SHARE
Twenty-three states offer an incentive to preserve open space by providing preferential property tax assessment of qualifying parcels (table 1, p. 15). These property tax reductions can be considered expenditures in that they reduce revenue available for other uses in the interest of protecting the many amenities and environmental benefits of undeveloped land.
Programs vary widely from state to state, but all preferential assessment programs for open space must define the type and size of qualified parcels; permissible uses; certification requirements; assessment methods; enrollment term lengths; and penalties, if any, for removing a parcel from preferential status. Several states offer more than one program, each with its own qualification requirements. This article considers these differences, offers examples of how the tax expenditure is calculated, and describes potential societal benefits and costs of such programs.
Determining Eligibility for Preferential Assessment
States define eligibility in many different ways, but the requirements are usually relatively easy to meet. A parcel might qualify simply by being undeveloped. Several states allow landscaped land to qualify provided the building density doesn’t exceed established limits. Washington, for example, allows land to qualify if it meets at least one of eleven very general requirements, including the protection of streams or water supplies, conservation or enhancement of natural or scenic resources, preservation of visual quality along roads, or enhancement of recreational opportunities.
While these criteria are very general, states may raise the bar by placing additional requirements on landowners. Some states require landowners to create and seek state approval for a property management plan that improves benefits for local wildlife. Vermont stipulates that a qualified conservation organization must own and manage the open space. One of two Texas programs requires landowners to provide land and wildlife management to propagate a breeding, migrating, or wintering population of indigenous wild animals for human use, including food, medicine, or recreation.
Several states offer preferential assessment to properties that have attained federal status as open space. For example, parcels restricted by a conservation easement that meets the IRS requirements for a charitable donation automatically qualify for preferential assessment in Illinois and Oregon. Ohio will qualify only parcels under contract to one of four USDA programs (Conservation Reserve Program, Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, Wetlands Reserve Program, and Grassland Preserve Program).
Parcels may have to meet minimum size requirements as well. The most common minimum is ten contiguous acres, though some programs allow properties as small as two acres, and several have no stated requirements. A few states limit the total acreage that any individual landowner may enroll. Tennessee, for example, limits eligibility to 1,500 acres per owner per county, including agricultural land, forest, and open space combined. The stated use of the property may influence its acceptability; several states specifically prohibit commercial property, including golf courses. At least two states, however, have programs specifically designed for golf courses and other commercial properties that provide outdoor recreational opportunities.
State Versus Local Criteria
State governments typically authorize preferential assessment programs and the criteria for inclusion. Six states allow local or county government officials to determine criteria by authorizing a program and requiring only that parcels be “included within a plan for preservation approved by state or local planning agencies” (Chervin, Gibson, and Green 2009, 8), for example, or by requiring that the appropriate governing body accepts the property via resolution. States with this requirement include California, Connecticut, Florida, Nevada, Tennessee, and Oregon. It is then up to local or county officials to choose the criteria for qualification, in some cases naming specific parcels. In other cases, the assessor’s office determines the eligibility, based on the characteristics of the property and whether it meets the criteria.
This approach allows local governments to control the amount of the expenditure in their jurisdiction and tailor the program to protect the specific qualities most important to the area. For example, officials in a predominantly agricultural environment may prefer to use tax expenditures on forests or wetlands, while open fields might prove most valuable in a more urban setting.
Calculating the Value of the Tax Expenditure
Open space preferential assessment programs typically use one of three methods to determine the property’s assessed value. Nine states value open space as if it were enrolled in the state’s program for agriculture or forestry, even though the land isn’t used for either activity. Nine other states instruct assessors to value the property considering only its current use, excluding the value of development rights (i.e., the market value as if its future use were permanently restricted to its current use). Four states instruct the assessor to determine the fair market value as if it were not in the program and then apply a statutory formula to determine the preferential assessed value. Illinois has three programs for preferential assessment of open space, which vary by the criteria for eligibility; all offer statutory reductions that range between 75 percent and 85 percent. Nevada applies a lower statutory reduction of 26 percent.
States occasionally choose to define maximum or minimum values per acre for open space parcels. For example, Maryland set a statewide value of $187.50 per acre for 2009. Washington allows local governments to determine a use value for their region, depending on a public benefit rating system; if no such system exists, open space land may receive an assessment no lower than the lowest agricultural valuation in the county. Massachusetts calculates the preferential value as use value, not to exceed 25 percent of fair market value.
Program Duration and Penalties for Early Withdrawal
Many programs provide for automatic annual renewal unless the landowner chooses to withdraw from the program. In some cases, length of contract is predetermined, most frequently for ten years, which generally carries forward upon the sale of the property unless the new property owner alters the use and violates the terms of the program. Landowners pay a penalty for withdrawing from the program in order to alter land use, or for altering it without notification. Such penalties tend to equal the value of the tax expenditure received for a specified number of years prior to the current year, plus interest on that expenditure. Several states either charge 10 percent of the fair market value when use of the parcel changes, or charge a conveyance or transfer tax when a parcel in the program is sold.
If an owner withdraws a parcel from the program after a minimum number of years, however, the state may reduce or even eliminate penalties. For example, Vermont charges owners 20 percent of fair market value for withdrawing the property in the first decade and 10 percent for withdrawing after more than 10 years. Rhode Island exacts 10 percent of the new fair market value for removing a property after 6 years, but that penalty declines until it terminates, 16 years after enrollment.
Economic Benefits of Open Space Preservation
The large literature discussing the effect of environmental amenities on surrounding property values suggests that preventing development on a parcel will raise the value of neighboring parcels. The studies find complicating factors, however, that make it difficult to predict changes in value for specific regions. One study in Maryland, for example, finds that open space programs have very different effects on the value of property in three different counties, probably due at least in part to variations in the amount of open space present (Geoghegan, Lynch, and Bucholtz 2003). Numerous other studies indicate that the value of open space for individual homeowners declines with distance from the protected parcel (Chamblee, et al. 2011). The type of habitat or green space is also likely to be influential; one analysis finds that the presence of broad-leaved trees in a neighborhood is associated with positive values, but the presence of spruce trees has a negative effect on property values (Garrod and Willis 1992). An analysis of home prices in Tucson, Arizona, finds a preference for homes in areas with green space including native riparian habitat (Bark, et al. 2009; 2011).
Public access to privately owned open space for recreation or educational purposes would also be likely to provide substantial local benefits in many cases. States rarely require public access as a condition for the tax expenditure, but Maine and New Hampshire both encourage it by offering an additional reduction in assessed value of 25 percent and 20 percent, respectively.
Protected open space can also reduce growth in the demand for municipally provided services and forestall negative effects of development, such as heavy traffic or overcrowded schools, which would likely impose a heavier tax liability on current residents. A growing literature on cost of community services indicates that the property taxes paid on developed land are often insufficient to cover the cost of services created to support that development, while open space frequently generates tax revenues well in excess of the cost of services expended on the property. The American Farmland Trust, reporting results from 151 studies covering counties and municipalities in 25 states, finds that the owners of working and open land frequently pay taxes above or even twice the cost of services received on those properties, while residential property owners typically pay less than the cost of services received (Farmland Information Center 2010).
Findings like these suggest that preferential assessment can be justified on the grounds of fairness, because the owners of open space may be subsidizing services sent to owners of developed property. However, the fact that most programs require a long-term agreement and include penalties for early conversion indicates that the goal is not fairness, but preventing development for a specified period.
Unfortunately, there is very little literature evaluating whether preferential assessment programs prevent future development on parcels that aren’t under permanent protection such as an easement. Much of the existing evidence is based on studies of farmland protection programs rather than evaluations of the impact of property tax expenditures on open space. Two studies of Tennessee’s Greenbelt Program evaluated a survey of woodland owners enrolled in the program and found little support for the hypothesis that preferential assessment reduced the likelihood of development on these parcels (Brockett, Gottfried, and Evans 2003; Williams, et al. 2004).
It’s easier to evaluate land under long-term or permanent protection of either a perpetual conservation easement or a long-term preferential assessment contract with substantial penalties for withdrawal. In those cases, it’s possible to reliably predict the continued presence of open space; unfortunately, these protection agreements may predate the preferential assessment or be otherwise uninfluenced by it.
Costs of Preferential Assessment for Open Space
In addition to the tax expenditure itself, these programs may incur several other potential costs. Programs that require an approved conservation plan, for example, might generate a particularly challenging expense. While a state agency could develop and approve such a plan, it will be costly to ensure that conditions of the plan are met.
Program enforcement requires evaluating not only changes in a property’s market value but also changes in its use. If open space is used to graze livestock, for example, this new use might protect the undeveloped condition of the property but still reduce the environmental benefits.
Additionally, evidence suggests that in some instances open space preservation can lower property values by shifting development patterns, typically by resulting in the development of nearby properties (Irwin and Bockstael 2004; McDonald, et al. 2007). If preferential assessment prevents development on particular parcels, that development may shift to other parcels in ways that increase sprawl. If a leapfrog pattern of development occurs because a program prevented development on a parcel-by-parcel basis, the negative effects, such as higher infrastructure costs, could overwhelm any public benefits from the program.
Given the voluntary nature of these programs and resulting changes in development patterns, a worst-case scenario is that lower-quality parcels might receive the preferential assessment, increasing development pressure on parcels that generate greater public benefits. On the one hand, local government approval might reduce this problem by allowing individuals who know the area best to choose the parcels that most deserve protection. On the other hand, it might inspire local officials to protect open space in their jurisdiction, pushing development into other communities and creating undesirable development patterns at the regional level. It is also important to mention that preferential assessment of open space to some degree creates a split-rate system with a higher rate on developed land, particularly on improvements to the land—an issue that concerns many property tax scholars and may also significantly affect land use patterns.
Finally, the value of the public benefits is not static; it may increase or decrease depending on the condition of the property and surrounding area. The changes may be uncorrelated, or even negatively correlated, with future changes in assessed value. For example, more intense development pressure might increase the benefit of preserving a large parcel as open space; or it might decrease the benefit of preserving a small “island” parcel. Twenty-five acres of open space in the middle of a town can greatly benefit a community, but, if 24 of those acres are developed, it will likely diminish the environmental benefits of the remaining acre. Both scenarios, however, are likely to increase tax savings from preferential assessment, as development pressure drives up local property values.
These factors indicate that, while preferential assessment does offer landowners an incentive to preserve public benefits, the amount of the incentive may under-correct or even over-correct for the benefit being created. This will result in an inherently inefficient program, though such programs may still result in significant net benefits compared to having no program at all.
Distributional Consequences
Property tax expenditures to protect open space will have distributional consequences. Most immediately, the program would redistribute the tax burden onto other property owners in the same tax districts, as governments change the mill rate in order to maintain budgeted revenue. Owners of developed properties will now constitute a larger share of the tax base and will need to pay a greater fraction of the total tax bill as a result.
Since preferential assessment programs are primarily designed to maintain existing open space, enrolled parcels continue to generate benefits, but those benefits don’t necessarily increase. Thus the public benefits should be expected to continue to accrue as before. Local residents alone will benefit from scenic views and the foregone external costs of development, while residents and nonresidents alike may benefit from protecting watersheds or habitat for endangered species (Anderson and West 2006). Benefits may be expected to increase, however, if the program requires owners to improve the value of the open space by activity such as habitat restoration.
Several studies indicate that the effects of open space on surrounding property values depend critically on the type of protection and its ability to prevent development in the future. For example, land acquired as a park or forest preserve, or land placed under a conservation easement, has a much more positive effect on neighboring property values than open space that is not permanently protected (Geoghegan 2002). Enrollment in a preferential assessment program might have little or no effect on surrounding property values if the protection is perceived to be temporary, resulting in either permanent reductions in revenue or permanently higher tax rates on the non-enrolled parcels.
Calculating the Fiscal Cost of Preferential Assessment Expenditures
The methodology for calculating the tax expenditure resulting from the preferential assessment of open space is straightforward. The property owner will see a reduced tax burden based on the difference between the assessment without the program and the preferential assessment. This reduction in assessed value can lower tax revenue due to a reduced base. Alternatively, the lost revenue could be recouped by shifting the burden onto other property owners by increasing the tax rate. A combination of both outcomes is also possible. Oregon reports both the loss and the shift in their tax expenditure report (table 2), which listed exemption values of $126 million in fiscal year 2009–10 for the three open space programs. The estimated revenue loss over two fiscal years is $3.2 million, while the estimated revenue shift during that period is $0.7 million.
Data is inconsistent from state to state, which makes it difficult to estimate the revenue effects of preferential assessment. The aggregate data presented for Oregon is much more useful than what many other states present. States that do not calculate property tax expenditures frequently do not make such data available; at best, they usually offer aggregate figures that combine the programs for agriculture, forestry, and open space. Table 2 also indicates the relative scope of open space in that context. The exemption values for private forestry were over $5 billion, and the exemption values for farmland and farm home sites were $14.1 billion. The three conservation programs combined represent approximately one-half of one percent of the total exemption value, and less than one percent of the revenue lost or shifted.
Such calculations also depend on other effects that may be very difficult to observe. It will be impossible to determine the extent to which revenue shifted, without detailed information about local government’s ability to respond by changing the mill rate. In that case, the estimate will account for only foregone revenue. It will also be necessary to ignore the program’s possible positive property value effects on neighboring parcels.
Conclusion
Designing a preferential assessment program for open space requires careful consideration. While land with limited development does provide amenities and environmental benefits under many circumstances, the value of those benefits may vary dramatically according to local conditions. If the program’s goal is primarily to provide local, rather than regional, benefits, one set of criteria for the entire state is unlikely to maximize benefits. Local determination of the enrollment criteria may provide the flexibility necessary to react to those varying conditions, whereas state-level criteria are probably necessary to protect regional resources such as watersheds.
The shortage of empirical work in this area makes it difficult to assess the effectiveness of existing programs. If the goal is genuinely to forestall development on certain parcels, program design should consider the length of contract and penalty for early conversion. Short-term delays in development will primarily benefit the owners of open space. For a program to succeed, the open space must generate significant community benefits in the form of either long-term environmental protection or higher property values for other residents of the area. Higher eligibility requirements for inclusion in the program should reduce the amount of acreage enrolled; however, the number of acres should not be the program’s primary goal unless legislators intend it solely as a means to reduce local development. Significant enrollment in the program could have substantial fiscal implications for local jurisdictions, especially if broad criteria and low conversion penalties make it easy for landowners to enroll and then develop the property later. Program design must ensure a maximum of public benefit in exchange for the fiscal effects.
This article was adapted from the Lincoln Institute working paper, “Preferential Assessment for Open Space”: https://www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/dl/2281_1620_Sundberg_WP13JS1.pdf.
About the Author
Jeffrey O. Sundberg is the James S. Kemper Foundation Professor of Liberal Arts and Business and Professor of Economics at Lake Forest College. He received a Ph.D. in economics from Stanford University. His recent research interests include the efficiency of state and federal tax incentives for conservation easement donations and preferential assessment programs for open space. He has also served on the board of a land trust in Lake County, Illinois, serving as board president for four years. Contact: jsundber@mx.lakeforest.edu.
Resources
Anderson, Soren and Sarah West. 2006. Open space, residential property values, and spatial context. Regional Science and Urban Economics 36: 773–789.
Bark, R. H., D. E. Osgood, B. G Colby, and E. Halper. 2011. How Do Homebuyers Value Different Types of Green Space? Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 36(3): 395–415.
Bark, R. H., D. E. Osgood, B. G. Colby, G. Katz, and J. Stromberg. 2009. Habitat preservation and restoration: Do homebuyers have preferences for quality habitat? Ecological Economics 68(5): 1465–1475.
Brockett, C. D., R. R. Gottfried, and J. P. Evans. 2003. The Use of State Tax Incentives to Promote Forest Preservation on Private Lands in Tennessee: An Evaluation of Their Equity and Effectiveness Impacts. Politics and Policy 31(2): 252–281.
Chamblee, John F., Peter F. Colwell, Carolyn A. Dehring, and Craig A. Depken. 2011. The Effect of Conservation Activity on Surrounding Land Prices. Land Economics 87(3): 453–472.
Chervin, Stan, Teresa Gibson, and Harry Green. 2009. Greenbelt Revisited. Tennessee Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. http://www.tn.gov/tacir/PDF_FILES/Taxes/greenbeltrevisited.pdf.
Farmland Information Center, American Farmland Trust. 2010. Fact Sheet: Cost of Community Services Studies. http://www.farmland.org/documents/Cost-of-Community-Services-08-2010.pdf.
Garrod, Guy, and Ken Willis. 1992. The environmental economic impact of woodland: a two-stage hedonic price model of the amenity value of forestry in Britain. Applied Economics 24: 715–728.
Geoghegan, Jacqueline, Lori Lynch, and Shawn Bucholtz. 2003. Capitalization of Open Spaces into Housing Values and the Residential Property Tax Revenue Impacts of Agricultural Easement Programs. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 32(1): 33–45.
Geoghegan, Jacqueline. 2002. The Value of Open Spaces in Residential Land Use. Land Use Policy 19(1): 91–98.
Irwin, Elana G. and Nancy E. Bockstael. 2004. Land Use Externalities, Open Space Preservation, and Urban Sprawl. Regional Science and Urban Economics 34:705–725.
SHARE
Una versión más actualizada de este artículo está disponible como parte del capítulo 1 del libro Perspectivas urbanas: Temas críticos en políticas de suelo de América Latina.
El proceso de globalización de las inversiones, las nuevas tecnologías de comunicación y la generalizada movilidad corporativa y personal están provocando una verdadera transformación de las “ciudades-región” del mundo entero. Desde hace muchos años los estudiosos de asuntos urbanos han advertido sobre la emergencia de una nueva clase de asentamiento humano, con estructuras económicas y sociales particulares y sus formas físicas asociadas.
Estas fuerzas globales fueron el tema central de la Conferencia realizada en el Instituto Lincoln, Cambridge, en septiembre de 1995. Este consorcio estuvo organizado por los investigadores David Barkin, Gary Hack y Roger Simmonds, quienes estudiaron doce grandes ciudades-región de Europa, Asia y las Américas. Si bien cada una de las ciudades del estudio exhibe sus propias características y patrones exclusivos, todas cumplen con los siguientes criterios:
Las doce ciudades del estudio son:
Ankara, Turquía
Bangkok, Tailandia
Yakarta, Indonesia
Lyon, Francia
Madrid, España
Randstad, Países Bajos
San Diego, Estados Unidos
Santiago, Chile
São Paulo, Brasil
Taipei, Taiwan
Tokio, Japón
Toronto, Canadá
Tomando las doce ciudades anteriores como casos de estudio, se diseño una investigación en varios niveles a fin de construir un modelo que representara a las ciudades-región y los motivos de sus características. El primer objetivo fue examinar los efectos de la economía política global en el crecimiento y desarrollo de las ciudades a lo largo del tiempo. ¿Qué efecto ha tenido la pérdida de la agricultura tradicional o han tenido las economías industriales y la introducción de nuevos capitales de inversión en el funcionamiento de las ciudades? ¿Cómo han respondido las ciudades ante estas poderosas fuerzas externas?
Un segundo objetivo de la investigación fue entender las relaciones entre la cambiante forma urbana y las inversiones en infraestructuras regionales tales como sistemas de transporte y nuevos centros tecnológicos. ¿Cómo se ha distribuido la población en torno a los nuevos centros económicos y redes de transporte? ¿Qué influencia tienen las labores de planificación regional en los cambios de la forma espacial y en el efecto sobre el medio ambiente?
En tercer lugar se exploraron las consecuencias de la dinámica de la globalización sobre la calidad de la vida urbana. ¿Qué problemas sociales y económicos enfrenta hoy la población urbana? ¿Qué están haciendo los gobiernos municipales y nacionales para resolverlos?
Previo a la conferencia, los equipos de investigación de todas las ciudades-región recopilaron datos para mapear el crecimiento y el movimiento de la población, los cambios en la infraestructura y el desarrollo económico e industrial a lo largo de las últimas tres décadas. A fin de que los datos fueran comparables más alláa de las fronteras nacionales, elaboraron planos de la evolución física de las doce ciudades-región en 1960, 1970, 1980 y 1990, y correlacionaron estos planos con cambios en los indicadores económicos y sociales fundamentales durante el mismo período. Asimismo, cada grupo elaboró un informe sobre los problemas especiales que enfrentan sus gobiernos y las acciones de los legisladores para conformar la forma espacial cambiante de la región.
Un retrato de las ciudades-región
Si bien las doce ciudades-región estudiadas presentan variaciones sustanciales, también tienen muchos patrones comunes en cuanto a crecimiento y cambio. Sus poblaciones oscilan entre unos 2 millones de habitantes, en Lyon, más de 32 millones en Tokio, la ciudad más grande del mundo y también una de las más ricas.
En todas estas ciudades el modelo predominante de crecimiento físico ha sido la dispersión desde el centro histórico y los anillos interiores adyacentes hacia espacios abiertos distantes y tierra agrícola. Esta dispersión implica desarrollo residencial y comercial —aunque a veces en direcciones diferentes— y se ha facilitado gracias al vertiginoso aumento en el uso y la disponibilidad del automóvil en todo el mundo. El ejemplo más notable es el de Taipei, en donde el número de automóviles aumentó desde aproximadamente 11 mil en 1960 a más de 1 millón en 1990; en ese mismo periodo, el número de personas por automóvil disminuyó de 127 a 5. Por otra parte, las ciudades de Ankara y Santiago, con 13 personas por automóvil en 1990, han sido las menos afectadas por el “síndrome automotor” hasta la fecha.
Incluso al mismo tiempo en que la mayoría de las ciudades se están dispersando hacia las afueras, ciertos núcleos interiores han visto aumentar su población gracias a la migración de clases adineradas y de empleos del sector de servicios hacia los centros nuevamente pujantes. La construcción de obras monumentales como estadios deportivos, centros de convenciones, hoteles de lujo y condominios residenciales han contribuido a avivar el turismo y la vida cultural de estos núcleos urbanos. La otra cara de la moneda, sin embargo, es el creciente deterioro que se observa fuera de los centros debido al desplazamiento de grandes números de pobres urbanos a zonas carentes de servicios.
Excepciones notables de este patrón son los centros urbanos deprimidos y los opulentos suburbios de baja densidad poblacional de los Estados Unidos. Ciudades como Bangkok y Taipei exhiben mayor integración vecinal de ricos y pobres que otras, pero su patrón predominante continúa mostrando zonas opulentas segmentadas y mayor definición de pobreza con el paso del tiempo.
Irónicamente, en esta nueva era de globalización los patrones residenciales están perdiendo importancia frente a los patrones de interacción, conforme los participantes de la economía global se comunican más a menudo con sus semejantes de otras ciudades u otros países —bien sea electrónicamente o en persona— que con sus propios vecinos.
Los cambiantes patrones demográficos han disminuido las tasas de crecimiento urbano a un 3 por ciento, en comparación con 6 a 8 por ciento en la década de 1960. La mayoría de las ciudades han experimentado una reducción en sus tasas de natalidad y de migración desde zonas rurales del interior del país o de las regiones inmediatas. No obstante, la turbulencia política y las cambiantes oportunidades laborales también están dando pie a nuevas olas de migración transnacional. Muchos nuevos inmigrantes se asientan en áreas de la ciudad separadas del sector pobre indígena, y presentan un nuevo grupo de problemas sociales y económicos para los gobiernos nacionales y municipales. En San Diego, por ejemplo, inmigrantes de México y Centroamérica contribuyen al crecimiento poblacional y a la mayor segmentación dentro de la región. Por otra parte, São Paulo ha experimentado una emigración neta, dado que las nuevas políticas y programas brasileños fomentan la descentralización hacia nuevas comunidades de ese vasto país.
Según los datos de 1990, los sectores económicos tienen una composición similar entre países. Por lo general, menos del 5 por ciento de la fuerza laboral se dedica a la agricultura y a la extracción de recursos, mientras que el 20 al 30 por ciento trabaja en el sector manufacturero y el 65 al 75 por ciento en el sector de servicios. Como interesantes excepciones en estas tendencias laborales son los casos de Yakarta, con una tasa de participación en el sector agrícola de casi el 16 por ciento en 1990, y San Diego, con un 83 por ciento de tasa actual en el sector de servicios. Bangkok y Taipei muestran los mayores declives en agricultura, desde un 20 por ciento en 1960 a menos del 2 por ciento en 1990. En ese mismo año, ambas ciudades mantenían tasas relativamente altas en el sector manufacturero; 32 y 36 por ciento respectivamente.
En cuanto a la distribución del ingreso en las regiones, se observan patrones similares: el 20 por ciento más pobre de la población suele recibir apenas un 5 a 7 por ciento de los ingresos totales, en comparación con un 40 a 50 por ciento de dichos ingresos que llega al 20 por ciento más rico de la población. Santiago, São Paulo y Yakarta exhiben las mayores concentraciones de riqueza en los niveles superiores, mientras que Tokio y Taipei, seguidos cercanamente por Randstad y Madrid, exhiben la menor desigualdad entre los niveles de ingresos. San Diego, a pesar de su ingreso per cápita relativamente alto, muestra una distribución de ingreso de rango medio del 44 por ciento para el extremo superior, pero apenas un 4 por ciento del ingreso ganado para el 20 por ciento más pobre de su población.
Una economía mundial llena de cambios y contradicciones
Durante la conferencia se revelaron varias realidades nuevas sobre el mundo en que vivimos. Quizás la más importante sea la dificultad que enfrentan las autoridades municipales y nacionales para diseñar políticas eficaces que modifiquen las poderosas fuerzas económicas que moldean las nuevas estructuras productivas de sus regiones.
Un tema recurrente en los análisis regionales fue la contradicción existente entre las inversiones privadas altamente centralizadas y los cambios arrolladores que surgen con la inserción de la ciudad-región en la economía internacional. En la mayoría de las regiones, los “corredores de élite” de la globalización presentan un agudo contraste con la precaria “ciudad residual”. Dichos enclaves adinerados, receptores de las inversiones de corporaciones transnacionales productoras para mercados mundiales, están redicadas cerca de las zonas donde viven y compran los participantes de esta economía. En estos centros financieros y comerciales, prósperas empresas de profesionales capacitados realizan operaciones de producción y marketing mundial para garantizar retornos atractivos a los inversionistas internacionales, casi siempre haciendo caso omiso de la economía local.
Paralelamente con el declive poblacional, las oportunidades de empleo también se han estancado. En cada una de las ciudades-región se observa el desplazamiento acelerado de la fuerza laboral hacia empleos a tiempo parcial de baja paga en el sector de servicios, con un concomitante desequilibrio de oportunidades económicas que condena a un segmento creciente de la población a la pobreza.
Esta amenaza está acompañada por cambios en el sector agrícola. Gran parte de los productores rurales de pequeña escala no pueden competir en los mercados internacionales con productores agrícolas de gran escala, quienes tienen acceso a un capital que les permite equiparse con las más modernas maquinarias para aumentar su producción. El proceso inexorable de expansión global también está provocando la salida del mercado de plantas manufactureras de pequeña y mediana escala.
La mayoría de los participantes de la conferencia aceptaron y adoptaron de buena gana la nueva dinámica de la globalización. Sus gobiernos trabajan activamente para reposicionar sus regiones a fin de atraer inversionistas extranjeros y promotores de bienes raíces que prometen la modernización, esperando poder convertir sus ciudades en guías que conduzcan a sus naciones hacia el proceso de integración mundial. Casi todos consideran que su tarea principal será la de desenmarañar los obstáculos —normativos y otros— de las épocas anteriores, y facilitar la iniciativa privada mediante el ofrecimiento, a veces gratuito, del suelo y de la infraestructura requeridos para las nuevas instalaciones.
Muchas de las ciudades están específicamente orientando sus estrategias de inversión en infraestructura para expandir la economía de servicios. Bangkok, Taipei y Tokio están esforzándose para convertirse en los centros financieros de Asia, esperando la caída de Hong Kong como primer competidor. Bangkok, en particular, está invirtiendo en redes sustanciales de transporte y comunicaciones y en la capacitación de su fuerza laboral. En Europa, Madrid está aprovechando su papel como centro mundial de la cultura española para mejorar sus servicios de comunicación; Randstad está promoviendo sus instalaciones de soporte aeroportuario; y Lyon se está convirtiendo en un novedoso centro de industrias tecnológicas emergentes.
Impactos en el desarrollo regional
Los casos estudiados y las discusiones durante la conferencia pusieron en evidencia numerosos problemas de ese entusiasmo por la globalización. El complejo y preocupante fenómeno de la expansión urbana se está generalizando en el mundo entero conforme el automóvil facilita la distribución de la población a centros de empleo satélites y suele reducir la densidad de las ciudades regionales. Dos excepciones interesantes de este patrón son Tokio, cuyo sistema de tránsito masivo contribuye a mantener centralizada la actividad económica, y Taipei, donde la geografía montañosa restringe el desarrollo hacia las afueras. Por otra parte, en Randstad se está observando el desarrollo acelerado de espacios vacantes que existían entre antiguos asentamientos, aun cuando la tasa de crecimiento general ha sido bastante lenta.
Parte de esta descentralización proviene de los esfuerzos gubernamentales para hacer frente a asuntos como el alto precio del suelo, el congestionamiento vehicular o la protección ambiental. En las afueras de Santiago, Lyon, Randstad, Taipei, Tokio y Yakarta se están construyendo nuevos pueblos o “tecnópolis”, mientras que en Bangkok se está construyendo un nuevo puerto a unos cuantos kilómetros del centro de la ciudad. En São Paulo, estrictos reglamentos de protección de las zonas de cuenca están forzando el desplazamiento de nuevos desarrollos a sitios distantes.
Más que moldear el desarrollo, la infraestructura suele seguirle los pasos a éste. Los inversionistas privados tienen capacidad de responder con mayor rapidez a planes de crecimiento dentro de sus regiones, de lo que pueden las agencias públicas responsabilizarse por implementar grandes proyectos de infraestructura. De esa manera el desarrollo privado presiona al sector público para que dote de servicios a zonas que ya están siendo urbanizadas. Este proceso tiene serias implicaciones para la planificación regional a largo plazo, si ésta continúa siendo impulsada por el desarrollo mientras que el gobierno le sigue los pasos para no quedarse atrás.
Otro tema que emergió durante la conferencia fue el de una mayor conciencia sobre los problemas ambientales. En la mayoría de las ciudades-región, la acumulación de riqueza y el consiguiente aumento de consumo están imponiendo enormes presiones sobre el medio ambiente. Con el paso acelerado de la integración regional y la desregulación de la economía, las corporaciones transnacionales pueden funcionar como les plazca en la economía internacional. Los participantes señalaron repetidamente las dificultades de controlar estos retos de manera constructiva en cada una de sus ciudades-región. Así y todo, la preocupación por el ambiente fue vista también como el principal factor de motivación de la planificación regional estratégica considerada.
Calidad de vida
La globalización promete un mundo de mayor prosperidad. La mayoría de las ciudades representadas en la conferencia experimentaron aumentos relativos en varios índices promedio de calidad de vida entre 1960 y 1990: ingreso per cápita, esperanza de vida y nivel de educación. Estas entradas crecientes, junto con los avances tecnológicos que incrementan la productividad y la mayor diseminación de información sobre bienes disponibles en los mercados mundiales, han permitido que habitantes urbanos de todas partes satisfagan sus necesidades con nuevos productos. No obstante, modelos globales poderosos de organización y producción están también imponiendo nuevos patrones homogéneos de consumo que amenazan con acabar la extraordinaria variedad de estilos de vida que caracteriza a la mayoría de las regiones urbanas.
El aumento en movilidad física resultante del automóvil particular ha abierto las puertas a un mundo de lugares donde vivir, comprar y trabajar. Al mismo tiempo, los viajes diarios entre la casa y el trabajo duran unos 45 minutos en promedio, desde menos de 30 minutos en San Diego a más de hora y media en Bangkok.
Los participantes de la conferencia estuvieron de acuerdo en que este aumento de movilidad ha minado el sentido de comunidad del pasado, conforme los seres humanos comienzan a identificarse con lugares urbanos más dispersos o a desarrollar identidades “sin tierra”. Prácticamente todos los representantes de las ciudades hicieron mención de la “McDonaldnización” de la cultura mundial, que abarca expresiones como la música, la ropa, la arquitectura y la comida. Igualmente, a medida que los mercados de bienes de consumo se globalizan, los habitantes de muchas ciudades-región están comenzando a depender de esos mercados para que suministren servicios que solían ser semipúblicos, tales como educación y recreación.
Los cambios en la función económica de grandes ciudades —de manufactura y transporte a finanzas y turismo— han causado también pérdidas importantes. Muchos centros históricos han sido modificados para fines de turismo cultural. Edificios o ciudades que en el pasado fueron fábricas o almacenes son ahora tiendas o museos. Los trabajadores u obreros portuarios de antaño que solían vivir cerca de sus trabajos, han desaparecido para dar lugar a visitantes que se desplazan por automóvil o avión desde otras ciudades o incluso otros países para admirar edificios que han sido restaurados en forma, pero cuya función ha sido completamente transformada. Nuevos rascacielos, centros de convención, estadios y hoteles de lujo son impuestos sobre el paisaje urbano, generalmente sin tomar en cuenta el contexto espacial y social.
Ciertos puntos del proceso de globalización son alentadores, especialmente si se consideran las contribuciones de la ciencia médica y aspectos básicos de educación y sanidad que pueden ofrecerse con inversiones públicas de relativo bajo costo. Sin embargo, el estándar de vida y las oportunidades de empleo se están deteriorando para números crecientes de la población mundial.
La mayoría de los nuevos trabajadores urbanos viven en un mundo de mercados laborales más flexibles y menos seguridad laboral, diferente al mundo en que laboraron sus padres como granjeros u obreros de plantaciones. Las nuevas tecnologías informáticas y financieras globales facilitan a las empresas buscar los sitios y mano de obra más baratos del mundo y cambiar los empleos de un país a otro en cuestión de semanas, de ser necesario.
Los mismos nuevos medios de información y de transporte, que permiten a consumidores y trabajadores elegir entre una amplia variedad de artículos o empleos, también permiten que los criminales elijan de entre una amplia variedad de potenciales blancos. Algunos participantes de la conferencia argumentaron que la actual percepción de menor seguridad física es algo más imaginario que real, especialmente en los Estados Unidos. Lo cierto es que la percepción de por sí está claramente alentando la demanda mundial de urbanizaciones enrejadas o viviendas más seguras.
Los efectos positivos y negativos de la globalización en la calidad de vida, más que concesiones, son las dos caras de la moneda. Las mismas tecnologías de información y organización de mercados que difunden nuevos bienes de consumo alrededor del mundo en cuestión de semanas, también transmiten malas noticias, como el sida. Los mismos automóviles que facilitan el acceso a oportunidades de recreación en el campo para los habitantes urbanos, también dan lugar a ciudades que se expanden y ocupan tierras de la periferia que se convierten en patios privados en vez de vistas escénicas de granjas o bosques.
Debido a estas contradicciones, es de menester buscar otros modelos de producción y consumo, modelos que permitan a los habitantes fortalecer sus comunidades y proteger sus ambientes, que ofrezcan la posibilidad de crear empleos productivos para toda la población, y que restrinja el acelerado proceso de polarización.
El papel del gobierno
¿Hasta qué punto los ciudadanos de las ciudades-región piden a sus gobiernos municipales, metropolitanos o nacionales encontrar formas de eliminar los efectos negativos de la globalización? Como un ejemplo, los representantes de San Diego, Ankara y Tokio apuntaron al hecho de que las elecciones municipales se centran ahora en torno a quién se beneficia de la globalización. Los ciudadanos que se identifican más con la economía global que con la municipal exigen que los gobiernos inviertan en infraestructura de alta tecnología, construyan centros de convención o estadios y fomenten las oportunidades de educación con el fin de atraer empleos futuros.
En contraste, la mayoría de los peones y trabajadores de poca formación educativa ven la globalización como una amenaza más que una oportunidad, y les interesa más invertir los limitados recursos municipales en servicios públicos como escuelas y clínicas comunitarias. En cualquier caso, es posible que aquellos gobiernos que se concentran en los servicios municipales para no tener que tomar decisiones políticas impopulares, están únicamente postergando los impactos inevitables de la globalización, entre ellos sus efectos potencialmente beneficiosos a largo plazo.
A la larga, quizás la capacidad de gobiernos de cualquier nivel para manejar las fuerzas globales sea limitada. Existe una discrepancia inherente entre la economía global y el gobierno, no sólo en el sentido espacial de gobiernos municipales o fragmentados que están luchando para dominar las fuerzas económicas regionales o globales, sino en los modos operativos contrastantes de los mercados y los gobiernos.
La globalización ha dificultado cada vez más definir tanto “la región” que debería planificarse como “la comunidad” que debería participar en dichos planes. Los gobiernos municipales —e incluso la mayoría de los gobiernos nacionales— no tienen muchos recursos para proteger los negocios locales contra la competencia global. En casi todas las ciudades-región representadas en la conferencia se han multiplicado los grupos de interés especializados y las organizaciones no gubernamentales, al mismo tiempo que los gobiernos omnipresentes han comenzado a dar pasos hacia la fragmentación y descentralización. La devolución política, bastante avanzada en los Estados Unidos, está comenzando a sonar fuerte en otras partes.
La tendencia actual de los gobiernos de las ciudades-región es prescindir de técnicas de planificación espacial complicadas, y en cambio ajustarse a lo que uno de los planificadores de la conferencia denominó como “las nuevas reglas de la propiedad y la política”. Sin embargo, esta filosofía deja una herencia de muchas contradicciones: entre las oportunidades para las élites y los pobres; entre los defensores de una mayor autonomía municipal y aquellos comprometidos a patrones regionales emergentes de interdependencia; y entre políticas que favorecen el crecimiento en vez de la redistribución de recursos. Sin un sistema gubernamental eficaz, todas estas dicotomías tienen gran potencial para la confrontación.
SHARE
In the nearly 35 years since Bosselman and Callies (1972) published The Quiet Revolution in Land Use Control, land use policies in states across the nation have continued to change and evolve. The state of Maryland offers a good example. The history of land use policy in Maryland records a variety of conservation, development, and growth management acts, but in 1997 the state burst into the national spotlight with its innovative Smart Growth and Neighborhood Conservation package of land use reforms.
Today, some 10 years later, a new initiative is aiming to take the reform process in Maryland even further. Named Reality Check Plus: Imagine Maryland, this effort is supported in part by the Lincoln Institute, along with other nonprofit organizations, foundations, corporations, and individuals. It remains to be seen how far this effort will go and in what ways it may produce significant policy change, but regardless of the outcome it represents an interesting test of whether a privately led reform initiative can foster land use change at state and local levels.
A Rich Planning History
Maryland has a longstanding reputation as a national leader in land use policy and planning. The historical roots of Maryland’s smart growth program date to 1933, when Maryland established the nation’s first state planning commission. Recent planning history begins with the formation of the Chesapeake Bay Commission in 1980. Although the commission has no explicit land use authority in the signatory states (Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia), its recommendations have been instrumental in shaping land use policy in Maryland. The state’s Critical Area Act of 1984, for example, required local governments to adopt special development regulations within a 1,000-foot buffer of the Bay shoreline, and the Economic Growth, Resource Protection, and Planning Act of 1992 required local governments to address six visions originally outlined in a report prepared for the Chesapeake Executive Council (DeGrove 2005, 254–256).
Although the 1992 Planning Act provided a framework for local comprehensive plans, it failed to stem the tide of urban sprawl, according to the Growth Commission, established by the act as a new state advisory body. Following an extensive listening campaign, many meetings, and frequent forums, Governor Parris Glendening (1995–2003) proposed and the 1997 legislature passed the initiatives that have led to Maryland’s recognition as a leader in the promotion of smart growth. The original 1997 package of smart growth legislation included five separate measures; the first two captured the primary focus of the program (see Figure 1), and three others supported the overall concept.
Incentive-based Programs
Maryland’s smart growth programs are interesting in a number of ways, but the most distinctive feature is their reliance on spatially specific incentives instead of land use regulations (Cohen 2002). For example:
This reliance on incentives is what enabled these programs to pass the Maryland legislature, and what makes them so attractive to other states. After nearly 10 years, Maryland remains a national model for state efforts to promote smart growth, although many within the state believe the program has not gone far enough. According to John W. Frece, a former aide to Glendening, the smart growth program was “unquestionably a move in the right direction,” but it also represented only as much change as was politically possible at the time (Frece 2005). He concludes that the Maryland program might have been more effective if it had set specific goals and benchmarks when it was created, and that it failed to conduct any statewide visioning or other exercises to determine what the public thought their region or state should look like in the future. He also notes that the basic planning blocks of smart growth, the priority funding areas, proved to be too weak and porous to slow sprawl, much less stop it.
Because Maryland’s smart growth policies relied extensively on state incentives, their efficacy waned when those incentives were not maintained after Glendening left office. In some cases the policies were simply insufficient to counteract the economic factors that drive sprawl development. Moreover, if a development project was approved by the local government but did not need or rely on financial incentives from the state, the smart growth initiative had no effect on it. Finally, the smart growth program skirted the politically sensitive issue of whether the state should have more authority over local land use decisions. If local decisions were contrary to the state’s smart growth policies, the state had little recourse (Frece 2005).
Several recent studies support these assertions.
These reports suggest that although Maryland has adopted some of the most innovative land use policies in the country, there is limited evidence that these policies have significantly altered urban development trends. The reasons are complex, but the available research suggests that state incentives are either too small or are poorly suited to the situation to have major impacts on land development trends, especially without supportive regulatory policies at the local level.
Reality Check Plus: Imagine Maryland
To rekindle interest in urban development trends and land use policy in Maryland, and to advance progress in land use reform, a new initiative was launched in 2005. Reality Check Plus: Imagine Maryland is a broad-based, long-term effort led by the Baltimore District Council of the Urban Land Institute (ULI), the National Center for Smart Growth Research and Education at the University of Maryland, and 1000 Friends of Maryland. It is also supported by more than 130 organizations throughout the state.
The first component of the effort involved four public participatory visioning exercises based on similar exercises in Washington, DC, and Fredericksburg, Virginia, led by ULI and the National Center for Smart Growth. In these exercises citizens representing civic, government, and business interests, including elected officials, were literally brought to the table to confront the issues of urban growth and express a desired vision for their region’s future. The Maryland exercises were held in May and June in four regions: the Eastern Shore, Southern Maryland, Western Maryland, and the Baltimore-Washington Corridor. Participants expressed their vision for where future growth should go by placing plastic Lego® blocks representing projected job and housing growth through 2030 on large, table-top regional maps.
The final results of the four Maryland exercises will not be fully integrated and analyzed until September, but preliminary results presented at each event reveal similar but distinct results (see Figure 2). The consensus visioning principles expressed public desires to (1) protect open spaces and natural resources; (2) utilize existing infrastructure; (3) concentrate growth near transit stations in existing urban areas; and (4) balance the location of jobs and households. And at all four events, the placement of Legos was consistent with these principles. Specifically, when compared with current development patterns, participants placed larger proportions of growth inside PFAs and near transit stations and highway corridors, and placed more jobs in job-poor areas.
Notable support was given in all regions for new and expanded transit service and for more regional cooperation or even regional authorities to plan for future growth. There were also some important regional differences: participants from the Eastern Shore focused on protecting the region’s small town and agrarian way of life; in Western Maryland there was concern about uneven economic growth; the primary concern in Central Maryland was traffic congestion; and in Southern Maryland there was apprehension about the impacts of growth in military jobs.
Although these exercises represent one of the largest forums on growth ever conducted in a single state, it is important not to overstate what these events can produce. A pile of Legos placed on a table for a few hours cannot be confused with a thorough analysis of alternative development patterns, a careful consideration of consequences, and a true statewide consensus about the results. These events, however, do represent an important beginning to what must be a continuing dialogue on growth in the state.
In September, during the state’s quadrennial election cycle, a synthesis of the four regional events will be presented at a statewide forum. Candidates for state and local office, including candidates for governor, will be invited to attend and pledge their support for implementing the results. In the meantime, each of the three lead organizations is developing work plans for the implementation phase. The Baltimore District Council of ULI will offer a series of education and outreach programs designed to disseminate the results of the four events throughout each region, especially to elected officials. 1000 Friends of Maryland will sponsor a series of candidate forums and regional caucuses to encourage the implementation of the results, especially through state and local policy reform. The National Center, with support from the Lincoln Institute, will conduct more extensive analyses of alternative statewide development scenarios and existing land use policies in Maryland and other states.
For Maryland, these four regional exercises, and whatever changes in land use policies may follow, represent just the latest chapter in the state’s closely watched history of land use planning and policy. For other states, these exercises represent a rare natural experiment. Can a privately led visioning exercise precipitate significant change in the substance of state and/or local land use policy, local development decisions, and development trends? Stay tuned.
The Visioning Experience
At each Reality Check Plus event, up to 10 participants at each table were asked to think about how their region should accommodate the growth projected over the next 25 years. A six-foot by eight-foot map of the region was shaded in various colors to represent the existing population and employment density. The maps also depicted major highways; subway and commuter rail lines and stations; parkland or other protected conservation areas; airports, military bases, and other government installations; and rivers, floodplains, and other bodies of water.
To encourage participants to think regionally rather than locally, all jurisdictional boundaries were intentionally omitted, although place names of cities and towns helped with orientation. Each table was staffed by a scribe/computer operator and a trained facilitator to lead the three-hour exercise. Before considering where to accommodate growth, participants were asked to reach consensus on a set of principles to guide their decisions about where to place the new development, such as protecting open space, making use of existing infrastructure, and maintaining jobs-housing balance.
The exercise used Lego® blocks of four different colors: white blocks represented the top 80 percent of new housing units in the region based on price, or essentially market-rate housing; yellow blocks represented the bottom 20 percent of housing based on price, essentially a stand-in for nonsubsidized affordable housing; black blocks represented lower density housing development that could be exchanged for higher density white blocks at a ratio of 4:1; and blue blocks represented jobs.
The maps were overlaid with a checkered grid and scaled so a single block fit on each grid. Participants who wanted to add more than one housing or employment block to a single grid simply stacked the blocks. Those who proposed a mixed-use development pattern could stack various types of blocks together. Once all the Legos were placed on the map, the result yields a three-dimensional representation of where future growth in the region is or is not desired.
After all the Legos were placed, the participants were asked to assess their work. Have they allocated jobs and households across the region in a manner consistent with their vision for what the future should hold? Does the quantity of growth seem appropriate for a 25–30 year timeframe, or would they prefer more or less growth? Finally, if they are comfortable with the consensus vision, what policies or land development tools do they favor for assuring that the preferred vision is the one that is actually realized? What new infrastructure will be necessary to accommodate the projected level of growth? What might be the environmental impacts and tax implications? The participants’ considered responses to these questions are perhaps the most important products of the exercise.
During the lunch break a team of students from the University of Maryland counted the numbers of Legos at each table, entered the information into a computer, and then converted the results into two– and three-dimensional maps for each table. The data were also analyzed and inserted into a formatted PowerPoint presentation. The slides identified results for each table in a quantitative analysis of urban development indicators, such as percentages of jobs and households within one-quarter mile of a transit station; inside metropolitan beltways; inside existing urban areas; and in existing greenfields and farmland. Other indicators measured location of affordable housing and the degree to which it is integrated with market-rate housing; and the extent of jobs-housing balance.
After lunch the participants gathered in a large auditorium to hear a presentation of the results, which included a summary of the consensus principles, selected results from various tables, and a synthesis of the results from all the tables. Subsequent events included a town hall-type panel discussion focused on how to implement the pattern of development envisioned by the participants at each regional event.
Gerrit-Jan Knaap, an economist and professor of urban studies and planning, is executive director of the National Center for Smart Growth Research and Education at the University of Maryland. He is one of three co-chairs of the Reality Check Plus visioning exercise.
Dru Schmidt-Perkins is executive director of 1000 Friends of Maryland, a statewide citizens’ coalition that supports protection of natural resources, revitalization of existing communities, preservation of historic resources, efficient and effective transportation choices, and development that takes into account the public’s interest. She is also one of three co-chairs of the Reality Check Plus project.
References
Bosselman, Fred, and David Callies. 1972. The quiet revolution in land use control. Washington, DC: Council on Environmental Quality.
Cohen, J. R. 2002. Maryland’s “smart growth”: Using incentives to combat sprawl. In Urban sprawl: Causes, consequences and policy response, G. Squires, ed. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
DeGrove, John M. 2005. Planning policy and politics: Smart growth and the states. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Frece, John W. 2005. Twenty lessons from Maryland’s smart growth initiative. Vermont Journal of Environmental Law 6: 106–132.
Howland, Marie. 2000. The impact of contamination on the Canton/Southeast Baltimore land market. Journal of the American Planning Association 66 (4): 411–420.
———. 2003. Private initiatives and public responsibility for the redevelopment of industrial brownfields: Three Baltimore case studies. Economic Development Quarterly 17 (4): 367–381.
Howland, Marie, and Jungyul Sohn. Forthcoming. Has Maryland’s priority funding areas initiative constrained the expansion of water and sewer investments? Land Use Policy.
National Center for Smart Growth. 2003. Smart growth, housing markets, and development trends in the Baltimore-Washington Corridor. http://www.smartgrowth.umd.edu/research/pdf/KnaapSohnFreceEtAl_SGHousingMarketsBalWash_DateNA.pdf.
———. 2006. Adequate public facilities ordinances in Maryland: Inappropriate use, inconsistent standards, unintended consequences. http://www.smartgrowth.umd.edu/research/pdf/NCSG_APFOMaryland_041906.pdf.
1000 Friends of Maryland. 1999. Smart growth: How is your county doing—Baltimore Region. http://www.friendsofmd.org.
———. 2001. Smart growth: How is your county doing—Eastern Shore. http://www.friendsofmd.org.
Shen, Qing and Feng Zhang. Forthcoming, Land-use changes in a pro–smart growth state: Maryland, USA. Environment and Planning A.
Sohn, Jungyul, and Gerrit-Jan Knaap. 2005. Does the job creation tax credit program in Maryland help concentrate employment growth? Economic Development Quarterly 19: 313–326.
Tassone, Joseph, Erik Balsley, Lynda Eisenberg, Stephanie Martins, and Rich Hall. 2004. Maximizing return on public investment in Maryland’s rural land preservation programs. Annapolis, MD: Maryland Department of Planning.
SHARE
La cuestión central que deben resolver los conservacionistas de suelos hoy en día es cómo ampliar la escala de sus esfuerzos para proteger paisajes y sistemas naturales completos. El movimiento de fideicomisos de suelos se ha cimentado en los éxitos individuales de conservación de propiedades privadas, pero crecientemente tanto los conservacionistas como los propietarios que llegan a acuerdos de conservación quieren saber cómo se puede extender este esfuerzo a sus vecinos, a su barrio y, por sobre todo, a su paisaje (Williams 2011).
Los agricultores y ganaderos expresan la necesidad de sustentar una red continua de tierras de trabajo —una masa crítica de actividad agrícola ganadera— para no correr el riesgo de perder las actividades de respaldo comercial y la cooperación comunitaria necesarias para sobrevivir. Los bomberos abogan por mantener las tierras distantes sin desarrollar, con objeto de reducir el peligro y el costo de incendios en las comunidades locales. Los deportistas están perdiendo acceso a suelos públicos y a la vida silvestre cuando el hábitat es fragmentado por emprendimientos rurales. Los biólogos conservacionistas han argumentado desde hace tiempo que se podrían sustentar más especies, si se protegen espacios más extensos, mientras que, por el contrario, la disminución y desaparición de las especies se debe principalmente a la fragmentación del hábitat. Por último, un clima tan rápidamente cambiante redobla la necesidad de proteger ecosistemas grandes e interconectados para que puedan mantenerse a largo plazo.
Muchos financistas y socios del sector público están tratando de concentrar sus esfuerzos de colaboración para la de conservación del paisaje, de manera que la comunidad de fideicomisos de suelos tiene una excelente oportunidad de potenciar su buena labor embarcándose en “alianzas para el paisaje”. Los fideicomisos de suelos, con su desarrollo de base y estilo de trabajo cooperativo, están en una muy buena posición para respaldar iniciativas locales. El proceso de construcción de estos esfuerzos, sin embargo, requiere un compromiso que va más allá de la urgencia de transacciones y campañas de recaudación de fondos, y exige un esfuerzo sostenido que es mucho más amplio que las metas inmediatas que se proponen muchos fideicomisos de suelos.
¿Cómo se mide el éxito?
El río Blackfoot en M ontana se hizo famoso en 1976 gracias a la historia A River Runs Through It (Nada es para siempre) de Norman Maclean (Maclean 2001), pero lo que realmente es destacable en la región de Blackfoot es la manera en que una comunidad ha trabajado durante muchas décadas para sustentar este lugar tan especial. En la década de 1970 se iniciaron los esfuerzos de conservación por parte de los propietarios locales y en 1993 se estableció la organización Blackfoot Challenge con el objeto de aunar los diversos intereses de la zona en medidas consensuadas que posibilitaran el mantenimiento del carácter rural y los recursos naturales del valle. Jim Stone, presidente de este grupo de propietarios, dice: “nos cansamos de quejarnos de lo que no podíamos hacer, así que decidimos hablar sobre lo que sí podíamos”.
En este esfuerzo conjunto se han utilizado estrategias novedosas de conservación en Blackfoot que se han reproducido en muchos otros lugares. El trabajo del grupo comenzó concentrándose en una mejor gestión del creciente uso recreativo del río y en proteger el corredor fluvial. La primera exención para conservación de Montana se promulgó en Blackfoot en 1976, como parte de este esfuerzo pionero. A partir de este éxito inicial, se fueron creando iniciativas más ambiciosas con la participación de un creciente número de aliados.
Cuando los propietarios se quejaban de que no tenían suficiente ayuda para controlar la maleza, Challenge estableció el distrito de control de maleza más grande del Oeste. Cuando los propietarios plantearon que no había recursos suficientes para conservar las haciendas en funcionamiento, Challenge ayudó a crear un programa innovador del Servicio de Pesca y Vida Silvestre de los EE. UU. (US Fish and Wildlife Service, o USFWS) para adquirir servidumbres de conservación junto con el Fondo de Conservación de Suelos y Aguas (Land and Water Conservation Fund, o LWCF), que históricamente se ha usado para la adquisición de suelo público.
Cuando los propietarios estaban preocupados por la venta potencial de grandes áreas forestales en el valle, Challenge lanzó un plan comprensivo de adquisiciones que conectó haciendas privadas protegidas al pie del valle con suelos forestales públicos más altos. Cuando los propietarios reconocieron la necesidad de realizar una restauración sistémica del río, Challenge y la sucursal Big Blackfoot de Trout Unlimited ayudaron a restaurar más de 48 corrientes tributarias y 600 millas de pasos piscícolas para preservar la circulación de la trucha nativa y la salud de la cuenca (Trout Unlimited 2011).
Blackfoot Challenge se ha asociado con más de 160 propietarios, 30 empresas, 30 organizaciones sin fines de lucro y 20 dependencias públicas. Claramente, la visión de Challenge para la región no se limita simplemente a algunas haciendas, sino que se preocupa por la salud a largo plazo de todo el valle del río, de “ladera a ladera”, según las palabras de Jim Stone (ver figura 1).
El aspecto admirable de la historia de Blackfoot es que no se trata de una rara excepción, sino que constituye el emblema de un movimiento creciente que se dedica a esfuerzos de colaboración para la conservación en todo el país. Estas alianzas para la conservación del paisaje confirman un consenso emergente sobre la necesidad de proteger y sustentar paisajes completos que son vitales, tanto para la salud de los peces y la vida silvestre, como para la vitalidad de las comunidades locales, su economía y su calidad de vida.
Esfuerzos de conservación iniciados por los propietarios
La historia de Blackfoot subraya una de las lecciones más importantes que emergen de las iniciativas de conservación comunitarias: los propietarios locales deben liderarlas, y todos los demás deben respaldarlos. El ejemplo del río Yampa, en el oeste de Colorado, ilustra esta estrategia. A comienzos de la década de 1990, los grupos conservacionistas estaban tratando de proteger esta región, pero toparon con la falta de confianza de los ganaderos locales. En el valle había personas con visión de futuro entre la comunidad y grupos que trataban de impulsar la conservación en la región, pero ninguna de las ideas arraigó de forma efectiva, precisamente porque los propietarios locales no lideraban el proyecto.
Esa dinámica sufrió un vuelco de 180 grados con varias iniciativas de los propietarios, entre las cuales destacó la del Plan de Suelos Abiertos del Condado de Routt (Routt County Open Lands Plan). Las recomendaciones de plan surgieron de una serie de reuniones que los propietarios locales celebraron a lo largo y ancho del condado. El plan proponía ocho medidas significativas para gestionar mejor el crecimiento explosivo en el valle, desde una ordenanza que otorgaba el derecho a cultivar, hasta un programa de adquisición de derechos de desarrollo inmobiliario en haciendas activas. El condado de Routt se convirtió en uno de los primeros condados rurales del Oeste en obtener fondos públicos por medio de una medida electoral para proteger las haciendas activas.
Malpai Borderlands es otro ejemplo ilustrativo de cómo el liderazgo de los propietarios puede superar varias décadas de inacción. Después de muchos años de conflicto entre los ganaderos propietarios y las agencias federales sobre la gestión de los suelos públicos situados alrededor de las montañas Ánimas, en el talón de la bota del estado de Nuevo México y el sudeste de Arizona, Bill Macdonald y otros ganaderos propietarios de la zona organizaron una alianza llamada Grupo de Malpai Borderlands para volver a introducir el fuego como medio para preservar la salud de los pastizales y la economía ganadera local. Este esfuerzo generó una asociación innovadora entre ganaderos, grupos de conservación y dependencias públicas para conservar y sustentar este ambiente silvestre de 404.684 hectáreas en actividad por medio de servidumbres de conservación, bancos de pastizales y un enfoque más integrado de administración del sistema en general.
Fideicomisos de suelos y sociedades públicas-privadas
De la misma manera que el liderazgo de los propietarios es fundamental en los esfuerzos cooperativos de conservación a escala de paisaje, los fideicomisos y agencias de suelos también pueden desempeñar un papel importante como líder secundario y aliado fiable que posee fuertes vínculos locales, conocimientode los recursos externos y una capacidad para implementar proyectos de investigación y conservación. En Rocky Mountain Front, en Montana, por ejemplo, los ganaderos locales están colaborando con varios fideicomisos de suelos y el USFWS para proteger los suelos activos por medio de servidumbres ecológicas. El comité de propietarios locales ha sido presidido por varios ganaderos locales, pero ha sido su amistad de 20 años con Dave Carr de The Nature Conservancy el hecho decisivo para que el comité se mantuviera activo. Greg Neudecker, del Programa de Socios para la Vida Silvestre (Partners for Wildlife Program) de USFWS, ha jugado un papel similar en Blackfoot, dados sus 21 años de servicio en la cooperación comunitaria.
Muchos propietarios y fideicomisos de suelos son renuentes a crear alianzas con dependencias públicas para proteger el paisaje porque frecuentemente abogan por la conservación con medios privados. Sin embargo, cuando se las incorpora como parte de una sociedad para la conservación del paisaje, las agencias estatales y federales pueden ser aliados muy efectivos. En Blackfoot, los estudios científicos, investigaciones, monitorización, financiamiento y trabajo de restauración efectuados por el estado
de Montana y el USFWS han tenido un impacto enorme en la recuperación del sistema del río.
En el frente de protección de suelos, la adquisición pública de bosques madereros extensos en Blackfoot ha complementado el trabajo de los fideicomisos de suelos privados al consolidar suelos públicos y permitir el acceso de la comunidad a dichos suelos para pastar, explotar el bosque y realizar actividades recreativas. Reconociendo los problemas generados por un siglo de supresión de incendios, el Servicio Forestal de los EE. UU. inició proyectos experimentales de desgaste forestal de pequeño diámetro para restaurar la estructura y el funcionamiento de los bosques y reducir la amenaza de incendio en el valle. Esta actividad se está ampliando ahora por medio de un nuevo Programa de Cooperación para la Restauración del Paisaje Forestal (Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration ProgramiI>, o CFLRP) financiado por el gobierno federal en los valles de Blackfoot, Clearwater y Swan.
El principio más general es que todas las partes interesadas principales tienen que involucrarse activamente para consensuar una base de intereses comunes. David M annix, otro hacendado de Blackfoot Challenge, explica lo que ellos denominan la “regal 80-20”: “Trabajamos sobre el 80 por ciento en queestamos de acuerdo y dejamos el 20 por ciento restante a la puerta, junto con el sombrero”. Jim Stone afirma que cuando la gente va a una reunion de Blackfoot Challenge “le pedimos que deje sus intereses organizativos en la puerta y dé prioridad al paisaje”, y se centre en la salud de los suelos y de las comunidades que de ellos dependen.
Para que estas alianzas entre el sector privado y el público puedan funcionar, es realmente importante que participe la “gente que importa”, es decir, individuos creativos que estén motivados por una vision común y que, al mismo tiempo, sean lo suficientemente modestos como para reconocer que no tienen todas las respuestas. La colaboración toma tiempo. Una vez que se hayan alcanzado acuerdos en común, es fundamental tener un éxito inicial, aunque sea pequeño, que sirva de base para futuras soluciones de mayor envergadura.
La necesidad de financiamiento
La barrera más importante para que los grupos cooperativos locales puedan alcanzar sus metas a nivel de paisaje es la falta de financiamiento adecuado. Sin un respaldo financiero suficiente, los esfuerzos cooperativos pierden, con frecuencia, su impulso, lo que puede retrasar este tipo de trabajo por muchos años.
El financiamiento no es un elemento estático, pero es proporcional a la escala de resultados que se pueden obtener y al número de participantes que se incorporan al esfuerzo. Los financistas privados o públicos no quieren participar en un éxito parcial a menos que sea un paso hacia un objetivo sustentable de largo plazo. Y no quieren proporcionar financiamiento en lugares donde los grupos están compitiendo. Cada vez más, los fideicomisos y agencias de suelos se han dado cuenta del potencial que se puede alcanzar por medio de la colaboración. Los donantes han tomado siempre la iniciativa en este tema, porque viven en un mundo de recursos limitados y comprenden el valor de potenciar una variedad de recursos y financiamientos.
Aunque se realicen grandes esfuerzos de cooperación con objetivos comunes y una gran probabilidad de éxito, frecuentemente existe una brecha de financiamiento para alcanzar una verdadera conservación del paisaje. Mark Schaffer, exdirector del Programa del M edio Ambiente de la Fundación Caritativa Doris Duke, estimó que esta brecha asciende a alrededor de 5 mil millones de dólares por año en financiamiento nuevo e incentivos tributarios que harán falta en los próximos 30 años para conservar una red de paisajes importantes en los Estados Unidos.
En la actualidad la comunidad de fideicomisos de suelos está conservando suelos a un ritmo de alrededor de 1,05 millones de hectáreas por año, un total acumulado de alrededor de 14,9 millones de hectáreas de acuerdo al último censo de 2005 (Land Trust Alliance 2006). No obstante, para sustentar paisajes completos antes de que las necesidades más urgentes cierren las puertas de la oportunidad, este ritmo se tiene que duplicar o triplicar, y se deben realizar esfuerzos de forma aun más orientada.
Oportunidades emergentes para la conservación a nivel de paisaje
Hay varias tendencias importantes y oportunidades de corto plazo que se podrían aprovechar para promover la conservación a escala de paisaje, pero su éxito depende del nivel de participación y liderazgo de los fideicomisos de suelos. Primero, es fundamental que el Congreso haga permanents las deducciones ampliadas de las servidumbres de conservación. La organización Alianza de Fideicomisos de Suelos (Land Trust Alliance, 2011) apunta que estas deducciones pueden proteger más de 101.170 hectáreas adicionales por año. Dado el interés actual del Congreso por recortar gastos y rebajar impuestos, esta es una de las pocas herramientas de financiamiento de conservación que quizás sea alcanzable en el corto plazo. A más largo plazo, un programa nacional de créditos tributarios transferibles similar a los de Colorado y Virginia podría crear un enorme incentivo para generar servidumbres de conservación.
La segunda tendencia se relaciona con el aumento del interés federal en proteger paisajes completos promoviendo las comunidades que ya están trabajando en conjunto. En 2005, la administración Bush lanzó un Programa de Conservación Cooperativa que mejoró la coordinación entre las agencias y los subsidios de capacidad para trabajos cooperativos locales. En 2010, la administración Obama lanzó la iniciativa America’s Great Outdoors para ayudar a las comunidades a sustentar sus suelos y recursos hídricos por medio de asociaciones gobernadas localmente, y reconectar a la juventud norteamericana con el medio ambiente natural (Obama 2010).
Si bien los recursos federales están enormemente restringidos en el corto plazo, los programas y el financiamiento existentes podrían concentrarse más en proyectos de conservación a nivel de paisaje. El Secretario de Agricultura, Tom Vilsack, anunció un cambio importante en la política de su departamento hacia un enfoque “integral de suelos” para conservar y restaurar los grandes sistemas de los Estados Unidos. Por ejemplo, el Servicio de Conservación de Recursos Naturales (Natural Resources Conservation Service) anunció recientemente que iba a reinvertir 89 millones de dólares de fondos del Programa de Reserva de Humedales que no se habían gastado para adquirir la servidumbre de conservación de 10.522 hectáreas en haciendas activas en la zona de los Everglades en Florida. La oportunidad que se presenta para la comunidad de fideicomisos de suelos es asegurar que estos proyectos se implementen como manera de obtener un apoyo amplio para este tipo de trabajo en el largo plazo.
La tercera oportunidad es aprobar medidas locales y estatales para aumentar el financiamiento y los incentivos tributarios a la conservación. A pesar de la economía debilitada y de los continuos proyectos para efectuar recortes gubernamentales y reducir los impuestos, los votantes aprobaron en las elecciones de 2010 el 83 por ciento de las iniciativas electorales en todo el país para financiar la conservación de suelos y de agua. En total, se aprobaron 41 de las 49 medidas de financiamiento, generando más de 2 mil millones de dólares para proyectos de conservación de suelos, aguas, parques y tierras agrícolas durante los próximos 20 años (The Trust for Public Land 2010).
La tendencia y oportunidad finales para la comunidad de fideicomisos de suelos es asociarse con financistas de capital privado para llevar adelante proyectos de conservación de suelos. Entre 1983 y 2009, cambiaron de manos más de 17,4 millones
de hectáreas de suelos forestales (Rinehart 2010). Nuevos grupos de capital privado, llamados Organizaciones de Gestión de Inversiones Madereras (Timber Investment Management Organizations o TIMO) y Fidecomisos de I nversión I nmobiliaria (Real Estate Investment Trusts, o REIT) adquirieron en muy poco tiempo 10,9 millones de hectáreas, y muchos de estos grupos de inversión, como Lyme Timber, Conservation Forestry, Ecosystem Investment Partners y Beartooth Capital Partners, utilizan la conservación como parte de su modelo de negocios.
La cuestión de escala
Una tendencia en curso en el movimiento de conservación ha sido darle un enfoque cada vez más amplio, pasando de las propiedades individuales a barrios, paisajes, ecosistemas, hasta llegar ahora a las redes de ecosistemas. Por ejemplo, los propietarios de Blackfoot, Swan Valley y Rocky Mountain Front han comprendido que la salud de sus paisajes depende de la salud del ecosistema Crown of the Continent (ver figura 2).
Crown, un área de más de 4 millones de hectáreas que rodea Bob Marshall Wilderness y Glacier-Waterton International Peace Place, es uno de los ecosistemas mejor preservados de América del Norte. Gracias a un siglo de designaciones de suelos públicos y 35 años protección privada de suelos por parte de las comunidades locales, este ecosistema no ha perdido una sola especie desde el asentamiento de los europeos en América. Los propietarios y otros socios se han conectado a lo largo de Crownde varias maneras para ver cómo pueden trabajar de forma más estrecha para el bien de todos.
Aun en la inmensidad de Crown, la sustentabilidad de su población silvestre depende de sus conexiones con otras poblaciones de las Montañas Rocosas del Norte. Sin embargo, estas redes aún mayores de sistemas naturales sólo se pueden concretar si se logran sustentar los vínculos esenciales de la región. Por esta razón, los fideicomisos de suelos de Wyoming, Idaho, Montana y Canadá han estado colaborando dentro de un marco llamado Corazón de las Montañas Rocosas (Heart of the Rockies) para identificar prioridades comunes y necesidades de conservación. Este nivel de colaboración regional ha generado un nuevo nivel de conservación y una mayor atención de los financistas. También ha sido clave para la colaboración entre fideicomisos de suelos basada en prioridades políticas comunes.
Para poder sustentar sistemas naturales interconectados, es realmente imperativo que se establezcan organizaciones a esta escala, pero también es importante comprender lo que se puede obtener a cada escala. Las grandes iniciativas regionales tienen gran importancia para crear una visión amplia y atractiva, pero no para implementar la conservación propiamente dicha. Dichos enfoques de gran escala sirven para aplicar la ciencia a nivel de la naturaleza, crear colaboraciones regionales alrededor de prioridades comunes y establecer un foro para intercambiar ideas novedosas, creando una mayor atención sobre la región. También brindan un contexto importante para realzar el trabajo local.
Melanie Parker, una líder local de los esfuerzos para la colaboración en la conservación de Swan Valley, lo expresa de esta manera: “Tenemos que integrar nuestros esfuerzos en una región más amplia para tener influencia política y acceder a recursos, pero cualquiera que piense que el trabajo de conservación se puede o debe hacer a una escala de 4 millones de hectáreas está seriamente equivocado. Este tipo de trabajo se tiene que realizar a la escala del lugar donde la gente vive, trabaja y comprende su paisaje”.
La gente local quiere actuar para preservar su propio lugar y su propio modo de vida. El diseño de estrategias a gran escala es frecuentemente demasiado abstracto para los propietarios y, en algunos casos también puede hasta conducirlos a la alienación. Como en la política—los politicos responden mejor a proyectos locales, diseñados y apoyados por sus residentes— toda la conservación es local. Conocer cuán amplios pueden ser los esfuerzos regionales sin que se pierda la cohesion comunitaria es una cuestión importante, pero lo cierto es que Blackfoot, Rocky Mountain Front y Swan Valley están al límite de lo posible hoy en día. Cada una de estas regiones opera en una escala de 202.340 a 607.000 de hectáreas.
Los fideicomisos de suelos pueden agregar valor a los esfuerzos locales por medio de colaboraciones regionales. Si bien los propietarios y residentes locales frecuentemente no tienen el tiempo necesario para participar en estas iniciativas de mayor calado, quieren
que su lugar y sus intereses estén bien representados. Los fideicomisos de suelos y las organizaciones de conservación pueden desempeñar un papel muy importante para interconectar grupos locales y geográficos, pero tienen que coordinarse con estos grupos en vez de tratar de liderarlos. En última instancia, la comunidad de fideicomisos de suelos puede beneficiarse si refuerza su trabajo cooperativo, profundiza su participación en asociaciones de paisajes, y trabaja a gran escala para alcanzar éxitos en el ámbito de la conservación.
Conclusión
Después de muchas décadas de trabajo extraordinario, los más de 1.700 fideicomisos de suelos en todo el país pueden usar su impulso para conservar los grandes sistemas que resultan más importantes para la gente y para la naturaleza. En efecto, esto es lo que las comunidades están pidiendo y lo que la naturaleza necesita para sobrevivir. Trascender más allá de victorias aisladas, generando una visión de conservación más interconectada, es tan importante para el sustento de las economías locales y su acceso recreativo como lo es para los corredores de vida silvestre y las cuencas hídricas saludables. Para tener éxito a esta escala hace falta una colaboración real y una reorientación de todas las partes interesadas. Con las múltiples oportunidades que se presentan actualmente para la conservación de paisajes completos, el impulso está de nuestro lado.
Sobre el Autor
Jamie Williams es el director de conservación de paisajes de The Nature Conservancy en América del Norte, con sede en Boulder, Colorado. Se concentra en programas para proteger los grandes paisajes por medio de alianzas innovadoras públicas y privadas. Fue Kingsbury Browne Fellow en el Instituto Lincoln durante 2010–2011. Tiene una Maestría en Estudios Medioambientales de la Facultad de Estudios
Forestales y Ambientales de Yale y un título de licenciatura por la Universidad de Yale.
Referencias
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
SHARE
El exceso de derechos de desarrollo y las subdivisiones sujetas a ejecución hipotecaria actualmente reducen la calidad de vida, sesgan los patrones de desarrollo y los mercados inmobiliarios, dañan los ecosistemas y reducen la salud fiscal en muchas comunidades de la región intermontañosa del oeste de los Estados Unidos. Con posterioridad a la caída inmobiliaria de 2007, que golpeó fuertemente en muchos lugares de la región, los caminos erosionados presentes en las subdivisiones atraviesan actualmente las tierras de cultivo y muchos paisajes rurales y suburbanos continúan viéndose salpicados por solitarias viviendas “modelo”. Algunas de estas subdivisiones están desocupadas, pero otras se encuentran parcialmente ocupadas y requieren la prestación de servicios públicos a vecindarios lejanos que generan muy pocos ingresos fiscales. En aquellas jurisdicciones en donde podían venderse lotes antes de que se completara la infraestructura, muchas personas terminaron siendo propietarias de una parcela en la que se suponía que existiría un desarrollo de alto nivel y actualmente sólo existe poco más que un plano catastral.
Estos desarrollos interrumpidos, conocidos coloquialmente como subdivisiones “zombies”, son los muertos vivientes del mercado inmobiliario. Acorralados por problemas financieros o legales, los proyectos que una vez fueran muy prometedores actualmente están afectando a sus entornos con riesgos para la salud y seguridad de los habitantes, deterioro, disminución del valor de las propiedades, amenazas a las finanzas municipales, recursos naturales sobreexplotados, patrones de desarrollo fragmentados y otras distorsiones en los mercados inmobiliarios municipales.
Este artículo presenta un panorama general del contexto económico que promovió tal exceso de derechos en la región oeste, y de las medidas de planificación y control del desarrollo a nivel municipal que influyen en la forma en que dichas fuerzas del mercado actúan en una comunidad determinada. Además se describe de qué manera tres comunidades de la región intermontañosa del oeste rediseñaron las subdivisiones sujetas a ejecución hipotecaria que existían en sus jurisdicciones, y la forma en que dichas medidas están facilitando la recuperación, generando entornos de crecimiento más sustentables, mejorando el valor de las propiedades, y conservando el suelo y el hábitat de vida silvestre.
El trasfondo económico que fomentó el desarrollo excesivo en la región oeste
En la región intermontañosa del oeste, donde abundan los terrenos y el crecimiento rápido es algo común, no es raro que los gobiernos municipales otorguen derechos de desarrollo con una gran anticipación a la demanda de viviendas por parte del mercado. Los ciclos de auge y caída tampoco son una rareza en esta región. Sin embargo, la magnitud de la Gran Recesión amplificó la frecuencia del exceso de derechos y exacerbó el daño que provocaban en las comunidades adyacentes. Sólo en la región intermontañosa del oeste, existen millones de lotes vacantes con derechos de desarrollo. A lo largo de muchos condados en esta región, el índice de parcelas desocupadas en las subdivisiones representa aproximadamente del 15 por ciento a dos tercios de la totalidad de los lotes (ver tablas 1 y 2).
A medida que la economía se va recuperando, ¿corregirá el mercado este exceso de derechos de desarrollo, incentivando así a los promotores inmobiliarios a construir en subdivisiones sujetas a ejecución hipotecaria o a rediseñar aquellas que no reflejan la demanda del mercado? En algunos lugares, sí; en otros, no es muy probable. Las subdivisiones están diseñadas para ser divisiones semipermanentes del suelo. Aunque muchas áreas en la región intermontañosa del oeste están recuperándose con vigor, muchas subdivisiones todavía permanecen sujetas a ejecución hipotecaria, con derechos de desarrollo vencidos, con pocos o ningún residente, derechos de propiedad fragmentados, mejoras en la infraestructura realizadas en forma parcial o deterioradas, y mecanismos débiles o inexistentes para mantener los nuevos servicios. Si no se hace algo al respecto, estos desarrollos interrumpidos continuarán debilitando la salud fiscal y la calidad de vida de las áreas afectadas.
La complejidad de revisar los derechos de desarrollo
Las jurisdicciones municipales forjan el futuro de sus comunidades mediante el otorgamiento de derechos sobre el suelo, la aprobación de subdivisiones y la concesión de subsecuentes permisos de desarrollo. Estas medidas dan como resultado compromisos del uso del suelo que resultan difíciles de cambiar en el futuro, establecen estándares de desarrollo y, por lo general, comprometen a la comunidad a soportar importantes costos a largo plazo en los servicios.
La figura 1 demuestra que resulta mucho más fácil abordar el tema del exceso de derechos cuando se trata simplemente de subdivisiones catastrales sobre papel, con un solo propietario, sin mejoras, sin lotes vendidos y sin viviendas construidas. A medida que el estado de la subdivisión va avanzando desde un plano catastral a un desarrollo parcialmente construido, al tiempo que se involucran en el proyecto varios propietarios, o el encargado de la subdivisión ya ha comenzado a instalar mejoras, o varios propietarios han construido viviendas, los problemas se van haciendo cada vez más complejos y las opciones para resolverlos son cada vez más reducidas.
La revisión o revocación de un plano catastral requiere la aceptación de sólo un propietario que no haya realizado ninguna inversión importante que pudiera limitar la posibilidad de modificar los planes de diseño, permitiendo así las resoluciones más simples (aunque la situación se complica más si una entidad crediticia también debe aprobar los cambios). La venta de un simple lote a un propietario en particular genera más dificultades a la hora de resolver cualquier problema de derechos que tenga la subdivisión, debido a tres cuestiones legales importantes: (1) la necesidad de proteger los derechos de propiedad de los propietarios de lotes; (2) la necesidad de preservar el acceso a los lotes vendidos; y (3) la presión para que se trate de igual manera tanto a los propietarios actuales como a los posibles propietarios en el futuro. Algunos de estos problemas pueden dar lugar a demandas legales, lo que, a su vez, puede generar un posible pasivo para la ciudad o el condado. La revisión o revocación de un plano catastral con lotes vendidos requiere que muchos propietarios se pongan de acuerdo, con la consecuente posibilidad de que cada uno de ellos decida iniciar una demanda con base en uno o varios de los mencionados fundamentos legales.
Una vez que el promotor realiza inversiones significativas en infraestructura y otras mejoras, las complicaciones se multiplican. Aunque la compra de terrenos no crea en sí misma un “derecho adquirido” para completar el desarrollo, una vez que el propietario invierte en mejoras para las futuras viviendas, resulta difícil detener la construcción de dichas viviendas sin tener que reembolsar al promotor los costos de dicha infraestructura.
Las viviendas terminadas (en particular, si varias de ellas ya están ocupadas) suman una dificultad más a la complejidad de resolver las subdivisiones sujetas a ejecución hipotecaria. Los caminos de acceso deben conservarse y mantenerse, aun cuando las viviendas estén muy lejos unas de otras, formando patrones ineficientes. Si el promotor se comprometió a construir un campo de golf, un parque u otras atracciones para la comunidad, cada uno de los propietarios de los lotes podría reclamar el derecho a utilizar dichas atracciones, ya sea que se hayan construido o no, e independientemente de que las asociaciones para conservar dichas atracciones existan o posean la suficiente cantidad de miembros como para llevar a cabo dicha conservación. Aun cuando el promotor sea claramente responsable de construir las atracciones, el gobierno municipal podría llegar a ser responsable de las mismas si no le permite al desarrollador construir las atracciones por haber declarado desocupadas ciertas partes del plano catastral en donde se deberían haber construido dichas atracciones.
Las subdivisiones de mayor extensión que se van dividiendo en diferentes fases a lo largo de las distintas etapas de la construcción son las que generan los problemas más intrincados y de mayor alcance. Las primeras fases de la construcción pueden, en su mayoría, consistir en la venta de lotes con la mayor parte de la estructura en pie, pero las fases posteriores tal vez consistan en meros planos catastrales, sin construcciones, sin lotes vendidos y sin mejoras realizadas. De esta manera, una sola subdivisión sujeta a ejecución hipotecaria puede generar distintos tipos de problemas legales en cuanto a los derechos y, en consecuencia, puede presentar distintos niveles de riesgo y de posible responsabilidad, en diferentes zonas del desarrollo.
Cómo tres comunidades rediseñaron con éxito el exceso de derechos
Los gobiernos municipales que desean solucionar los posibles impactos negativos derivados del exceso de derechos de desarrollo y de las subdivisiones sujetas a ejecución hipotecaria, tienen a su disposición diferentes medidas sobre el uso y la zonificación del suelo. Como resultado de nuestra investigación, hemos identificado 48 herramientas y 12 buenas prácticas, que hemos extraído de casos de estudio, lecciones impartidas por diferentes expertos en varios talleres, análisis de datos y una encuesta realizada a planificadores, promotores y propietarios en la región intermontañosa del oeste (para obtener el listado de las estrategias de prevención y tratamiento, consultar el informe completo sobre enfoque en políticas de suelo titulado Arrested Developments: Combating Zombie Subdivisions and Other Excess Entitlements). En general, estas estrategias pueden clasificarse en cuatro categorías: incentivos económicos, compra de derechos sobre el suelo o derechos de desarrollo, programas de gestión del crecimiento, y normativas sobre el desarrollo:
1. Los incentivos económicos, tales como inversiones específicas en infraestructura, exención de tarifas y racionalización de las normas, con el fin de evitar las normas regulatorias controvertidas.
2. La compra de derechos sobre el suelo o derechos de desarrollo es la forma más directa de eliminar los derechos de desarrollo indeseados, pero puede resultar muy costosa para algunas comunidades.
3. La gestión del crecimiento implica hacer uso de los límites de las áreas de servicios urbanos o adaptar los requisitos adecuados de servicios públicos con el fin de limitar nuevos derechos de desarrollo.
4. Las normativas de desarrollo, que implican llevar a cabo una rezonificación, realizar cambios en las ordenanzas sobre subdivisiones y garantías de desarrollo, iniciar procesos de desocupación de planos catastrales, y revisar los modelos de acuerdo de desarrollo.
Las tres comunidades siguientes que conforman nuestros casos de estudio utilizaron principalmente normas sobre el desarrollo. El condado de Mesa, en Colorado, y el condado de Teton, en Idaho, revisaron sus acuerdos sobre el desarrollo a fin de rediseñar las subdivisiones municipales sujetas a ejecución hipotecaria. Las tres jurisdicciones, incluyendo a la ciudad de Maricopa, en Arizona, también facilitaron las medidas de realización de nuevos planos catastrales en forma voluntaria.
De qué manera el condado de Mesa, Colorado, revisó su procedimiento para aprobación de desarrollos y abandonó los planos catastrales
Durante el período de auge y caída del petróleo en la década de 1980, el condado de Mesa, Colorado, fue una de las regiones que sufrió los peores efectos. Cuando ExxonMobil abandonó sus operaciones en el área, la población de Grand Junction (la sede del condado) disminuyó bruscamente en unos 15.000 habitantes de la noche a la mañana. Todos los desarrollos se detuvieron. Después de la caída, quedaron abandonadas más de 400 subdivisiones que comprendían cerca de 4.000 lotes en todo el condado. Aproximadamente el 20 por ciento de las subdivisiones en el condado de Mesa quedaron con acuerdos sobre mejoras en el desarrollo sin cumplir.
Cuando la clasificación crediticia de bonos del condado cayó en el año 1988, se tomaron varias medidas a fin de eliminar el exceso de derechos. El condado negoció con bancos locales y con la comunidad dedicada a los desarrollos a fin de establecer formas y procedimientos para celebrar acuerdos sobre mejoras al desarrollo. También se estableció una nueva garantía financiera, denominada “Acuerdo de desembolso para subdivisiones”, entre las entidades crediticias de la construcción y el condado. Este acuerdo permite al condado asociarse directamente con las instituciones financieras para garantizar: (1) un presupuesto para la construcción firmado de mutuo acuerdo; (2) un plazo establecido para la construcción de las mejoras; (3) un procedimiento elaborado de mutuo acuerdo, que implica inspecciones en el lugar durante la construcción, para el otorgamiento de fondos de préstamo a los promotores; y (4) el compromiso del condado de aceptar las mejoras del promotor (una vez reunidas ciertas condiciones) y de liberar al promotor de la garantía financiera.
Al condado de Mesa le llevó 15 años resolver completamente el exceso de derechos derivados de la caída de la década de 1980, pero la tarea dio sus frutos: durante la Gran Recesión, el condado tuvo el menor índice de parcelas desocupadas en las subdivisiones en relación con la totalidad de lotes subdivididos, comparado con cerca de 50 condados examinados en la región intermontañosa del oeste. Ningún promotor se echó atrás en los acuerdos de desarrollo cuando sólo se realizaron mejoras parciales. Aunque algunas subdivisiones permanecen desocupadas, todas las mejoras se han completado hasta el punto de que las parcelas estarán listas para las obras de construcción una vez que sean vendidas.
A modo de ejemplo, River Canyon (figura 2) se planificó como una subdivisión de 38 lotes sobre una superficie de 77 hectáreas. Cuando explotó la burbuja inmobiliaria en el año 2008, todo el sitio había sido ligeramente nivelado con carreteras construidas a través de las montañas, aunque no se habían completado otras mejoras ni se había vendido ninguna parcela. Al caer en cuenta de que los lotes no serían viables a corto plazo, el promotor trabajó junto con el condado para realizar nuevos planos catastrales de la subdivisión con el fin de lograr un solo lote matriz hasta que el propietario estuviera listo para solicitar una nueva revisión de la subdivisión.
Esta solución permitió que todos salieran beneficiados: el condado escapa de un contrato con el desarrollador en mora y evita la venta de lotes a muchos propietarios con los que le resultaría muy difícil coordinar la construcción de mejoras en las subdivisiones. El desarrollador, por su parte, evita el costo de instalar servicios y pagar impuestos en propiedades desocupadas zonificadas para desarrollos residenciales.
Ahora, las entidades crediticias en el condado de Mesa por lo general alientan la consolidación de lotes registrados en el catastro, ya que muchos bancos no otorgan créditos ni prorrogan el plazo de los préstamos para construcción sin un porcentaje cierto de preventas que validen la propiedad como una inversión sólida. Por lo general, el propietario también cumple, a fin de evitar el pago de impuestos sobre propiedades residenciales desocupadas, que representan la segunda tasa de impuesto más alta en Colorado. Si la demanda de mercado repunta, el propietario puede entonces presentar los mismos planos de subdivisión para que los revise el condado, para cumplir con las normas vigentes. Si los planos todavía cumplen con las normas, el promotor puede entonces iniciar allí el proceso de subdivisión. El condado de Mesa consolidó parcelas de esta forma unas siete veces en total desde 2008 hasta 2012 para eliminar lotes en los que no se preveía ninguna construcción residencial en un futuro cercano.
De qué manera la ciudad de Maricopa, Arizona, se asoció con el sector privado para convertir parcelas sujetas a ejecución hipotecaria en lotes con fines no residenciales
Maricopa fue declarada municipio en 2003, en los primeros años del auge inmobiliario de Arizona. Esta ciudad es una más de las típicas entre muchas comunidades exurbanas nuevas dentro de las regiones metropolitanas en crecimiento. Al enfrentar una afluencia de nuevos residentes (que debían viajar a sus empleos hasta que pudieran comprar una vivienda cerca de su trabajo), la comunidad destinó rápidamente la mayor parte del suelo disponible a derechos de subdivisión residencial. En el punto álgido del auge inmobiliario, esta pequeña ciudad, ubicada a 60 km del centro de Phoenix y a 32 km del límite urbanizado del área metropolitana de Phoenix, emitía unos 600 permisos de construcción residencial por mes.
El condado de Pinal había aprobado muchas de las subdivisiones residenciales de Maricopa antes de que la ciudad se convirtiera en un municipio, de acuerdo con el código de zonificación de 1967 del condado. De hecho, cumpliendo con la práctica estándar relativa a las nuevas ciudades convertidas en municipios, la ciudad, al principio, adoptó la ordenanza de zonificación del condado de Pinal. Durante un tiempo, la comisión de planificación y zonificación del condado siguió funcionando como el organismo de supervisión de planificación de la ciudad. Sin embargo, este antiguo código de condado rural no tenía en cuenta ni posibilitaba la creación de incentivos para los desarrollos de uso mixto, áreas con un carácter de centro de ciudad, un equilibrio entre empleos y viviendas, usos institucionales o servicios sociales. Esta falta de diversidad dio como resultado una escasez de áreas destinadas a servicios y comercios minoristas, así como también una falta de áreas destinadas a organizaciones sin fines de lucro, tales como iglesias, escuelas privadas, guarderías de niños, centros terapéuticos y servicios de salud. A medida que los nuevos residentes buscaban servicios públicos y empleos locales, esta carencia de terrenos para empleos y servicios públicos se volvió cada vez más problemática.
Cuando la Gran Recesión golpeó al país y ocurrió la caída del mercado inmobiliario, la oferta de lotes residenciales superó ampliamente la demanda, por lo que muchos de estos lotes quedaron sujetos a ejecución hipotecaria. Maricopa enfrentó este desafío y aprovechó la oportunidad para reexaminar sus patrones de crecimiento y, así, abordar el problema de la gran cantidad de subdivisiones sujetas a ejecución hipotecaria que plagaban la comunidad.
La ciudad decidió asociarse con el sector privado (promotores, bancos, agencias afianzadoras y otras agencias gubernamentales) a fin de solucionar el problema de las subdivisiones sujetas a ejecución hipotecaria y la falta de uso del suelo a los fines institucionales y públicos. La primera prueba a este nuevo enfoque se dio cuando una congregación católica estaba buscando un sitio donde construir su iglesia en una zona urbana que ya tuviera la infraestructura para los servicios de agua potable, alcantarillado, etc. La ciudad de Maricopa actuó como facilitadora para poner en contacto a la iglesia con los promotores de Glennwilde, un desarrollo sujeto a ejecución hipotecaria parcialmente construido. La iglesia escogió un lugar que se encontraba en la última fase de la subdivisión y que, en ese momento, era todavía un mero plano catastral. La ciudad desocupó el plano catastral para dicho sitio y luego lo devolvió a una gran parcela que el desarrollador de Glennwilde, a su vez, vendió a la iglesia.
La construcción aún no ha comenzado, pero el proyecto ha servido como modelo para otros desarrollos interrumpidos. Las medidas tomadas en colaboración entre la ciudad, los propietarios de subdivisiones actualmente sujetas a ejecución hipotecaria y otras partes interesadas también ha inspirado la aprobación de propuestas para un centro de la Iglesia de los Santos de los Últimos Días, un centro cívico, un parque regional y una instalación multigeneracional en toda la ciudad.
De qué manera el condado de Teton, Idaho, demandó el rediseño de planos catastrales, la desocupación de lotes o la realización de nuevos catastros
El condado de Teton en Idaho, un condado rural no municipal con una población anual estimada de 10.170 habitantes, tiene un total de 9.031 lotes registrados, de los cuales 6.778 están vacantes. Aunque el índice de crecimiento anual del condado volviera al 6 por ciento al que había llegado entre los años 2000 y 2008, este inventario de lotes refleja una acumulación tal que podría adaptarse al crecimiento en los próximos 70 años. Este exceso extremo de derechos, a razón de tres lotes vacantes con derechos por cada lote desarrollado en el condado, es el resultado de tres malas decisiones tomadas por el consejo de administración entre 2003 y 2005.
En primer lugar, el condado adoptó un procedimiento fácil y rápido para que los propietarios solicitaran el derecho de modificar la categoría zonal de sus propiedades de lotes de 8 hectáreas a lotes de 1 hectárea. Ninguna de estas modificaciones zonales se otorgó junto con una propuesta de desarrollo concurrente: prácticamente todas las modificaciones se otorgaron con el fin de un desarrollo especulativo en el futuro. Era práctica normal del condado modificar las categorías zonales de cientos de hectáreas en una sola noche de audiencias públicas, ya que el orden del día de una de estas audiencias podía incluir hasta diez solicitudes de subdivisión.
En segundo lugar, la Guía de Desarrollo 2004–2010 del condado establecía un crecimiento dinámico enfocado a la construcción residencial a fin de impulsar el desarrollo económico. Sin embargo, las metas y objetivos eran vagos y el plan no especificaba el tipo y ubicación de los proyectos. Debido al rechazo de la comunidad, el documento finalmente se ignoró durante el proceso de aprobaciones y fomentó un desarrollo explosivo y sin patrones, lo que dio como resultado que, durante seis años, se tomaran decisiones sobre el uso del suelo sin ninguna estrategia coherente.
En tercer lugar, el consejo de administración del condado adoptó, en el año 2005, una ordenanza sobre Desarrollo Planificado de Unidades (PUD, por sus siglas en inglés) que establecía bonificaciones por densidad. Según las disposiciones sobre desarrollos en conjunto del PUD, los desarrolladores podían exceder los derechos zonales subyacentes hasta un 1.900 por ciento. Las típicas bonificaciones por densidad para el buen diseño establecidas en el PUD oscilan entre el 10 por ciento y el 20 por ciento. Ahora, aquellas áreas con un sistema central de agua potable clasificadas en una zonificación de 8 hectáreas (con 5 unidades cada 83 hectáreas) podían tener derecho a recibir hasta 100 unidades. Además, las normas sobre subdivisión y PUD del condado de Teton permitieron la venta de lotes antes de la instalación de la infraestructura, lo que proporcionó un gran incentivo para el desarrollo especulativo.
Con posterioridad a la caída del mercado en 2008, algunos propietarios de desarrollos incompletos comenzaron a buscar maneras de reestructurar sus subdivisiones sujetas a ejecución hipotecaria. En 2010, Targhee Hill Estates presentó ante el condado una propuesta para realizar un nuevo plano catastral del centro de recreación que se había construido parcialmente (ver figura 3). No obstante, en ese momento no existía ninguna ordenanza municipal, ley estatal o procedimiento legal que permitiera la realización de un nuevo plano catastral para un desarrollo ya vencido.
La Asociación de Defensores del Desarrollo Responsable del Valle del Condado de Teton (VARD, por sus siglas en inglés) intervino solicitando al condado la creación de un procedimiento que fomentara el rediseño de las subdivisiones sujetas a ejecución hipotecaria y facilitara la realización de nuevos planos catastrales. La VARD comprendió que un rediseño del plano catastral podría reducir la intrusión en áreas naturales delicadas del condado, reducir los costos gubernamentales asociados con el desarrollo disperso y, posiblemente, reducir la cantidad de lotes vacantes mediante la colaboración con los propietarios y los promotores, a fin de agilizar los cambios en los planos catastrales existentes.
El 22 de noviembre de 2010, el consejo de administradores del condado adoptó por unanimidad una ordenanza sobre nuevos planos catastrales, que permitiría realizar de forma rápida y sin grandes costos nuevos planos catastrales de las subdivisiones, los PUD y los acuerdos de desarrollo existentes. Mediante esta ordenanza se creó un procedimiento orientado a las soluciones que permite al condado de Teton trabajar junto con los promotores, los propietarios, las entidades crediticias y otras partes interesadas a fin de resolver los proyectos complicados en los que intervienen muchos intereses de propiedad y, por lo general, implican millones de dólares en infraestructura.
La ordenanza, en primer lugar, establece cuatro categorías de cambios que puede proponer toda solicitud de nuevo plano catastral: (1) un aumento de grandes proporciones en cuanto a la escala y el impacto; (2) un aumento de menor envergadura en cuanto a la escala y el impacto; (3) una reducción de grandes proporciones en cuanto a la escala y el impacto; y (4) una reducción de menor envergadura en cuanto a la escala y el impacto. Todo aumento en el impacto podría requerir audiencias públicas y estudios adicionales, mientras que para las reducciones en el impacto, no son necesarios (en la medida de lo posible) dichos requisitos ni la revisión por parte de la agencia. Además, la ordenanza elimina la innecesaria duplicación de estudios y análisis que hubieran sido requeridos como parte de la solicitud y aprobación inicial del plano catastral. El condado de Teton también eliminó las tarifas que debían pagarse para procesar las solicitudes de nuevos planos catastrales.
El primer caso que obtuvo resultados positivos fue la realización de los nuevos planos catastrales del PUD de Canyon Creek Ranch, completado en junio de 2013. Ubicado a más de 37 km de los servicios urbanos, el proyecto Canyon Creek Ranch se aprobó originalmente en el año 2009 como un centro recreativo de estilo estancia de 350 lotes sobre aproximadamente 1.100 hectáreas, que incluía aproximadamente 25 lotes comerciales, un hipódromo y una cabaña. Después de largas negociaciones entre el equipo de promotores de Canyon Creek y el personal de la comisión de planificación del condado de Teton, el promotor propuso un nuevo plano catastral que reducía drásticamente el impacto y los efectos de este proyecto, ya que sólo incluía 21 lotes sobre la propiedad de 1.100 hectáreas. Para el promotor, este nuevo diseño reduce el precio de la infraestructura en un 97 por ciento: de US$24 millones a aproximadamente US$800.000, lo que permite que la propiedad permanezca dentro del programa de reservas de conservación y genere una fuente de ingresos, a la vez que se reducen las deudas por el impuesto sobre la propiedad. La reducción en la escala y el impacto de este nuevo diseño permitirá preservar este hábitat tan importante y mantener el paisaje rural, lo que representa un beneficio público para toda la comunidad.
Conclusión
Mientras que la recuperación del último ciclo de auge y caída es casi total en algunas áreas del país, otras comunidades seguirán sufriendo el impacto de los lotes vacantes y las subdivisiones sujetas a ejecución hipotecaria por un largo tiempo. Los auges inmobiliarios que se den en el futuro también darán como resultado, inevitablemente, nuevas caídas, por lo que las comunidades vulnerables pueden ahora construir fundamentos sólidos con políticas, leyes y programas para minimizar los nuevos problemas que surjan del exceso de derechos sobre los terrenos. Las comunidades y otras partes interesadas involucradas en el desarrollo inmobiliario harían bien en asegurarse de tener mecanismos que sirvan para adaptarse y ajustarse a las condiciones de mercado en constante evolución. En cuanto a las jurisdicciones que ya están teniendo problemas con las subdivisiones sujetas a ejecución hipotecaria, un ingrediente esencial para lograr el éxito será la disposición a reconsiderar las aprobaciones y proyectos pasados y reconocer los problemas derivados de los mismos. Aquellas comunidades que sean capaces de actuar eficazmente como facilitadoras además de entes reguladores, según lo demostrado en los casos de estudio presentados en este artículo, estarán mejor preparadas para prevenir, responder y solucionar los problemas que pudieran surgir como resultado del exceso de derechos de desarrollo.
Herramientas y recomendaciones adicionales
El presente artículo es una adaptación de un nuevo informe sobre enfoque en políticas de suelo del Instituto Lincoln, titulado Arrested Developments: Combating Zombie Subdivisions and Other Excess Entitlements, de Jim Holway con Don Elliott y Anna Trentadue. Para mayor información (incluidas buenas prácticas, recomendaciones sobre políticas, y una guía paso a paso destinada a las comunidades que enfrentan un exceso de derechos), puede descargar este informe sobre enfoque en políticas de suelo completo o solicitar una copia impresa del mismo (www.lincolninst.edu/pubs). También se encuentra disponible información adicional en el sitio web que acompaña el informe (www.ReshapingDevelopment.org).
Sobre los autores
Jim Holway, Ph.D., FAICP, dirige el proyecto Western Lands and Communities en el Sonoran Institute de Phoenix, Arizona. Holway se desempeña además como funcionario municipal electo en representación del condado de Maricopa en el Distrito de Conservación del Agua de Arizona Central.
Don Elliott, FAICP, es abogado especializado en el uso del suelo, planificador de ciudades y director de Clarion Associates en Denver, Colorado.
Anna Trentadue es abogada de planta de Valley Advocates for Responsible Development en Driggs, Idaho.
Recursos
Burger, Bruce y 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 y 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.
SHARE
Global investment, sophisticated communications, and widespread corporate and personal mobility are transforming city regions around the world. Those who focus on urban issues have been arguing for many years that we are seeing the emergence of a new kind of human settlement, with its own distinct social and economic structures and associated physical forms.
The Lincoln Institute’s 1995 Cambridge Conference in September focused on these global forces. The consortium was organized by three research investigators—David Barkin, Gary Hack and Roger Simmonds—to study 12 city regions spread across Europe, Asia and the Americas. While each city offers unique characteristics and exceptions to certain patterns, they all meet the following measurable criteria:
12 Case Study Cities
Using the 12 sites as case studies, the researchers outlined several levels of investigation to assemble a picture of what global city regions look like and why. First, they examined the effects of the global political economy on the growth and development of cities over time. For example, how have the loss of traditional agricultural or industrial economies and the introduction of new players with investment capital changed the ways cities work? How have cities attempted to position themselves in relation to these powerful external forces?
Another research goal was to understand the relationships between changing urban form and regional infrastructure investments, such as transportation systems and new technology centers. How have populations dispersed around new transportation networks and economic centers? How can regional planning efforts influence changes in spatial form and impacts on the environment?
Third, the researchers explored changes in the quality of urban life resulting from the dynamics of globalization. What social and economic problems do urban residents face today? How are their local and national governments attempting to manage these problems?
Prior to the conference, research teams in each of the city regions gathered data to chart the growth and movement of their populations, infrastructure changes, and economic and industrial development over the last three decades. To make the data comparable across national boundaries, they mapped the physical evolution of the 12 city regions in 1960, 1970, 1980 and 1990, and then linked these maps to changes in key economic and social indicators over the same period. Each team also prepared a report on what special issues its government is facing, and how policymakers are attempting to shape the region’s changing spatial form.
A Portrait of Global City Regions
The 12 city regions represented at the conference illustrate substantial variation, but also many common patterns of growth and change. They range in size from about 2 million in Lyon to more than 32 million in Tokyo, the world’s largest city and also one of the wealthiest.
In all of these cities, the predominant pattern of physical growth has been sprawling out from the historic center and adjacent inner ring of development into increasingly distant open space and agricultural land. This dispersal involves both residential and commercial development, though sometimes in different directions. It has been facilitated by sharp increases in the availability and use of automobiles throughout the world. The most dramatic example is Taipei, where the number of autos increased from about 11,000 in 1960 to over 1 million in 1990; the number of persons per auto decreased from 127 to 5 over that period. Ankara and Santiago, at 13 people per auto in 1990, have been the least affected by auto-mania to date.
Even as most cities are spreading out, some inner cores have become more densely populated as wealthier residents and service sector employment have migrated into newly thriving downtowns. Monumental stadiums, convention centers, luxury hotels and residential condominiums have helped to promote tourism and an active cultural life in these central cores. The flip side, however, is increased decay outside the center, as large numbers of poor people are dispersed into areas where public services are often lacking.
The disadvantaged inner cities and wealthy, low-density suburbs of the United States are notable exceptions to this pattern. Cities such as Bangkok and Taipei demonstrate more neighborhood integration of rich and poor than others, but the predominant pattern still shows segmented pockets of wealth and poverty becoming more clearly defined over time.
In the new era of globalization, ironically, patterns of residence are becoming less important than patterns of interaction, as people who participate in the global economy communicate more often with their peers in other cities or countries, electronically or in person, than with people living next door.
Changing demographic patterns have generally slowed urban growth rates to around 3 percent compared to 6 to 8 percent in the 1960s. Most cities have seen decreases in both birth rates and migration from rural areas within the country or immediate region. But political upheavals and changing employment opportunities are also triggering new waves of transnational migration. Many of these newer immigrants settle in their own sections of the city, apart from the indigenous low-income sector, and present a different set of social and economic problems for national and local governments. In San Diego, for example, immigrants from Mexico and Central America contribute to both population growth and increased segmentation within the region. Sao Paulo, on the other hand, has experienced net outmigration as Brazilian policies and programs now encourage decentralization to new communities throughout that vast country.
The composition of economic sectors is quite consistent across countries according to the 1990 data. It generally shows less than 5 percent of the workforce employed in agriculture and resource extraction, 20 to 30 percent in manufacturing and 65 to 75 percent in the service sector. Some interesting exceptions in employment trends are Jakarta, with an agriculture sector rate of almost 16 percent in 1990, and San Diego, with a current service sector share of 83 percent. Bangkok and Taipei show the largest decreases in agriculture, from around 20 percent in 1960 to less than 2 percent in 1990, and both cities remain relatively high in manufacturing in 1990 at 32 and 36 percent respectively.
Income distribution also shows similar patterns across regions, with the bottom 20 percent of the population generally receiving only 5 to 7 percent of total earned income while the top 20 percent of the population earned 40 to 50 percent of income. Santiago, Sao Paulo and Jakarta show the greatest concentrations of wealth at the upper levels, while Tokyo and Taipei, closely followed by Randstad and Madrid, have the least inequality across income levels. San Diego, while relatively high in per capita income, has a mid-range income distribution of 44 percent at the upper end but shows only 4 percent of income earned by the poorest 20 percent of its population.
Contradictions in the Changing Global Economy
Discussion at the conference revealed several new realities about the world in which we live. Perhaps the most important is the difficulty that local and national authorities face in designing effective policies for social and political action to modify the powerful economic forces that are shaping new productive structures in their regions.
A recurrent theme in the regional analyses was the contradiction between highly centralized private investment and sweeping changes resulting from the insertion of the city region into the international economy. In most regions, “elite corridors” of globalization contrast sharply with the disadvantaged “residual city.” These wealthy enclaves accommodate the investments of transnational corporations producing for world markets and are near the residential and shopping areas of those who participate in this economy. In these financial and commercial centers, burgeoning bureaucracies of skilled professionals manage global production and marketing to assure attractive returns to international investors, often ignoring crises in the local economy.
While overall population growth has declined, remunerative employment opportunities have also ceased to grow. Every one of the city regions reported an accelerated shift of its labor force toward poorly paid, part-time jobs in the service sector, with a concomitant imbalance of economic opportunities that condemns a growing proportion of the people to poverty.
This menace is accompanied by shifts in the agricultural sector. Substantial numbers of small-scale rural producers are unable to compete in international markets with large-scale farmers elsewhere who have access to capital for the latest technologies to increase their output. The inexorable process of global expansion is also driving small and medium-scale manufacturing plants from the marketplace.
Most participants at the conference accepted and heartily embraced the new dynamic of globalization. Their governments are working actively to reposition their regions to attract foreign enterprises and real estate developers that promise modernization. They hope to convert their cities into beacons, leading their nations in the worldwide process of integration. Most see their primary task as clearing away the web of regulatory and other obstacles of previous eras, facilitating private initiative by offering (sometimes for free) the land and infrastructure required for new installations.
Many of the cities are targeting their infrastructure investment strategies specifically to expand the service economy. Bangkok, Taipei and Tokyo are working hard to become financial centers for Asia, betting on the demise of Hong Kong as a key competitor. Bangkok in particular is investing in substantial transportation and communications networks and in the education of its labor force to keep pace. In Europe, Madrid is using its role as the world’s center of Spanish culture to enhance its communications services; Randstad is promoting its airport support facilities; and Lyon is becoming an innovative center for emerging technological industries.
Impacts on Regional Development
The case studies and discussions at the conference also identified numerous problems emerging from this enthusiasm for globalization. The complex and disturbing phenomenon of urban sprawl is becoming universal as increased automobile use distributes populations to satellite employment centers and generally reduces the density of regional cities. Two interesting exceptions are Tokyo, whose extensive mass transit system helps to keep economic activity centralized, and Taipei, where mountainous geography constrains outward development. In Randstad, on the other hand, development is rapidly filling in lowland gaps between formerly freestanding settlements, even though the overall growth rate has been quite slow.
Some of this decentralization has been promoted by government efforts to deal with high land prices, traffic congestion or environmental protection. New towns or “science cities” are being built on the outskirts of Santiago, Lyon, Randstad, Taipei, Tokyo and Jakarta, and in Bangkok intensive infrastructure development is creating a new port miles from the city center. In Sao Paulo, strict regulations to protect watershed areas are pushing new development to distant sites.
Generally infrastructure follows development rather than truly shaping it. Private investors are able to respond more quickly to planned growth intentions within their regions than are the public agencies responsible for implementing major infrastructure projects. Thus, private development puts pressure on the public sector to provide services to areas that are already undergoing urbanization. This process has serious implications for long-term regional planning if it continues to be development driven with government playing catch-up.
Another theme that emerged during the conference was an increased consciousness about environmental problems. The accumulation of wealth and the accompanying increase in consumption in most city regions, is creating intense pressures on the environment. With regional integration proceeding apace and deregulation of the economy the order of the day, transnational corporations have great freedom to operate as they wish in the international economy. The participants repeatedly raised the difficulties of confronting these challenges constructively in each of their city regions. Yet, concern for the environment was also seen as the primary motivating factor for undertaking strategic regional planning.
Quality of Life Issues
Globalization offers the promise of greater prosperity. Most cities represented at the conference reported a relative increase in several quality-of-life averages between 1960 and 1990: per capita income, life expectancy and education level. These rising incomes, combined with technological advances that enhance productivity and the wider dissemination of information about goods available in world markets, have allowed city dwellers everywhere to make new choices about their consumer needs. However, powerful global models of organization and production are also imposing new, homogenized consumption patterns that threaten to stifle the extraordinary variety of lifestyles that characterizes most urban regions.
Increased physical mobility, largely achieved through the private ownership of automobiles, has provided many people with more choices about where to live, shop and work. At the same time, commuting times average 45 minutes, ranging from less than 30 minutes in San Diego to more than one and a half hours in Bangkok.
Conference participants agreed that this increased mobility had undermined a previous sense of community, as individuals begin to identify with increasingly dispersed urban places or develop identities that are not based on place at all. The “McDonald’s-ization” of world culture, including music, clothing and architecture, as well as food, was noted by almost every city representative. As markets for consumer goods become global, individuals in many city regions are also beginning to rely on those markets to deliver what were once semipublic services, such as education and recreation.
Changes in the economic function of major cities from manufacturing and shipping to finance and tourism have also caused important losses. Many historic city centers have been commodified for cultural tourism. Buildings or streets originally constructed as factories or warehouses now house retail shops or museums. The original factory workers or longshoremen, who often lived near their jobs, have given way to visitors who travel by car or plane from outside the city or even from other countries to admire buildings that have been restored in form but completely transformed in function. New high-rise office buildings, convention centers, stadiums and luxury hotels are often imposed on the urban landscape, generally with little regard for their spatial and social context.
By some measures of material circumstance the globalization process is encouraging, especially when considering the contributions of medical science and certain basic aspects of education and sanitation that can be made available with relatively inexpensive public investments. The reality, however, is that living standards and employment opportunities are deteriorating for growing segments of the population throughout the world.
Most new urban workers enjoy less security, if also more freedom, than their parents may have experienced as subsistence farmers or plantation laborers. Global information technologies and financial techniques now allow firms to seek out the world’s lowest-cost sites and labor, if necessary shifting jobs from one country to another in a matter of weeks.
The same new information media and transportation options that enable consumers to choose from a wider array of goods, or workers to choose from a wider array of jobs, also let criminals choose from a wider array of potential targets. Some conference participants argued that the perceived decrease in physical security was more apparent than real, especially in the U.S. But the perception itself is clearly driving a worldwide demand for gated or secure housing.
The positive and negative effects of globalization on the quality of life are two sides of the same coin, rather than tradeoffs. The same information technologies and market organization that spread new consumer goods around the world within weeks also transmit new “bads,” such as AIDS. The same automobiles that provide increased access to recreational opportunities in the countryside for city dwellers also produce sprawling cities that parcel out that countryside into private yards rather than scenic vistas of farmland or forest.
Given these contradictions, we must search for alternative models of production and consumption—models that permit people to strengthen their communities and protect their environments, that offer the possibility of creating productive employment for the whole population, and that place limits on the accelerated process of polarization.
The Role of Governance
To what extent are voters in global city regions asking their local, metropolitan or national governments to find ways of eliminating the negative effects of globalization? Conference participants in San Diego, Ankara and Tokyo, for example, reported that local elections are now fought over who benefits from globalization. Those voters who identify more with the global than the local economy demand that governments make high-technology infrastructure investments, build convention centers or stadiums, and promote higher education to attract future jobs.
In contrast, most lower-skilled workers see globalization as more of a threat than an opportunity, and are more concerned with investing limited local resources in such public services as schools and neighborhood clinics. Yet governments that avoid unpopular political decisions by focusing on local services may only be postponing the inevitable impact of globalization, including its potentially long-term beneficial effects.
In the end, the capacity of governments at any level to manage global forces may be limited, however. There is an inherent mismatch between the global economy and government, not only in the spatial sense of local or fragmented governments struggling to master regional or global economic forces, but in the contrasting operating modes of markets and governments.
Globalization has made increasingly problematic the definition of both “the region” that should be planned and “the community” that should participate in those plans. Local governments and even most national governments are losing their capacity to shield local businesses from global competition. In almost every city region represented at the conference, specialized interest groups and nongovernmental organizations have multiplied, while all-purpose governments have begun to fragment and decentralize. Political devolution is most advanced in the United States, but has begun to take hold elsewhere as well.
The tendency of governments of global city regions is to dispense with elaborate spatial planning techniques and instead adjust to what one conference planner called these fundamentally “new rules of property and politics.” But this leaves many contradictions: between the opportunities of the elites and the poor; between the advocates of greater local autonomy and those committed to emerging regional patterns of interdependence; and between policies favoring growth as opposed to redistribution of resources. Without an effective system of governance, all of these dichotomies have the potential for escalating conflict.
SHARE
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).
SHARE
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.
SHARE
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
SHARE
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:
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.
