www.landtrustalliance.org/policy

Maclean, Norman. 2001 [1976]. A river runs through it and other stories. 25th anniversary edition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Obama, Barack. 2010. Presidential Memorandum: America’s Great Outdoors, April 16. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/presidential-memorandum-americas-great-outdoors

Rinehart, Jim. 2010. U.S. timberland post-recession: Is it the same asset? San Francisco, CA: R&A Investment Forestry. April. www.investmentforestry.com

The Trust for Public Land. 2010. www.landvote.org

Trout Unlimited. 2011. Working together to restore the Blackfoot Watershed. February. www.tu.org

Williams, Jamie. 2011. Large landscape conservation: A view from the field. Working Paper. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

About the Author

Jamie Williamsis The Nature Conservancy’s director of landscape conservation for North America, based in Boulder, Colorado. He focuses on programs to protect large landscapes through innovative public and private partnerships. He was a Kingsbury Browne Fellow at the Lincoln Institute in 2010–2011. He holds a Master in Environmental Studies from the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies and a B.A. from Yale University.

Excess development entitlements and distressed subdivisions are impairing the quality of life, skewing development patterns and real estate markets, damaging ecosystems, and diminishing fiscal health in communities throughout the U.S. Intermountain West. Since the post-2007 real estate bust, which hit many parts of the region severely, eroding subdivision roads now carve up agricultural lands, and lonely “spec” houses continue to dot many rural and suburban landscapes. Some are vacant, but others are partially occupied and require the delivery of public services to remote neighborhoods that generate very little tax revenue. In jurisdictions where lots could be sold before infrastructure was completed, many people now find themselves owning a parcel in what was supposed to be a high-amenity development but is in fact little more than a paper plat.

These arrested developments—known colloquially as “zombie” subdivisions—are the living dead of the real estate market. Beset by financial or legal challenges, once-promising projects are now afflicting their environs with health and safety hazards, blight, decreased property values, threats to municipal finance, overcommitted natural resources, fragmented development patterns, and other distortions in local real estate markets.

This article presents an overview of the economic context that fostered so many excess entitlements in the West and of the local planning and development controls that influence how those market forces play out in a given community. It also describes how three communities in the Intermountain West have redesigned distressed subdivisions in their jurisdictions and how those efforts are facilitating recovery, creating more sustainable growth scenarios, improving property values, and conserving land and wildlife habitat.

The Economic Background that Fostered Excess Development in the West

In the Intermountain West, where land is abundant, and rapid growth is common, it’s not unusual for local governments to grant development entitlements well in advance of market demand for housing. Boom and bust cycles aren’t rare in the region either. The magnitude of the Great Recession, however, amplified the frequency of excess entitlements and exacerbated their harmfulness to surrounding communities. In the Intermountain West alone, millions of vacant lots are entitled. Across a large number of the region’s counties, the rate of vacant subdivision parcels ranges from around 15 percent to two-thirds of all lots (tables 1 and 2).

As the economy continues to recover, will the market correct this surplus of development rights, incentivizing developers to build out distressed subdivisions or to redesign those that do not reflect current market demand? In some locations, yes; in others, it is unlikely. Subdivisions are designed to be near-permanent divisions of land. Although many areas throughout the Intermountain West are rebounding robustly, many subdivisions remain distressed, with expired development assurances, few if any residents, fragmented ownership, partially completed or deteriorating infrastructure improvements, and weak or nonexistent mechanisms to maintain new services. Uncorrected, these arrested developments will continue to debilitate the fiscal health and quality of life in affected areas.

The Complexity of Revising Development Entitlements

Local jurisdictions shape the future of their communities through the entitlement of land, the approval of subdivisions, and the granting of subsequent development permits. These actions result in land use commitments that prove difficult to change in the future, establish development standards, and often commit the community to significant, long-term service costs.

Figure 1 demonstrates that excess entitlements are easiest to address when they’re purely paper subdivisions—with one owner, no improvements, no lots sold, and no houses built. As the status of a subdivision progresses from a paper plat to a partially built development—and more than a few landowners are involved, or the subdivider has begun to install improvements, or more than a few owners have built homes—the challenges grow more complex, and the options for resolving them more constrained.

The revision or revocation of a paper plat requires the agreement of only a single property owner who hasn’t made any major investments that might constrain the ability to alter design plans, allowing for the simplest resolutions (though the situation becomes more complicated if a lender must also approve any changes). The sale of even one lot to an individual landowner makes entitlement issues in the subdivision harder to resolve for three major legal reasons: (1) the need to protect the property rights of lot owners, (2) the need to preserve access to sold lots, and (3) pressure for equal treatment between current and potential future homeowners. Some of these issues can give rise to lawsuits, creating potential liability for the town or county. The revision or revocation of a plat with sold lots will require the agreement of multiple owners—each of whom may decide to file a lawsuit on one or more of these grounds.

Once the developer makes significant investments for infrastructure and other improvements, complications escalate. Although the purchase of land does not in itself create a “vested right” to complete the development, once an owner invests in improvements to serve anticipated houses, it is difficult to stop construction of those homes without reimbursing the developer for the cost of infrastructure.

Completed homes—particularly if a number of them are already occupied—further compound the complexity of resolving distressed subdivisions. Access roads will need to be retained and maintained, even if the homes are widely scattered in inefficient patterns. If the developer committed to building a golf course, park, or other community facilities, individual lot owners could claim a right to those amenities—whether or not they have been built, and whether or not the associations slated to upkeep them exist or have enough members to perform the maintenance. Even if the developer was clearly responsible for constructing the amenities, the local government could become liable for them if it has prevented the developer from building the amenities by vacating parts of the plat where those amenities were to be built.

Larger subdivisions split into several phases at various stages of completion pose the most intricate and extensive challenges. The first phases of construction may be mostly sold lots with most infrastructure in place, but later phases may be mere paper plats—unbuilt, with no lots sold and no improvements in place. Thus, a single distressed subdivision may pose several types of legal entitlement issues, with varying levels of risk and potential liability, in different corners of the development.

How Three Communities Successfully Redesigned Excess Entitlements

Local governments seeking to remedy the potential negative impacts of excess development entitlements and distressed subdivisions have many different land use and zoning measures at their disposal. We identified 48 tools and 12 best practices as a result of our research, which draws on case studies, lessons shared by experts during several workshops, data analysis, and a survey of planners, developers, and landowners in the Intermountain West. (For the scope of preventive and treatment strategies, consult the full Policy Focus Report, Arrested Developments: Combating Zombie Subdivisions and Other Excess Entitlements). Generally, they fall into four categories: economic incentives, purchase of land or development rights, growth management programs, and development regulations:

1. Economic incentives—such as targeted infrastructure investments, fee waivers, and regulatory streamlining—avoid controversial regulations.

2. Purchase of land or development rights is the most direct way to eliminate unwanted development entitlements, but it may be too costly for some communities.

3. Growth management approaches include relying on urban service area boundaries or adequate public facility requirements to limit new development entitlements.

4. Development regulations include rezoning, changes in subdivision ordinances and development assurances, initiation of plat vacating processes, and revised development agreement templates.

The following three case study communities primarily utilized development regulations. Mesa County in Colorado and Teton County in Idaho revised their development agreements to redesign local distressed subdivisions. All three jurisdictions, including the City of Maricopa in Arizona, facilitated voluntary replatting efforts as well.

How Mesa County, Colorado, Revised Its Development Approval Process and Abandoned Paper Plats

During the oil shale boom and bust of the 1980s, Mesa County, Colorado, was one of the regions hit hardest. When ExxonMobil ceased operations in the area, the population of Grand Junction, the county seat, plummeted by 15,000 people overnight. All development halted. In the bust’s wake, more than 400 subdivisions, encompassing about 4,000 lots throughout the county, were abandoned. Nearly 20 percent of Mesa County’s subdivisions were left with unfulfilled development improvement agreements.

When the county’s bond rating dropped in 1988, it put several measures in place to clean up the excess entitlements. It negotiated with local banks and the development community to establish a development improvements agreement form and procedure. It also established a new financial guarantee called the “Subdivision Disbursement Agreement” between construction lenders and the county. The agreement puts the county in a direct partnership with financial institutions to ensure, 1) an agreed-upon construction budget, 2) an established timeline for construction of the improvements, 3) an agreed-upon process, involving field inspections during construction, for releasing loan funds to developers, and 4) the county’s commitment to accept a developer’s improvements, after certain conditions have been met, and to release the developer from the financial security.

It took Mesa County 15 years to fully address the excess entitlements stemming from the 1980s bust, but the work paid off: During the Great Recession, the county had the lowest ratio of vacant subdivision parcels to total subdivision lots among approximately 50 counties examined in the Intermountain West. Not a single developer backed out of a development agreement when only partial improvements were made. While some subdivisions remain vacant, all improvements have been completed to the point that the parcels will be ready for construction once they are sold.

River Canyon (figure 2), for example, was planned as a 38-lot subdivision on 192 acres. When the real estate bubble burst in 2008, the entire site had been lightly graded with roads cut, but no other improvements were complete, and no parcels had been sold. Realizing the lots would not be viable in the near-term, the developer worked with the county to replat the subdivision into one parent lot until the owner is ready to apply for subdivision review again.

The resolution is a win-win: The county escapes a contract with a developer in default and avoids the sale of lots to multiple owners with whom it would be difficult to coordinate construction of subdivision improvements. The developer avoids the cost of installing services and paying taxes on vacant property zoned for residential development.

Now, lenders in Mesa County often encourage the consolidation of platted lots, because many banks will not lend money or extend the time on construction loans without a certain percentage of presales validating the asset as a solid investment. The landowner generally complies as well, to avoid paying taxes on vacant residential property, which carries the second highest tax rate in Colorado. If market demand picks up, property owners may submit the same subdivision plans to the county for review, to ensure compliance with current regulations. If the plans still comply, the developer can proceed from that point in the subdivision process. Mesa County consolidated parcels this way a total of seven times from 2008 to 2012, to eliminate lots where no residential construction is anticipated in the near future.

How Maricopa, Arizona, Partnered to Convert Distressed Parcels to Nonresidential Uses

Maricopa—incorporated in 2003, in the early years of Arizona’s real estate boom—is typical of many new exurban communities within growing metropolitan regions. Faced with an influx of new residents “driving until they qualified,” the community quickly committed the majority of available land to residential subdivision entitlements. At the height of the boom, the small city—37 miles from downtown Phoenix and 20 miles from the urbanizing edge of the Phoenix metro area—was issuing roughly 600 residential building permits per month.

Pinal County had approved many of Maricopa’s residential subdivisions before the city was incorporated, in accordance with the county’s 1967 zoning code. In fact, following standard practice for newly incorporated communities, the city initially adopted the Pinal County Zoning Ordinance. For a time, the county planning and zoning commission also continued to serve as the city’s planning oversight body. But this older rural county code did not consider or create incentives for mixed-use development, areas with a downtown character, a balance between jobs and housing, institutional uses, or social services. The lack of diversity resulted in a shortage of retail and service use areas and a scarcity of designated areas for nonprofits such as churches, private schools, daycare, counseling, and health services. As new residents looked for public services and local jobs, this dearth of land for employment and public facilities became increasingly problematic.

When the Great Recession hit and the housing bust occurred, supply overran demand for residential lots, and many became distressed. Maricopa faced this challenge and seized the opportunity to reexamine its growth patterns and address the multiple distressed subdivisions plaguing the community.

The city chose to partner with the private sector—including developers, banks, bonding agencies, and other government agencies—to address distressed subdivisions and the lack of institutional and public land uses. The first test of this new approach began when a Catholic congregation was looking for a church site in an urban location with existing sewage, water, and other necessary infrastructure. The City of Maricopa served as a facilitator to connect the church with the developers of Glennwilde, a partially built, distressed development. The church chose a site in a late phase of the subdivision—at that point still a paper plat. The city vacated the plat for that site and returned it to one large parcel, which the Glennwilde developer then sold to the church.

Construction has not yet begun, but the project has served as a model for other arrested developments. The collaborative effort among the city, owners of currently distressed subdivisions, and other interested parties has also inspired approved proposals for a Church of Latter Day Saints stake center, a civic center, a regional park, and a multigenerational facility throughout the city.

How Teton County, Idaho, Demanded Plat Redesign, Vacation, or Replatting

Rural, unincorporated Teton County, Idaho—with an estimated year-round population of 10,170—has a total of 9,031 platted lots, and 6,778 are vacant. Even if the county’s annual growth rate returned to 6 percent, where it hovered between 2000 and 2008, this inventory of lots reflects a stockpile adequate to accommodate growth for approximately the next 70 years. This extreme surplus of entitlements —with three vacant entitled lots for every developed lot in the county—stems from three poor decisions the board of commissioners made from 2003 to 2005.

First, the county adopted a quick and easy process for landowners to request the right to up-zone their properties from 20-acre lots to 2.5-acre lots. None of these zone changes were granted in tandem with a concurrent development proposal; virtually all were granted for future speculative development. It was not uncommon for the county to up-zone hundreds of acres in a single night of public hearings; the agenda for one meeting could include up to ten subdivision applications.

Second, the county’s Guide for Development 2004–2010 called for aggressive growth, with a focus on residential construction to drive economic development. The goals and objectives, however, were vague, and the plan failed to specify the type and location of projects. Discredited by the community, the document was ultimately ignored during the approvals process and fostered explosive, random development, resulting in six years of land use decisions made without any coherent strategy.

Third, the Board of County Commissioners adopted a Planned United Development (PUD) ordinance with density bonuses in 2005. Under the PUD cluster development provisions, developers could exceed the underlying zoning entitlements by as much as 1,900 percent. Typical PUD density bonuses for good design range between 10 and 20 percent. Now areas with a central water system that were zoned for 20-acre zoning—with 5 units per 100 acres—could be entitled with up to 100 units. In addition, Teton County’s PUD and subdivision regulations allowed the sale of lots before infrastructure installment, which provided a huge incentive for speculative development.

After the 2008 market crash, some owners of incomplete developments began looking for ways to restructure their distressed subdivisions. In 2010, Targhee Hill Estates approached the county with a proposal to replat their partially built resort (figure 3). At the time, however, there was no local ordinance, state statute, or legal process that would permit the replatting of an expired development.

The Teton County Valley Advocates for Responsible Development (VARD) stepped in and petitioned the county to create a process to encourage the redesign of distressed subdivisions and facilitate replatting. VARD realized that a plat redesign could reduce intrusion into sensitive natural areas of the county, reduce governmental costs associated with scattered development, and potentially reduce the number of vacant lots by working with landowners and developers to expedite changes to recorded plats.

On November 22, 2010, the Board of County Commissioners unanimously adopted a replatting ordinance that would allow the inexpensive and quick replatting of subdivisions, PUDs, and recorded development agreements. The ordinance created a solution-oriented process that allows Teton County to work with developers, landowners, lenders, and other stakeholders to untangle complicated projects with multiple ownership interests and oftentimes millions of dollars in infrastructure.

The ordinance first classifies the extent of any changes proposed by a replat into four categories: 1) major increase in scale and impact, 2) minor increase in scale and impact, 3) major decrease in scale and impact, 4) minor decrease in scale and impact. Any increases in impact may require additional public hearings and studies, whereas these requirements and agency review are waived (where possible) for decreases in impact. In addition, the ordinance waives the unnecessary duplication of studies and analyses that may have been required as part of the initial plat application and approval. Teton County also waived its fees for processing replat applications.

The first success story was the replatting of Canyon Creek Ranch Planned Unit Development, finalized in June 2013. More than 23 miles from city services, Canyon Creek Ranch was originally approved in 2009 as a 350-lot ranch-style resort on roughly 2,700 acres including approximately 25 commercial lots, a horse arena, and a lodge. After extensive negotiations between the Canyon Creek development team and the Teton County Planning Commission staff, the developer proposed a replat that dramatically scaled back the footprint and impact of this project to include only 21 lots over the 2,700 acre property. For the developer, this new design reduces the price tag for infrastructure by 97 percent, from $24 million to roughly $800,000, enabling the property to remain in the conservation reserve program and creating a source of revenue on it while reducing the property tax liability. The reduced scale and impact of this new design will help preserve this critical habitat and maintain the rural landscape, which is a public benefit to the general community.

Conclusion

While recovery from the most recent boom and bust cycle is nearly complete in some areas of the country, other communities will be impacted by vacant lots and distressed subdivisions well into the future. Future real estate booms will also inevitably result in new busts, and vulnerable communities can build a solid foundation of policies, laws, and programs now to minimize new problems stemming from the excess entitlement of land. Communities and others involved in real estate development would be well-served by ensuring they have mechanisms in place to adapt and adjust to evolving market conditions. For jurisdictions already struggling with distressed subdivisions, a willingness to reconsider past approvals and projects and to acknowledge problems is an essential ingredient to success. Communities that are able to serve as effective facilitators as well as regulators, as demonstrated in the case studies presented here, will be best prepared to prevent and then respond and treat distressed subdivisions and any problems that may arise from excess development entitlements.

For More Tools and Recommendations

This article was adapted from a new Policy Focus Report from the Lincoln Institute, Arrested Developments: Combating Zombie Subdivisions and Other Excess Entitlements, by Jim Holway with Don Elliott and Anna Trentadue. For more detailed information—including best practices, policy recommendations, and a how-to guide for communities dealing with excess entitlements—download the full Policy Focus Report or order a print copy. Additional information is available on the companion website (www.ReshapingDevelopment.org).

About the Authors

Jim Holway, Ph.D., FAICP, directs Western Lands and Communities at the Sonoran Institute in Phoenix, Arizona. He also is a local elected official, representing Maricopa County on the Central Arizona Water Conservation District.

Don Elliott, FAICP, is a land use lawyer, city planner, and the director of Clarion Associates in Denver, Colorado.

Anna Trentadue is the staff attorney for Valley Advocates for Responsible Development in Driggs, Idaho.

Resources

Burger, Bruce and Randy Carpenter. 2010. Rural Real Estate Markets and Conservation Development in the Intermountain West. Working paper. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Elliott, Don. 2010. Premature Subdivisions and What to Do About Them. Working paper. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Preston, Gabe. 2010. The Fiscal Impacts of Development on Vacant Rural Subdivision Lots in Teton County, Idaho. Fiscal impact study. Teton County, ID: Sonoran Institute.

Sonoran Institute. Reshaping Development Patterns. PFR companion website www.ReshapingDevelopment.org

Sonoran Institute. Successful Communities On-Line Toolkit information exchange. www.SCOTie.org

Trentadue, Anna. 2012. Addressing Excess Development Entitlements: Lessons Learned In Teton County, ID. Working paper. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Trentadue, Anna and Chris Lundberg. 2011. Subdivision in the Intermountain West: A Review and Analysis of State Enabling Authority, Case Law, and Potential Tools for Dealing with Zombie Subdivisions and Obsolete Development Entitlements in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming. Working paper. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Valley Advocates for Responsible Development. www.tetonvalleyadvocates.org

It is not surprising that proposals for land value taxation (LVT) should elicit strong reactions in public debate. Land, taxes and information are a combustible combination, but they are critical to our political system. Without land we cannot live; without taxes we cannot be governed; without information about land and taxes we are powerless to change the way we are governed. Although Britain has not confronted basic land or tax reform in recent years, there are several signs, outlined below, that this is changing, and such changes can open the way for renewed attention to LVT initiatives.

Increasing Awareness of the Tax Burden

There is now widespread acceptance that Britain taxes jobs and enterprise far too much. In 1997 the European Commission (now known as the European Union) asked its 15 member states to produce employment action plans, including proposals to relieve the burden of taxes on employment. In 1999 British Prime Minister Tony Blair and German Chancellor Gerhardt Schroeder issued a joint statement that said, “. . . overall, the taxation of hard work and enterprise should be reduced.” Britain’s Liberal Democrat Party manifesto in 1998 called for a “major tax shift off people and on to pollution and resources.” Across the political spectrum consensus is building for a shift in the tax burden.

Devolution and Constitutional Reform

The United Kingdom is in the midst of far-reaching constitutional changes involving elections by proportional representation, which almost guarantee coalitions and make continuity of policy more likely. The number of voting hereditary peers in the House of (Land) Lords has been reduced from 400 to fewer than 100. Unlike a century ago, the Lords can no longer block an elected government with a mandate to introduce LVT or other land reforms. Although Britain still has one of the most centralized governments in Europe, Scotland and Wales now have considerable autonomy through their elected Parliament and Assembly.

Northern Ireland also has an elected Assembly, and land policy there is arguably more forward-thinking than on mainland Britain, with integrated ministerial responsibility for maps, land registers and property valuation. By 2007 there will be a fully electronic, map-based comprehensive land register and up-to-date property assessment. Uniquely in the UK, residential areas will be assessed through computer-aided mass assessment (CAMA) techniques imported from the U.S.

Scotland can vary income tax by up to 3 percent and can choose the tax base for its 28 local authorities. There is a much better understanding of LVT in Scotland than elsewhere in the UK, and the Scottish Executive has promised to initiate a thorough study of the economic implications of LVT before the next elections in 2004.

London now has its own devolved regional government, the Greater London Assembly, with an elected mayor, Ken Livingstone, who has become keenly interested in the potential of land values to fund transport infrastructure. The mayor’s transport commissioner, American Bob Kiley, is even more interested and has gone on record saying LVT might have a role, and not just in transport funding. There is currently a lively political battle concerning the London Underground, addressing who pays for investment and who benefits from it, which may provide a context for considering the role of LVT.

In most of the UK, however, local government is still a creature of the central state. Seventy percent of local government revenue comes directly from central grants, and over 90 percent of local expenditure is constrained by directives from the central government.

Advances in Geographic Information Technology

There have been amazing changes in information technology since the last thorough review of local government finance in Britain, in 1975. Then, base map information was held on a quarter of a million glass plates that were only revised on a 10- to 25-year cycle, using manual cartography, steel tapes and parchment paper. Now the entire national mapping system is computerized, using satellites, hand-held field data recorders and Internet map access. The Ordnance Survey MasterMap data structure recognizes land and building parcels and can hold attributes as diverse as height, material of construction, value and ownership. It is updated on a continuous basis and can incorporate pre-build and historic information. In 1975 the map archive occupied a large four-story building; now it fits on just eight CD-ROMs, covering every building and land parcel occupied by 60 million people.

All of these advances could assist the introduction of a tax based on land value, although there are serious institutional problems in getting all agencies that would be involved in LVT to apply the technology fast enough. However, the government has a target of enabling all information-based functions to be delivered electronically by 2005.

Unpopularity of the Uniform Business Rate

The uniformity of taxation in Britain is reflected in the name of the nonresidential property tax: Uniform Business Rate (UBR). At the end of the 1980s, local councils lost the power to fix the rate of the tax, and with it any direct financial connection with their local business communities. The central government at Whitehall decides what each council will collect from its business ratepayers, and how much each council retains, which can be substantially more or less than is collected locally. All that remains is some discretion over businesses exemptions, at the expense of local residents. No wonder that a recent government study showed a deep disdain for local councils among business owners and huge ignorance by both business and councils about their respective roles and problems.

Because this tax is based on occupancy and not on ownership, vacant and underused land largely or wholly escapes taxation. The UBR is regarded as a most regressive tax, accounting for up to one-third of the turnover of the smallest independent traders but only 3 percent of turnover of large multiple stores. My research has found UBR to be extremely unpopular: it penalizes success and fails to compensate for harm done by irresponsible neighbors. So this is another factor in the return of interest in LVT. As others have noted in recent years, the replacement of UBR, in part or totally, with a site-value-based tax would most likely be an extremely effective policy for urban renewal.

Business Improvement Districts

BIDs are coming to Britain after years of use in the U.S. These special districts allow commercial and office sectors to raise funds through property assessments for maintenance and improvement of their neighborhoods. But the only tax currently proposed for BIDs is a supplement to the occupier-based UBR. The business community does not like this idea, and LVT campaigners are now working with others to persuade prospective BID partnerships to consider assessments on owners and also to press for the creation of new tax powers.

LVT supporters propose that if a large majority within the BID support such measures, the BID should be able to compel all owners in the district to pay them; free-riders should not be allowed. The idea, known as “Smart BIDs,” is to support the BIDs with taxes on owners rather than business rates, and perhaps even to reduce the UBR rate within Smart BIDs.

Environmental Concerns

Current interest in LVT in Britain was boosted by an Urban Task Force report and formal support for LVT pilot projects by Friends of the Earth (which has more members in the UK than the Liberal Democrat Party) and the Town & Country Planning Association. These environmental organizations are interested in taxation as a tool for sustainable development, and such concern will only grow in the future. People in Britain will recycle even if it costs them time and money to do so. The same concern for the environment will increase acceptance of LVT when it is understood as a means of keeping towns and cities viable and protecting the countryside.

Practical Administrative Considerations

Two surveys of the town of Whitstable by Hector Wilks in 1963 and 1973 support the view that LVT presents fewer assessment difficulties than do traditional rating systems. Recent advances in computerized assessment systems make LVT more feasible than ever before. My own preliminary studies of other countries that use computerized assessments, especially Denmark and Australia, show that the overall cost of property tax administration is far lower there.

Denmark’s property tax, with annual revaluations, costs 20 percent less per property than Britain’s. When I visited Denmark last year, I found an extremely efficient property tax system tapping into land values in a modest way. Tax administrators told me that, aside from the environmental benefits of the tax, the greatest interest came from Treasury officials concerned about the growth of offshore tax havens. They are attracted to LVT because it costs very little to administer and there is virtually no possibility of avoidance or evasion.

If a British government were inclined to switch to LVT, it would not find any insuperable problems within our highly intelligent and incorruptible valuation profession. We have a professional, politically independent agency for conducting property tax assessments and the best national mapping agency in the world. It is simply a matter of exercising political leadership.

The Way Forward

In addition to supporting Smart BID pilot projects, my personal list for projects to help realize the potential of LVT includes:

• updating basic economics courses and making them available on the Web;
• implementing exchange programs between relevant tax professionals in Britain and countries with LVT;
• developing easy-to-use value mapping tools;
• studying the links between planning and LVT;
• comparing compliance costs of LVT and other taxes;
• developing indicators of the economic impact of LVT;
• monitoring public perceptions of land and tax issues over time and across countries; and
• providing more accessible nontechnical publications about LVT. These are.

The subject of tax reform is one of the most important issues of our age and political environment, and after years of neglect LVT is being considered in Britain again. The Lincoln Institute’s sponsorship of work by many LVT thinkers, writers and researchers in Britain and elsewhere has been instrumental in advancing public awareness of and professional appreciation for the potential benefits of LVT.

Tony Vickers recently completed a David C. Lincoln Fellowship in Land Value Taxation at the Lincoln Institute, and this article summarizes his Founder’s Day lecture on the topic in Cambridge, Massachusetts, in June 2002. Vickers is the former CEO of the Henry George Foundation in London, and he is currently pursuing a Ph.D. at the School of Surveying, Kingston University, London.

A well-functioning property tax system could offer many benefits to the nations of sub-Saharan Africa. At a time of decentralization, when local governments are being asked to assume new responsibilities for services and infrastructure in such countries as Sierra Leone, South Africa, and Uganda, a dependable and locally administered source of revenue would greatly benefit local democracy and economic development. It could improve the standard of living in local communities on a continent still grappling with abject poverty and poor governance.

La reciente recesión ha sido reconocida como la peor de que hayamos tenido memoria, y sus efectos todavía se están sintiendo. Lo que no se comprende tan bien es que esta recesión ha sido mucho peor para los gobiernos estatales de lo que se podría inferir por la caída en el producto interno bruto (PIB). Si bien las finanzas de los gobiernos estatales han dejado de desplomarse, siguen estando más cerca del fondo del precipicio que de su cima. Las recaudaciones de impuestos no han recobrado sus niveles previos a la recesión, y la demanda de nuevos ingresos puede llegar a abrumar cualquier mejora provisional en las cobranzas. Aun cuando los estados puedan superar estos desafíos, el camino hacia la recuperación fiscal será largo y lento, con varios y grandes riesgos en la andadura.

Los gobiernos estatales y locales juegan un papel importante en la economía y en nuestra vida cotidiana. Financian más del 90 por ciento de la educación primaria y secundaria, y proporcionan casi toda ella. Las universidades públicas educan a tres cuartos de los estudiantes inscritos en instituciones académicas. Los gobiernos estatales y locales supervisan, diseñan y construyen más del 90 por ciento de la infraestructura pública del país. Financian gran parte de la red de seguridad social de la nación y también implementan gran parte de ella. De hecho, los gobiernos estatales y locales gastan más en la implementación directa de políticas internas que el gobierno federal.

Los servicios financiados y proporcionados por los gobiernos estatales y locales tienden a tener una demanda estable y generalmente creciente. Cuando llega una recesión, no se reduce la cantidad de niños en la escuela o de ancianos en residencias para la tercera edad –dos de las áreas de gasto más importantes para los gobiernos estatales y locales– ni la cantidad de incendios o delitos. Para programas como Medicaid o educación universitaria, por ejemplo, la demanda de los tipos de servicios proporcionados por los gobiernos estatales y locales aumenta precisamente durante las recesiones. A menos que los estados puedan corregir las estructuras de ingresos o desarrollar las reservas adecuadas, la política pública seguirá sufriendo los vaivenes de cada giro de la economía.

La disminución en la recaudación de impuestos estatales

La Gran Recesión que comenzó en diciembre de 2007 fue la recesión más profunda y prolongada desde la Gran Depresión de la década de 1930. La tasa de desempleo subió al 10,1 por ciento y sigue siendo obstinadamente alta, cayendo sólo al 9,1 por ciento después de dos años de recuperación. Las recaudaciones de impuestos estatales se desplomaron, cayendo por cinco trimestres consecutivos desde el último trimestre de 2008 hasta finales de 2009. Las recaudaciones de impuestos cayeron vertiginosamente un 16,8 por ciento en el segundo trimestre de 2009, y en los años siguientes disminuyeron aún más, y más rápidamente, que en cualquier otra recesión habida desde la Segunda Guerra Mundial (figura 1).

La reciente caída en el PIB ha sido significativa en comparación con recesiones pasadas, pero las caídas en el consumo tributable y en los ingresos personales, dos componentes que constituyen la base tributaria de los gobiernos estatales y locales, han sido mucho peores. El consumo tributable cayó alrededor del 11 por ciento, mientras que el PIB cayó alrededor del 5 por ciento. Los componentes tributables de los ingresos personales también cayeron mucho más que la economía en general, y siguen languideciendo más del 5 por ciento por debajo del auge previo a la recesión, lo cual refleja que no ha habido recuperación en el empleo.

Si bien esta ha sido la peor recesión desde la posguerra según los patrones económicos tradicionales, estas formas de medir no cuentan toda la historia. Las ganancias de capital, un componente importante de las bases tributarias de los estados, no forman parte de los ingresos personales en las cuentas económicas de la nación. Estas ganancias han aumentado en importancia y son una de las causas principales de la mayor volatilidad de las finanzas estatales. Las ganancias de capital cayeron más del 55 por ciento, impulsando la caída de la recaudación de impuestos en el trimestre final del año fiscal 2009, cuando se presentaron las declaraciones de impuestos que correspondían al colapso de la bolsa en 2008.

El resultado neto de estas y otras fuerzas fue una enorme disminución en los impuestos estatales sobre los ingresos, las ventas y las corporaciones. La figura 2 ilustra cómo los impuestos anuales sobre los ingresos cayeron más del 15 por ciento cuando se los ajusta por la inflación; los impuestos sobre las ventas cayeron más del 10 por ciento; y los impuestos corporativos cayeron más del 25 por ciento. Los impuestos sobre la propiedad, que son cruciales para los gobiernos locales pero, en general, no son una fuente significativa de ingresos para los estados, permanecieron bastante estables durante todo el período, si bien están comenzando a debilitarse y en algunas partes del país han caído significativamente.

Una lenta recuperación

La recesión terminó en junio de 2009 y la economía se ha estado recuperando lentamente. La recaudación de impuestos estatales creció en cada trimestre del año natural 2010, y el carácter de este crecimiento ha mejorado con el tiempo. En los primeros dos trimestres de 2010, los incrementos en las tasas tributarias compensaron con creces las caídas causadas por la debilidad económica subyacente, pero en los últimos dos trimestres el crecimiento de los ingresos tributarios ha sido impulsado principalmente por una mejoría en la economía. En el cuarto trimestre, los ingresos tributarios crecieron un 7,8 por ciento, pero incluso sin los aumentos en las tasas tributarias hubieran crecido un 7,0 por ciento. Los ingresos tributarios del trimestre de enero a marzo de 2011 crecieron un 9,3 por ciento en comparación con el año anterior, y 21 estados tuvieron un crecimiento mayor del 10 por ciento. Los datos preliminares para el trimestre de abril a junio muestran que las recaudaciones tributarias aumentaron un 11,4 por ciento.

Los ingresos tributarios estatales con inflación ajustada para el país en general en los últimos cuatro trimestres (que finalizan en el primer trimestre del año natural 2011) fueron un 7,7 por ciento menores que el pico alcanzado en 2007. El considerable crecimiento observado en los primeros dos trimestres de 2011 probablemente no se podrá sostener mucho más porque parece haber sido impulsado por las ganancias en la bolsa del año fiscal 2010, inflando las declaraciones de impuestos en el segundo trimestre. Casi con seguridad estas ganancias no se repetirán en 2011.

Además, las turbulencias en los mercados de deuda europeos y la reciente rebaja de la deuda a largo plazo de los Estados Unidos por parte de Standard & Poor’s han contribuido al temor de que se produzca una segunda recesión. Existen señales de que el crecimiento económico será más lento de lo que la mayoría de estados había supuesto en sus presupuestos actuales. Los estados están más cerca del fondo del precipicio que de su cima, y corren el riesgo de volver a caerse. Mientras tanto, hay algunos signos de que los ingresos tributarios de los gobiernos locales también están comenzando a debilitarse.

Si bien los ingresos tributarios están creciendo ahora en la mayoría de los estados en comparación con las bajas tasas de recaudación del año anterior, no han alcanzado todavía los niveles previos a la recesión. Después de ajustarlos a la inflación, los ingresos tributarios para los últimos cuatro trimestres están por debajo del nivel del año natural 2007 en 43 estados, y los ingresos son por lo menos 10 por ciento menores que dicho nivel en 20 de estos estados. Entre los siete estados que muestran un giro positivo en la recaudación de impuestos, sólo Oregón (8,9 por ciento), Delaware (13 por ciento) y Dakota del Norte (62,9 por ciento) muestran niveles superiores al 2 por ciento.

Reacciones de los gobiernos estatales y locales

Los estados que han sufrido una reducción en sus ingresos también han visto subir el costo de sus programas sociales, debido en gran parte a la inscripción en Medicaid, que siempre aumenta después de que los trabajadores desempleados agotan sus prestaciones de seguro de salud. Según la Asociación Nacional de Funcionarios Presupuestarios Estatales (2011, ix), la inscripción en Medicaid aumentó un 8,1 por ciento en el año fiscal 2010, y se estima que aumentará un 5,4 por ciento en el año fiscal 2011; los estados proyectan un incremento adicional del 3,8 por ciento en el año fiscal 2012. Estos y otros tipos de gastos necesarios producen aún más tensiones en las actividades cotidianas de los gobiernos estatales y locales.

Es difícil medir el impacto de los recortes de gastos sobre los programas estatales y locales, pero sí se pueden medir los cambios en el nivel de empleo de los gobiernos estatales y locales. Si bien en el sector privado el empleo cayó significativamente desde el comienzo de la recesión, el empleo en los gobiernos estatales y locales siguió creciendo modestamente durante alrededor de un año y medio. Poco antes de que el empleo en el sector privado alcanzara su nadir, el empleo en los gobiernos estatales y locales comenzó a disminuir, y han tenido que recortar el empleo de manera agresiva. El nivel de empleo en los gobiernos locales es ahora un 3 por ciento menor que el pico, y el empleo en los gobiernos estatales es alrededor del 2 por ciento menor que el pico.

Los puestos de trabajo en educación en la mayoría de los estados están relacionados principalmente con la educación superior –universidades comunitarias, universidades de licenciatura y universidades con cursos de posgrado– si bien parte de ellos corresponden a la burocracia administrativa de la educación primaria y secundaria, y en algunos estados incluye parte de la fuerza de trabajo de ese sector educativo. El empleo en educación de los gobiernos estatales ha seguido creciendo significativamente durante la recesión y la recuperación, reflejando en parte el aumento en la demanda de educación terciaria que normalmente se produce en las recesiones (figura 3). Cuando es difícil encontrar trabajo, muchas personas deciden aumentar su nivel de destrezas y conocimientos inscribiéndose en un programa educativo o prolongando su estadía en la universidad (Betts y McFarland, 1995).

Mientras tanto, los gobiernos estatales han estado recortando el empleo no relacionado con la educación a pasos acelerados, de tal manera que ha bajado ahora casi un 5 por ciento desde su pico a mediados de 2008, casi comparable con lasituación actual de recuperación leve del empleo en el sector privado. En cada una de las nueve recesiones previas, el empleo no relacionado con la educación en los gobiernos estatales no disminuyó en absoluto o lo hizo en mucha menor medida, como fue el caso, por ejemplo, en la recesión de 2001.

La figura 4 muestra los mismos datos de empleo para los gobiernos locales, que están sufriendo cada vez más por la disminución de los impuestos sobre la propiedad y los recortes de ayuda estatal. El empleo en educación es ahora un 3,5 por ciento menor que el pico producido a finales de 2008, y el sector no relacionado con la educación ha caído un porcentaje similar con respecto al pico. No hay señales de que estos recortes se estén frenando, y hay pocas razones para pensar que vayan a remitir a corto plazo.

Las presiones fiscales continúan

La reciente mejoría de los ingresos tributarios estatales es bienvenida, pero siguen quedando varios desafíos. Los estados tienen problemas fiscales por cuatro razones principales. Primero, los ingresos totales siguen estando muy por debajo de su pico. Segundo, la recesión ha provocado efectos fiscales demorados, aumentando la demanda de muchos servicios gubernamentales, sobre todo Medicaid, otros programas de la red de seguridad, y la educación superior. La recesión también ha creado otras presiones y problemas para los estados al vaciar los fondos de fideicomiso del seguro de desempleo, lo cual puede llevar a imponer impuestos mayores para los seguros de desempleo con el fin de poder pagar los préstamos federales.

Tercero, los ajustes estatales cíclicos no se han completado aún, porque tienen que contabilizar las pérdidas del estímulo federal de más de US$50.000 millones en el año fiscal 2011–12 y el vencimiento de las medidas temporales de aumento de ingresos que se promulgaron en respuesta a la recesión. Cuarto, aun después de que este ciclo se estabilice por completo, los estados tendrán que enfrentarse con grandes aumentos en contribuciones de pensiones y pagos para la salud de los jubilados –una presión que probablemente se irá acumulando en los años venideros por varias razones como el aumento en la cantidad de jubilados debido al envejecimiento de la fuerza de trabajo; la probabilidad de que los costos de salud aumenten más rápidamente que la economía en general (Keehan et al. 2011); y, en el caso de algunos sistemas de pensiones y la mayoría de los planes de salud para jubilados, muchos años de subfinanciamiento crónico.

Los estados financian estos servicios con fuentes de ingresos inestables, y los ingresos tributarios se han hecho mucho menos confiables en las últimas dos décadas, reflejando en gran parte la participación cada vez mayor de los impuestos volátiles sobre la ganancia de capital. A menos que los estados puedan ampliar sus bases tributarias para que sus estructuras de ingresos sean menos volátiles, o desarrollar reservas adecuadas, la política pública seguirá sufriendo los vaivenes de cada giro en la economía.

Sobre El Autor

Donald Boyd es el director ejecutivo del Comité de Tareas Nacional sobre la Crisis en los Presupuestos Estatales, cuyos presidentes son el expresidente de la Junta de la Reserva Federal, Paul Volcker, y el exvicegobernador de Nueva York, Richard Ravitch. Boyd se encuentra actualmente bajo licencia de sus responsabilidades como senior fellow en el Instituto de Gobierno Rockefeller, donde realiza investigaciones sobre temas fiscales de los gobiernos estatales y locales.

Referencias

Betts, Julian R., and Laurel L. McFarland. 1995. Safe port in a storm: The impact of labor market conditions on community college enrollments. Journal of Human Resources 30(4):741–765.

Boyd, Donald. 2011. Recession, recovery, and state and local finances. Working Paper. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Keehan, Sean P., Andrea M. Sisko, Christopher J. Truffer, John A. Poisal, Gigi A. Cuckler, Andrew J. Madison, Joseph M. Lizonitz, and Sheila D. Smith. 2011. National health spending projections through 2020: Economic recovery and reform drive faster spending growth. Health Affairs 30(8): 1594–1605.

National Association of State Budget Officers. 2011. The fiscal survey of states. Washington, DC. http://nasbo.org/Publications/FiscalSurvey/ tabid/65/Default.aspx

Nueva colaboración editorial: El impuesto sobre la propiedad y el financiamiento de la educación primaria y secundaria—Un número especial de Education Finance and Policy (Finanzas y política educativa)

Daphne A. Kenyon y Andrew Reschovsky

Consecuencia de la gran recesión, el financiamiento del sistema de educación primaria y secundaria pública en los Estados Unidos ha sido particularmente problemática, dado la estrecha relación entre las finanzas escolares y el tributo sobre la propiedad. A lo largo del país, la caída abrupta de los precios de las viviendas que dieron lugar a la recesión también redujo la recaudación del impuesto sobre la propiedad. Más del 80 por ciento de los ingresos de las escuelas públicas provienen del impuesto local sobre la propiedad (McGuire, Papke y Reschovsky 2015) y casi la mitad del total recaudado por ese concepto en los Estados Unidos se usa para financiar la educación pública primaria y secundaria (Oficina del Censo de los EE.UU. 2014, Oficina del Censo de los EE.UU. 2013).

Para fomentar nuevas investigaciones sobre estos temas, el Instituto Lincoln de Políticas de Suelo organizó una conferencia sobre “Impuesto sobre la propiedad y el financiamiento de la educación primaria y secundaria” en Cambridge, MA, EE.UU., en octubre de 2013. El número de otoño de 2014 de Education Finance and Policy (Finanzas y política educativa) contiene cinco ponencias de la conferencia, junto con dos trabajos adicionales presentados como parte de la convocatoria para la publicación de este número especial, que fueron sometidos a un proceso de revisión por parte de los colegas de la revista. Nosotros cumplimos la función de editores invitados, trabajando en estrecha colaboración con los editores de la publicación, Thomas A. Downes y Dan Goldhaber. Gracias al financiamiento del Instituto Lincoln, este número especial se puede descargar gratis hasta enero de 2016 en el sitio web de la Asociación de Finanzas y Política Educativa (www.aefpweb.org/journal/free-fall-2014).

Desafíos para financiar la educación primaria y secundaria

Usando los datos de recaudación de fondos del Centro Nacional de Estadísticas Educativas (2014), determinamos que los ingresos totales dedicados a la educación pública, medidos en términos reales por alumno, cayeron un 6,2 por ciento desde septiembre de 2008 a junio de 2012. Aunque todavía no hay cifras totales disponibles para los años más recientes, los datos existentes apuntan a una disminución sostenida en el apoyo financiero a la educación pública. Los datos del Resumen trimestral de ingresos tributarios estatales y locales de la Oficina del Censo de los EE.UU. señalan que los ingresos reales per cápita por el impuesto sobre la propiedad de los gobiernos locales (tanto para fines escolares como no escolares) fueron 2,7 por ciento menores al finalizar el año fiscal 2014 que al final del año fiscal 2011. Y una encuesta realizada por el Centro de Prioridades Políticas y Presupuestarias concluyó que, por lo menos en 35 estados, la ayuda estudiantil estatal real por estudiante fue menor en el año fiscal 2014 que en el año fiscal 2008 (Leachman y Mai 2014).

Muchos distritos escolares del país respondieron a la reducción de ingresos despidiendo a empleados. De hecho, la Oficina de Estadísticas Laborales de los EE.UU. (2013) reporta que entre el pico de empleo en junio de 2009 y el valle en octubre de 2012, el empleo en educación por parte de los gobiernos locales se redujo en 357.400 puestos, lo cual corresponde a una disminución del 4,4 por ciento. En este mismo periodo, la inscripción en la escuela pública creció un 0,9 por ciento (Centro Nacional de Estadísticas Educativas, 2013).

Las proyecciones actuales pronostican un incremento significativo tanto en la inscripción de primaria y de secundaria como en el costo por alumno. El Centro Nacional de Estadísticas Educativas (NCES 2013) proyecta que los gastos por alumno aumentarán de un promedio de US$10.518 en el año escolar 2009–10 a US$12.530 en 2021–22. El NCES también proyecta aumentos sustanciales en la inscripción en la escuela pública, si bien las proyecciones de crecimiento en estados específicos varían, y en general son mucho mayores en los estados del sur y el oeste (8,9 por ciento y 12,7 por ciento respectivamente entre 2010 y 2021) que en el noreste y el medio oeste (2,2 por ciento y 2,4 por ciento). Si bien las políticas y prioridades públicas pueden cambiar dependiendo de las políticas actuales y las proyecciones de recaudación, es poco probable que la recaudación para el sostenimiento de la educación pública crezca con la suficiente rapidez como para ajustarse al crecimiento proyectado en la inscripción estudiantil y los costos.

Los datos nacionales indican que en 2011–12, el 10 por ciento de los ingresos totales de educación pública provinieron del gobierno federal, y el resto se repartió por igual entre fuentes de financiamiento estatal y local (Oficina del Censo de los EE.UU. 2014). Los programas del gobierno federal de apoyo a la educación se clasifican como gastos discrecionales domésticos. Si bien el Congreso ha hecho poco a la fecha para controlar el crecimiento de los gastos en programas de ayuda social, ha impuesto límites estrictos sobre el crecimiento de los gastos discrecionales internos por medio de la Ley de Control Presupuestario de 2011 y el acuerdo presupuestario del Congreso para el año fiscal 2014. La Oficina Presupuestaria del Congreso (2013) pronostica que los gastos discrecionales internos disminuirán, en proporción al PIB, por lo menos hasta 2023. Dados los límites impuestos a los gastos totales, junto con la competencia de otras necesidades internas urgentes, es probable que se produzcan reducciones en el apoyo educativo federal por alumno.

Los sistemas de financiamiento escolar varían mucho entre un estado y otro, y las tendencias futuras en el apoyo estatal para la educación pública también variarán mucho entre estados. No obstante, muchos gobiernos estatales tienen problemas estructurales que a la larga probablemente limiten el financiamiento estatal de la educación pública en el futuro. Por el lado de los ingresos, muchos estados tienen bases impositivas reducidas sobre las ventas, que excluyen muchos servicios y, en consecuencia, no crecen en forma proporcional a la economía. Los problemas de ingreso se ven agravados por la imposibilidad de los estados para cobrar impuestos sobre las ventas por Internet y por correo. En el último par de años, una serie de estados han adoptado recortes en los impuestos individuales sobre las ganancias. Estos recortes de impuestos en general han sido promulgados sin un aumento compensatorio en los ingresos, o se han financiado usando ingresos de superávits no recurrentes del presupuesto estatal.

Por el lado de los gastos, el financiamiento de la educación primaria y secundaria compite con otras prioridades. En muchos estados, los gastos de Medicaid (seguro de salud para las personas sin recursos) crecerán más rápido que los ingresos tributarios estatales, una tendencia agudizada en parte por el envejecimiento de la población. Muchos estados también están enfrentando un considerable y creciente pasivo de pensiones sin dotación financiera. Para liquidar estas obligaciones sin fondos hará falta sin duda aumentar las contribuciones para las pensiones del gobierno estatal. Aun cuando las encuestas indican que los votantes están a favor de un aumento del gasto en educación más que en otras áreas, las obligaciones crecientes en Medicaid y pensiones de los estados pueden reducir los gastos en educación primaria y secundaria, a menos que los gobiernos estatales tomen decisiones políticas difíciles para aumentar los impuestos (Pew Research 2011).

Con esta perspectiva de reducción en el financiamiento de los gobiernos federal y estatal, es probable que los distritos escolares locales jueguen un papel cada vez más importante en el financiamiento de la educación pública. El incremento del financiamiento del gobierno local para la educación pública exigirá que se tome el paso políticamente difícil de aumentar los impuestos sobre la propiedad o, si esto fuera imposible, el desarrollo y adopción amplia de fuentes alternativas de ingresos para el gobierno local. Ninguna de las estrategias será fácil de implementar.

Este sombrío panorama de las perspectivas de financiación de la educación pública da lugar a una serie de preguntas de investigación. Por ejemplo: ¿Pueden los gobiernos estatales adoptar políticas para que el impuesto sobre la propiedad sea más aceptable políticamente? ¿Qué papel pueden jugar las fuentes alternativas de ingreso local en el financiamiento de la educación pública? ¿Puede incrementarse este papel? ¿Es posible diseñar sistemas estatales de ayuda a la educación que se traduzcan en un flujo más estable de ayuda estatal durante los momentos de recesión económica? ¿Se puede aumentar la efectividad de las políticas estatales para proporcionar alivio tributario en el impuesto sobre la propiedad? ¿Se pueden reformar los sistemas de ayuda estatal para aumentar las oportunidades educativas de todos los estudiantes? El impuesto sobre la propiedad y el financiamiento de la educación primaria y secundaria considera esta y otras cuestiones.

Conclusión

En este número especial hay tres temas centrales que emergen. El primero es la posibilidad de que la legislación estatal tenga consecuencias imprevistas. Eom et al. concluyen que el programa de descuentos al impuesto sobre la propiedad (STAR, por su sigla en inglés) de Nueva York induce a los votantes a aumentar el gasto escolar y aumentar los impuestos sobre la propiedad, reduciendo así la efectividad de la reducción fiscal prevista. Jeffrey Zabel concluyó que las exenciones fiscales sobre la propiedad en Massachusetts han causado un aumento de la segregación racial. Y Phuong Nguyen-Hoang determinó que el uso de recuperación de plusvalías en Iowa condujo a reducciones modestas en los gastos de educación.

El segundo tema es la posibilidad de que el financiamiento escolar estatal y las políticas de impuestos sobre la propiedad proporcionen mayores ventajas para los distritos escolares ricos o con mayores ingresos que para los de bajos recursos o con menores ingresos. En algunos casos, el sesgo hacia la riqueza es una característica explícita del programa. Por ejemplo, el factor de ajuste del diferencial del precio de venta del programa STAR desvía una cantidad desproporcionada del descuento al impuesto sobre la propiedad a los distritos escolares más ricos. En forma similar, el sistema de ayuda estatal de Michigan envía alrededor del 7 por ciento más de ayuda estatal por alumno a los distritos más ricos. En otros casos, el sesgo hacia distritos más ricos se manifiesta de maneras más indirectas. Chakrabarti et al. determinaron que los distritos escolares ricos tenían mayor probabilidad de aumentar los ingresos por el impuesto sobre la propiedad como reacción a los recortes en la ayuda estatal. Zabel notó que las comunidades de ingresos más altos tenían una mayor probabilidad de aprobar exenciones a los límites de aumento del impuesto. Nguyen-Hoang estableció que las medidas de recuperación de plusvalías tienen un efecto negativo mayor sobre los gastos escolares en distritos de bajos ingresos o escasos recursos que en los distritos de altos ingresos o gran riqueza. Finalmente, Nelson y Gazley encuentran que los distritos acomodados tienen una mayor probabilidad de recibir ingresos de organizaciones sin fines de lucro que respaldan las escuelas, y que sus contribuciones por alumno tienden a ser mayores.

Un tercer tema es la importancia sostenida del impuesto sobre la propiedad como fuente de financiamiento de la educación pública en los Estados Unidos. Los artículos de Nelson y Gazley, y de Downes y Killeen, demuestran que los ingresos no tributarios juegan un papel relativamente pequeño en el financiamiento de las escuelas públicas. Y no hay ninguna evidencia que demuestre que la proporción de ingresos obtenidos de las tasas y cargos a los estudiantes, organizaciones sin fines de lucro que dan apoyo a escuelas, o de ingresos no tributarios varios haya aumentado durante o después de la Gran Recesión.

Estas conclusiones sugieren que para garantizar suficiente financiamiento para la educación pública en el futuro, se deben hacer esfuerzos para que el impuesto sobre la propiedad sea una fuente más atractiva de ingresos. Estas mejoras del impuesto sobre la propiedad podrían incluir la expansión de programas de descuentos tributarios bien dirigidos y diseñados, como por ejemplo la adopción de “fusibles”, programas de postergación del impuesto sobre la propiedad para contribuyentes que tienen una carga tributaria pesada o sufren un incremento muy rápido en sus facturas de cobro de impuestos sobre la propiedad, y mejoras en la administración tributaria que se concentren en una mayor transparencia.

Dada la gran diversidad en el financiamiento escolar y los sistemas de impuestos sobre la propiedad en los EE.UU. y los problemas fiscales que se avecinan, los artículos de este número especial no pueden cubrir la gama completa de políticas necesarias que aseguren un financiamiento adecuado y equitativo de la educación pública. No obstante, esperamos que estos artículos constituyan un motivo de reflexión tanto para los dirigentes políticos como los investigadores, y que también inspiren investigaciones adicionales sobre la tributación de la propiedad y el financiamiento escolar.

Índice

Introduction to Special Issue on the Property Tax and the Financing of K–12 Education
(Introducción al número especial sobre el impuesto a la propiedad y el financiamiento de la educación primaria y secundaria)
Daphne A. Kenyon y Andrew Reschovsky

Did Cuts in State Aid During the Great Recession Lead to Changes in Local Property Taxes?
(Los recortes en la ayuda estatal durante la Gran Recesión, ¿produjeron cambios en los impuestos locales sobre la propiedad?)
Rajashri Chakrabarti, Max Livingston y Joydeep Roy

Michigan and Ohio K–12 Educational Finance Systems: Equality and Efficiency
(Sistemas de financiamiento de la educación primaria y secundaria en Michigan y Ohio: Equidad y eficiencia)
Michael Conlin y Paul Thompson

The Unintended Consequences of Property Tax Relief: New York’s STAR Program
(Las consecuencias imprevistas de descuentos en el impuesto sobre la propiedad: El programa STAR de Nueva York)
Tae Ho Eom, William Duncombe, Phuong Nguyen-Hoang y John Yinger

Unintended Consequences: The Impact of Proposition 2½ Overrides on School Segregation in Massachusetts
(Consecuencias imprevistas: El impacto de las exenciones a la Propuesta 2½ sobre la segregación escolar en Massachusetts)
Jeffrey Zabel

Tax Increment Finance and Education Expenditures: The Case of Iowa
(Financiamiento por aumento de impuestos y gastos educativos: El caso de Iowa)
Phuong Nguyen-Hoang

The Rise of School-Supporting Nonprofits
(El ascenso de organizaciones sin fines de lucro que respaldan escuelas)
Ashlyn Aiko Nelson y Beth Gazley

So Slow to Change: The Limited Growth of Non-Tax Revenues in Public Education Finance, 1991–2010
(Un cambio muy lento: El crecimiento limitado de los ingresos no tributarios para el financiamiento de la educación pública, 1991–2010)
Thomas Downes y Kieran M. Killeen

Sobre los autores

Daphne A. Kenyon, Ph.D., es economista y fellow del Instituto Lincoln de Políticas de Suelo, y socio fundador de D. A. Kenyon & Associates.

Andrew Reschovsky, Ph.D., es fellow del Instituto Lincoln de Políticas de Suelo y profesor emérito de la Universidad de Wisconsin-Madison.

Referencias

Congressional Budget Office. 2013. Updated Budget Projections: Fiscal Years 2013 to 2023. Washington, DC (May). www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44172-Baseline2.pdf.

Leachman, Michael y Chris Mai. 2014. “Most States Funding Schools Less Than Before the Recession,” Washington, DC: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, actualizado 12 de septiembre. www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=4011.

McGuire, Therese J., Leslie E. Papke y Andrew Reschovsky. 2015. “Local Funding of Schools: The Property Tax and Its Alternatives,” chapter 22 in Handbook of Research on Education Finance and Policy, revised edition, edited by Helen F. Ladd y Margaret Goertz, Routledge, 376–391.

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). 2014. “National Public Education Financial Survey Data,” School Year 2010–11. http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/stfis.asp.

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). 2013. “Projections of Education Statistics to 2021.” http://nces.ed.gov/programs/projections/projections2021/index.asp.

Pew Research. 2011. “Fewer Want Spending to Grow, But Most Cuts Remain Unpopular.” Center for People and the Press. 10 de febrero. www.people-press.org/2011/02/10/fewer-want-spending-to-grow-but-most-cuts-remain-unpopular.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2013. Table B-1a: Employees on Non-Farm Payrolls by Industry Sector and Selected Industry Detail, Seasonally Adjusted. Current Employment Statistics, Establishment Data. www.bls.gov/web/empsit/ceseeb1a.htm.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2013. 2011 Annual Survey of State and Local Government Finance, State and Local Government Data. www.census.gov/govs/local/.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2014. 2012 Data, Public Elementary-Secondary Education Finance Data. www.census.gov/govs/school/.

The Lincoln Institute has supported the authors’ work on property taxation in South Africa for several years, and in February 2002 the Institute published Property Taxes in South Africa: Challenges in the Post-Apartheid Era. Edited by Bell and Bowman, the book presents major portions of their own work, together with chapters by several of their colleagues in the U.S. and in South Africa. This article provides an overview of seminars on property tax issues conducted by Bell and Bowman in South Africa in March 2002.

The end of apartheid in South Africa nearly a decade ago presented new opportunities and challenges to every aspect of national life, including fiscal issues. The government faced the task of extending the property tax to previously untaxed areas and adapting it to provide services through a set of radically restructured local governments. The final reorganization of local government took effect in December 2000, and the new governments now must develop comprehensive property tax (rates) policies.

Several key pieces of apartheid-era legislation had established the spatial basis for racial separation:

• Natives Land Act of 1913: Adopted soon after formation of the Union of South Africa in 1910, this law outlawed black ownership or leasing of land outside reserves established for blacks.
• Population Registration Act of 1950: Often termed the cornerstone of apartheid, this statute established categories to which people would be assigned: white; black or bantu; colored, for people of mixed race; and later, Indian. This classification scheme made enforced racial separation possible.
• Group Areas Act of 1950: This law instituted strict racial separation in urban areas, providing zones that members of only one racial group could occupy and limiting the presence of blacks in restricted areas to short time periods. A pass system required nonwhites to carry identifying papers or permits.

These policies greatly complicated efforts to amalgamate former white and black local authorities (WLAs and BLAs), with important implications for property taxation. Specifically, for local governments, the legacy of apartheid includes:

• skewed settlement patterns with the geographic and social segregation of residential areas;
• extreme concentrations of wealth and property tax base, since commercial and industrial activity was located almost exclusively in the former WLAs;
• large areas and numbers of people in BLAs, which had inferior infrastructure and a backlog of demand for public services under amalgamation; and
• nonviable municipal institutions—small rural townships, known as R293 towns, close to the borders of former bantustans (black homelands or traditional authority areas) that have large populations, limited financial resources and only a minimal level of services.

Post-Apartheid Local Government Structure

The dismantling of apartheid began in the mid-1980s and was essentially complete by the early 1990s. At the end of 1993, the Local Government Transition Act (LGTA) was signed by then-President de Klerk and, symbolically, by Nelson Mandela, leader of the African National Congress (ANC). The LGTA provided for short-, medium- and long-term transformation of local governments to create nonracial self-government. It created two-tier local governments in metropolitan areas, with powers and responsibilities shared between a geographically larger unit and two or more smaller units within the same area. The Municipal Structures Act of 1998, providing for single-tier metropolitan government, was implemented after the local elections of December 2000 as part of a general and final redemarcation of local governments that reduced the number of authorities from approximately 845 to less than 300.

Amalgamation of municipalities brought new areas into the property tax base, including former BLAs, bantustans and their associated rural R293 towns, but the residents of these newly incorporated areas had never before paid property taxes. Thus, it was necessary to develop the information and administrative infrastructure needed to value properties, determine tax liabilities, distribute tax bills to those responsible, and collect the taxes due, all in an equitable manner. Moreover, the new tax system had to overcome the psychology of payment boycotts, sometimes characterized as a “culture of nonpayment,” an important resistance technique used against the apartheid government.

Combining formerly taxed areas with different valuation rates or systems into a single municipality produces inconsistencies within the property tax roll of the amalgamated area, multiplying inequities among property owners with different effective tax rates. Both those new to the tax and those who historically have paid property taxes often question whether their tax shares are equitable and how the resulting revenue is being spent. In some instances, tax boycotts have occurred in former WLAs.

National Property Tax Policy

Although property taxation remains a local tax in South Africa, the 1996 Constitution authorizes central government regulation of property taxation. A national Property Rates Bill, scheduled for adoption in 2002, will replace current provincial property tax laws. Each locality now must adopt an explicit and comprehensive property rates policy.

Our seminars took place in this context of national legislation, municipal consolidation and municipal property rates policies. We collaborated with local institutions of higher education: Port Elizabeth Technikon in Nelson Mandela Metropolitan Municipality and the University of North West in Mafikeng Local Municipality. Seminar participants included current and former elected city councilors, newly enfranchised and long-time non-elected officials, and students and faculty of the educational institutions.

Nelson Mandela Municipality is one of South Africa’s six metropolitan municipal governments, the only local government within its geographic area. Its population and business center is the former city of Port Elizabeth. Principal property tax concerns raised at the seminar included: (1) unifying the tax rolls of the various jurisdictions making up the metropolitan area, since their valuation dates range over a number of years; (2) bringing former black local authority (BLA) areas into the property tax base; (3) deciding on the appropriate way to deal with rural (agricultural) land, previously not taxed but now part of the municipal area; and (4) accomplishing these things in a manner that is sensitive to the special circumstances of those with very low incomes.

Mafikeng, the capital of the North West Province, lies within the Mmbatho District Municipality in the former Bophuthatswana homeland near the Botswana border. Some property tax concerns raised at the Mafikeng seminar were the same as in Nelson Mandela Municipality. In addition, Mafikeng is wrestling with incorporating tribal (traditional authority) areas and the black urban agglomerations (R293 towns) of the former bantustan. Tribal areas present two special problems: property ownership is communal, not private; and the traditional authority structure remains in place, even though these areas now are included within municipal borders, creating a dual authority structure that further complicates amalgamation.

Key Property Taxation Themes

Policy Framework

New national legislation requires each local government to produce a property rates policy to address such issues as whether to include all real properties in the tax base; whether to apply uniform or differential rates to the many categories of property included in the tax base; and what form of property relief should be given, and to whom. If the property tax is to be a viable local revenue source, local rates policies must be guided by the following principles:

• Legitimacy. Taxpayers must accept the tax as a legitimate, appropriate levy. This means administrative outcomes must be in accord with accepted legal requirements.
• Openness. The tax must be transparent, so taxpayers can understand its workings. Further, a simple, low-cost means must be available to resolve taxpayers’ complaints.
• Technical Proficiency. The tax must be administered in a professional manner. This requires appropriate administrative structure, tools, and personnel.
• Fairness. The tax must be administered in a manner that treats taxpayers uniformly and fairly with regard to asset value, but with provisions for relief that take into consideration broader notions of ability to pay, such as current income.

These fundamental characteristics of a property tax system provide a framework for restructuring property taxes in South Africa, with tradeoffs made through an open and transparent political process at the local level.

Monitoring

The property tax base is fair market value. Because most properties do not sell in a market transaction each year, however, estimating market value is the task of trained assessment professionals. Differences in location, depreciation and other characteristics make valuation partly an art, not strictly a scientific or technical endeavor. Uniformity relative to market value may not always result, even though it is required and the assessors follow the procedures intended to achieve that result. Thus, a system for monitoring valuation outcomes is needed, which may include three dimensions of assessment quality:

• The overall closeness of the fit between assessed value on the tax roll and actual sales price for properties that have sold. A measure of central tendency of such ratios for a sample of properties indicates the average assessment level relative to market value; the median ratio generally is preferred.
• The extent to which assessment ratios for individual properties are scattered or clustered around the median ratio. A standard measure of assessment uniformity is the coefficient of dispersion (CD), which is interpreted as a measure of horizontal equity. A CD greater than zero indicates that different properties may bear different effective property tax rates even if they have the same market value and are subject to the same nominal tax rate.
• Vertical equity, evaluated by the price-related differential (PRD). If the PRD = 1, there is no systematic bias in favor of either high- or low-value properties, while a PRD above 1 reveals a regressive bias favoring high-value properties.

Formal assessment/sales ratio studies have not been done in South Africa, but we calculated simple ratios for several cities. The results in Table 1 indicate that assessment uniformity generally needs to be improved, since coefficients of dispersion across the case study cities are typically high and the price-related differentials are generally substantially above one.

Targeting Tax Relief

Although property taxation is a tax on value, it is paid out of current income, and thus may place an unacceptable burden on property owners with low incomes. Property tax relief is any reduction in tax liability. Indirect relief results from changes that take pressure off the property tax: reduced expenditures or increased revenue from alternative sources. Alternatively, direct relief comes from a change in the calculation of property tax liability.

Direct relief was the focus of our studies and the seminar discussions. In South Africa direct residential property tax relief typically is a uniform percentage credit, termed a rebate, which generally is 20 percent or 25 percent of gross property tax liability. The rebate approach has two limitations. First, most of the tax relief goes to those with the most expensive properties. Second, low-income property owners are still required to pay most of their property tax liability, which still could be burdensome relative to income.

While an income-based circuit breaker is our preferred approach for targeting tax relief to those in need, it would be extremely difficult to administer in South Africa because income information is not readily available, in part because of the extensive informal economy. An alternative way to target property tax relief to those most in need is to exempt a fixed amount of the base from taxation.

Table 2 illustrates the effects of moving from a 25 percent rebate to a R20,000 exemption (US$1,740). Under the partial exemption alternative, the lowest valued properties, including those hardest to value at this time, are removed from paying taxes, and net taxes are reduced on all properties up to about R100,000 (US$8,700). The aggregate cost of property tax relief under this approach is substantially reduced because each property receives the same exemption. Durban and Johannesburg now are experimenting with the partial exemption approach to property tax relief.

Dealing with Previously Untaxed Areas

As a result of the local government restructuring in December 2000, South Africa now has local governments throughout country. Three types of areas previously outside the property tax now are to be brought into the tax: former BLAs and R293 townships, agricultural areas and tribal areas. In the former BLAs and R293 townships property is being transferred to private ownership and these areas must be surveyed by the national Surveyor General to establish individual property boundaries and identifications necessary to administer the property tax. Different localities are at different stages in this process.

Property taxes were levied on rural agricultural lands in the past, but these lands have not been in the property tax base since the late 1980s. Bringing them into the tax base now poses two problems. The first is developing the property record information necessary for tax administration. The second is the question of how taxes on such properties should relate to taxes levied in the urban portions of a municipality, as farmers often provide themselves and their workers with services typically associated with local government. One possibility is use-value assessment of agricultural land, an approach endorsed by a national commission that reviewed the taxation of rural lands. Alternatively, differential rates for different categories of property are allowed under current provincial property tax laws and the draft national Property Rates Bill. If there is to be differentiation in effective tax rates, imposing a lower rate on market value assessments provides greater transparency and understanding of the tax and should be part of the local government rates policy.

Bringing tribal areas into the tax base presents another set of issues. First, given communal land tenure systems existing in these traditional authority areas, how does one establish ownership, a necessary condition for the application of property tax based on the principle of private property? Second, because there is no land market per se, how are estimates of market value to be made? Finally, given the two competing governance structures that now exist in tribal areas, how does one make the payment of a property tax acceptable to residents who did not previously pay the tax? These issues are clearly the most intractable ones that must be addressed in the newest round of local government reform in South Africa.

Conclusion

The property tax has been an important part of local finance in South Africa for centuries and is likely to play an increasingly important role in the future, as newly amalgamated local governments wrestle with addressing the legacies of apartheid and the requirements of new national property tax legislation. There is no single right answer to many of the perplexing questions surrounding the design and implementation of a local property tax, but it will continue to evolve to meet changing circumstances and needs.

Michael E. Bell is president of MEB Associates, Inc., in McHenry, Maryland. John H. Bowman is professor of economics at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond.

References

Bell, Michael E. and John H. Bowman. 2002. Property Taxes in South Africa: Challenges in the Post-Apartheid Era. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Proposition 13, adopted by a referendum in California in 1978, was the most notable in a series of relatively recent actions to limit the property tax in the United States, and many experts view it as a watershed in state and local public finance. The property tax in virtually every state is now limited to some degree by statutorily or constitutionally imposed base restrictions, rate limits or revenue limits. These limits have influenced the use of the property tax, and there is substantial evidence that the rate of growth of the property tax has declined. The mix of funding for local expenditures also has changed, as cities, towns, counties, school districts and special districts are relying more and more on user charges, special fees, franchise fees and local option sales and use taxes.

The limits on the property tax also have many policy and expenditure implications. There is evidence, significant in some cases and simply indicative in others, that the property tax restrictions have fostered a variety of policy outcomes in the delivery of services to citizens. Some of these tax limits have affected educational outcomes: reduced the number of teachers in classrooms, reduced the qualifications of individuals entering the teaching profession, and reduced student performance in math, reading and science.

The literature detailing the possible effects of property tax limits on local government also reports the following changes: reduced infrastructure investment by local governments, reduction in the rate of salary increases for public employees, and a shift to state-controlled revenue sources that has led to the centralization of power toward state governments (Sokolow 2000). In this context, property tax limits may reduce intergovernmental competition and the discipline on the growth in government that results. Few observers would disagree that Proposition 13 and its imitators in other states have resulted in substantial nonuniformity in the property tax system (O’Sullivan, Sexton and Sheffrin 1995).

These outcomes illustrate the competing tradeoffs that accompany property tax limits. Depending on individual perspectives these consequences could be considered a plus or a minus. Supporters of Prop 13 and its derivatives want lower property taxes and less government (at least for others), but it is unlikely they also want less government for themselves. David Sears and Jack Citrin (1982) have labeled this behavior the “something for nothing” syndrome.

Therese McGuire (1999) notes that among public finance economists the advantages of the property tax for funding local governments approach “dogma.” In an opinion survey of more than 1300 Canadian and U.S. members of the National Tax Association, 93 percent of the respondents with training in economics favored the property tax as a major source of revenue for local governments (Slemrod 1995). This result probably explains why the World Bank and other international advisory groups are spending significant sums of money and offering assistance to improve and implement the property tax in developing and transitional countries. However, it also presents an interesting dilemma: experts support the property tax but voters want to limit it. Why the conflict?

Advantages of the Property Tax

The property tax provides local governments with a revenue source that they can control and avoids the strings that normally accompany fiscal transfers from a regional, state or national government. The result is local autonomy that allows local governments to select the level and quality of services demanded by local citizens. The property tax is relatively stable over the normal business cycle and provides a dependable funding source to local governments that must balance their budgets. Stability is important for certainty in operating budgets and is critical in the financing of long-term debt obligations.

The importance of a stable revenue source has been painfully exposed during the recent economic downturn in the U.S. State governments that are funded by less stable revenue sources are scrambling to balance their current and future budgets by cutting services and increasing taxes and fees. The fact that the property tax is imposed on an immobile base and is difficult to evade also makes it an attractive source of revenue for smaller governments.

Political accountability is another important element of the property tax. A noted function of a responsive tax system is one that provides price signals, or political accountability, on the cost of government to citizens. Compared to almost all other taxes, the direct and visible nature of the property tax suggests that it scores relatively high in this regard. The case for political accountability becomes even stronger when zoning for land use is included in the discussion. Bruce Hamilton (1975) has demonstrated that the property tax, when coupled with local zoning, becomes a benefit tax that leads to efficient outcomes. The combination of property taxation and zoning is the way many public finance scholars describe the characteristics of local finance in the U.S.

Disadvantages of the Property Tax

On the other hand, the property tax is difficult to administer. It requires substantial administrative effort on the part of public officials to discover and maintain the property records of every land parcel. Even with effective methods to discover property, determining its taxable value has always been a challenge to public assessors. Unlike other sales taxes and income taxes, there is no annually occurring event to place a market value on unsold properties. Assessors must value property as if it had sold. Assessors also confront limited budgets and a finite number of trained experts.

Nevertheless, we want public assessors to value property, land and the improvements to land accurately, and to do so as inexpensively as possible. Fortunately, progress has been made in the technical area of property valuation. It is now common to find large and small taxing jurisdictions using statistically driven valuation processes to estimate property values based on carefully designed hedonic models. The technical advantages of statistically driven appraisal systems in terms of efficiency and effectiveness are substantial.

However, the advantage of accurate and timely property appraisals highlights what I believe is a fundamental problem with the property tax and why it receives such low marks from taxpayers and elected officials. When an assessor conducts a reappraisal, the outcome is likely to increase assessed property values. If there is no reduction in the tax rate that was applied to the old tax base, the local government that relies on the property tax receives a potential windfall. It is not surprising, then, that in such situations the assessor and the assessor’s office are quickly identified as the villains of the tax increase. More importantly, these circumstances are powerful incentives to not reassess property regularly and thus avoid the angry backlash of property owners and voters.

Public finance experts have an expectation that the assessor will follow the legal and professional requirements and value property according to state law and professional practice. But, because of the uncertain political outcome when property is revalued, the assessor may act in self-interest, understandably being more concerned about reelection or reappointment than in ensuring that property is revalued properly. A system has been created that requires a reappraisal process and penalizes any assessor foolish enough to ignore it, but over time such avoidance behavior can foster nonuniformity in the property tax.

Political Challenges and Full Disclosure

We have solved many of the technical problems of property appraisal but not the political problems. Nevertheless, I believe there is at least one viable response to the political challenges: states and assessors can adopt a process of truth-in-taxation or full disclosure. The logic of full disclosure design is simple. A chilling effect on property tax growth is posited to occur when the “real” causes of increased property taxes are exposed to property owners. Helen Ladd (1991) states that full disclosure laws “tighten the link between taxpayer voter demand and local budgetary decisions.”

The standard annual tax notice, common in thousands of local tax jurisdictions, does not create a similar chilling effect. A typical tax notice informs property owners about the assessed value of the property, often a modest percentage of market value, tax rates listed in mills, and the total taxes due. If any increases in the assessed value of properties are not offset by reduced tax rates, the new assessed values create additional revenue for the taxing authority. In fact, elected officials can honestly boast that property tax rates have not changed and thus avoid most of the responsibility for any tax increase. An analysis of the behavior of elected officials in Massachusetts found precisely this type of behavior following several cycles of increases in assessed value due to revaluations (Bloom and Ladd 1982).

A property tax full disclosure law generally proceeds in the following manner. Local taxing districts are required to calculate a rate that, when applied to the tax base, produces property tax revenue that is identical in amount to the property tax revenue generated during the previous year. The rate to accomplish this is often referred to as the certified rate; it is calculated by dividing the new assessed value into the property tax revenue from the previous year. The resulting rate is the rate that, when applied to the taxable value of the taxing jurisdiction, will generate the same amount of revenue as the previous year.

This process forces elected officials to reduce the property tax rate—or at least acknowledge that any increase is their choice. If the elected officials choose not to reduce the rate, a public notice must be given that a tax rate increase is anticipated. The public notice is generally carried in a newspaper with specific requirements about the size, placement and language of the notice. In some states a preliminary tax notice is also sent to the taxpayers before that actual budget is adopted, to announce when and where the particular budget hearings on the issue will be held.

Full disclosure laws are intended to create a system with opportunities for input on property tax rate changes and the subsequent size and mix of government, but not at the expense of informed outcomes (Council of State Governments 1977). Full disclosure laws have the aim of a process to inform citizens and limit the rate of growth in property taxes. Nevertheless, like the property tax, full disclosure laws have not enjoyed universal or even modest acclaim. Researchers hold full disclosure laws in such subdued regard that when studying the implications of property tax limitations they commonly classify states having full disclosure laws among the states having no property tax limits.

It is not surprising that many observers suspect that full disclosure laws have little influence on policy outcomes. In states with full disclosure laws, the property tax increases more rapidly than in states with legally binding limits. This suggests that, because full disclosure laws cannot prevent all growth in the property tax, the strongest antagonists of the property tax and the often single-minded opponents to any growth in government will never find the approach acceptable.

However, I believe that full disclosure laws, like property tax limits, have other positive unintended outcomes. They may facilitate improvements in the administration of the property tax because they create a climate that fosters more frequent property tax appraisals by elected county assessors and more thorough and rigorous intervention on property tax matters by state revenue departments. If I am correct, the result is improvement in property tax uniformity. If this posited outcome is validated, then full disclosure laws can and should be judged beyond their immediate role in controlling the rate of increase in the property tax.

Gary C. Cornia is a visiting senior fellow of the Lincoln Institute this year and a member of the Institute’s board of directors. He is also professor in the Romney Institute of Public Management at Brigham Young University and president of the National Tax Association.

References

Bloom, H.S. and Helen F. Ladd. 1982. Property tax revaluation and tax levy growth. Journal of Urban Economics 11: 73-84.

Council of State Governments. 1977. 1978 Suggested State Legislation 37. Lexington, KY: Council of State Governments, 125-28.

Hamilton, Bruce. 1975. Zoning and property taxation in a system of local governments. Urban Studies 12 (June): 205-211.

Ladd, Helen F. 1991. Property tax revaluation and the tax levy growth revisited. Journal of Urban Economics 30: 83-99.

McGuire, Therese J. 1999. Proposition 13 and its offspring: For good or evil. National Tax Journal 52 (March): 129-138.

O’Sullivan, Arthur, Terri A. Sexton, and Steven M. Sheffrin. 1995. Property taxes and tax revolts: The legacy of Proposition 13. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Sears, David O. and Jack Citrin. 1982. Tax revolt: Something for nothing in California. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Slemrod, Joel. 1995. Professional opinions about tax policy. National Tax Journal 48: 121-148.

Sokolow, Alvin D. 2000. The changing property tax in the West: State centralization of local finances. Public Budgeting and Finance 20 (Spring): 85-102.

The Institute’s June 2007 Land Policy Conference focused on decentralization—the degree to which local and provincial governments exercise power, make decisions about their revenues and expenditures, and are held accountable for outcomes. Because the services,regulatory constraints, and institutional environments provided by local governments are major factors in the location decisions of households and firms in urban areas, decentralization is a key determinant of policies that affect land and property taxation.