SHARE
Scholars and practitioners involved with the regularization of low-income settlements in Latin America shared their experiences in a forum sponsored by the Lincoln Institute last March and hosted by the City of Medellín and its regularization office, PRIMED (Integrated Program for the Improvement of Subnormal Barrios in Medellín). Participants included representatives from PRIMED, Medellín city officials, and observers from multilateral institutions including the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), the World Bank, AID and GTZ (Germany).
Twelve major presentations reported on the most significant case studies from eight countries: Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Mexico, Perú and Venezuela. The forum proved to be a landmark meeting whose findings, summarized below, are expected to have important implications for Latin American policymakers.
Comparative Perspectives on Regularization
Several different approaches to regularization are illustrated in the country case studies. The two primary approaches are juridical regularization, i.e., legal land entitlement procedures to convert from de facto to de jure property ownership, as in Perú, Ecuador and Mexico; and physical regularization (urbanization), including the extension of infrastructure into irregular settlements, as in Colombia, Venezuela, Brazil and other countries. A third approach, which has been emphasized only recently, puts priority on the social and civic integration of low-income settlements and their populations into the urban fabric by a combination of measures.
While most countries have elements of all three forms of regularization, they usually focus on one direction or another. In Mexico all three approaches are used simultaneously. In most other countries the emphasis depends on the relative strengths of the actors, organizations and politics on the one hand, and on the way the regularization problem is conceived (“constructed”) by federal and local authorities on the other.
Juridical Regularization: Land Title Programs
The regularization of land titles has become accepted practice by governments, international agencies and NGOs alike. (see Figure 1.) In fact, the question “Why Regularize?” that was raised at the beginning of the forum seemed to catch everyone by surprise. Yet, posing this question goes to the heart of the matter about who defines the problems regarding land tenure and who establishes policies in favor of regularization. Most of the legal titling programs examined in the case studies were lengthy and expensive, and, by the time they came on-line, did little to significantly affect the level of security or to systematically provide services in the settlements.
Figure 1 Common Arguments in Favor of Land Regularization
As far as the poor are concerned, however, several of the arguments in favor of regularization would appear to be spurious. Established households generally have de facto security and rarely prioritize the need for full legal title, the latter being a need more associated with middle-classes value systems. Moreover, once settlements are well-established, home improvements and consolidation occur at a rate that is closely tied to available resources, not to title security. As for the introduction of services, most providers follow their own internal rules for timing and procedures; rarely is legal title an important criterion.
Furthermore, low-income households do not like falling into debt and are uneasy about entering formal credit systems, even though NGOs and governments are moving towards micro-credit support. In short, where low-income groups want regularization of tenure it appears to be because the state wants them to want it and then constructs demand accordingly.
One may conceive of tenure regularization as both an end in itself and a means to an end. Regularization as an “end” emerged clearly in the Lima case, where access to land and land titling programs substitute for a systematic housing policy. The most recent round of land titling (since 1996) even includes a retitling of previously regularized lots as an arena of political patronage serving the central government at the expense of the city’s political leaders. (1) A similar situation prevailed in Mexico with the multiplex regularization agencies created during the 1970s. In both countries the commitment to tenurial regularization is clearly indicated by active programs, usually providing a large number of titles each year at low cost.
Elsewhere, regularization may also be an “end,” but it is of secondary importance. In Colombia, Brazil, El Salvador and Ecuador, for example, titling is at best only a minor part of the physical regularization package. Even so, the absence of legal tenure and the need for regularization may be used to good political effect by regulating the flow and order of infrastructure provision.
Regularization of titles as a means to an end is promoted widely by international agencies as part of the World Bank’s New Urban Management Program. Mexico is a good example of the process whereby land titling is a prerequisite to urban land management, planning and public administration. Regularization incorporates the population into the system of land registry, tax base, planning controls, construction permissions, consumption charges, and recovery of services and infrastructure. Regularization becomes the means to urban sustainability and management, and this more than any other reason explains its widespread espousal and adoption today.
One notable feature in several case studies was the apparent reluctance to regularize on private lands unless the initiative had the support of the original landowner. As a result, the settlements most likely to be regularized are those occupying public land or land whose ownership is unchallenged. With the exception of Mexico, governments are reluctant to expropriate in the social interest. Several countries have a system of land occupancy rights that permits transfer of ownership after a certain number of years of proven and appropriate use. In Brazil this usucapión system has been extended recently to allow for title transfer on privately owned urban lots of less than 250m2 that have been occupied continuously for five years.
Issues in juridical regularization programs:
Physical Regularization: Urbanization and Infrastructure Provision
The second principal arena of regularization reported by many of the case studies at the forum focused on the physical regularization process in different forms of irregular settlements. In Medellín, for example, approximately 12 percent of the total population is estimated to live in fast-growing barrios, which are often built on steep slopes like their hillside counterparts in Rio or Caracas. There are undoubted problems and dangers in these areas, but most of the participants who visited the PRIMED settlements were more encouraged by their level and rate of consolidation than the local officials appeared to be. (The discussion did not address upgrades and interventions in inner-city tenements-conventillos, vecindades, cortiços.)
It is impossible to do justice to the many innovative programs that were described at the forum, but one major success story is the Favela/Bairro program in Rio de Janeiro. This project is predicated on close collaboration with local residents to open up favela streets to vehicular access in combination with service installation. However, it is important to recognize that its success has only been possible at considerable cost: the total expenditure between 1994 and 1997 has been US$300 million, in large part provided by the IDB. This raises important questions about the replicability of such programs.
Issues in physical regularization programs:
>
Regularization as a Means of Social Integration
It became apparent in the deliberations that an increasingly explicit goal of regularization is to achieve social integration by bringing low-income populations into the societal mainstream and into the urban fabric. This is most frequently observed in reference to the “rescue” of low-income populations and other marginal groups and their incorporation into the urban citizenry. This was one of the important goals in Brazil’s favela/bairro program, which, in part at least, aimed to break up the drug and delinquent youth gangs and to rescue the local population from their influence.
A potential problem with this approach is that concepts of “good citizen” and the societal mainstream are social constructions that are often highly value-laden and may derive from within a particular class and dominant power group. Regularization to achieve integration into the wider set of social opportunities such as public education and health care is one thing; regularization for social convergence and conformity is another. However, this theme remains incipient in the literature, and the whole notion of citizenship with its bundles of rights and responsibilities is part of an agenda still largely unconsidered.
Conclusion
This international forum emphasized the need to be aware of the different underlying rationales for juridical and physical regularization in individual countries, and to be aware that they are closely tied to the political and planning process. In order for regularization to work well there has to be genuine political commitment such that all departments and officials who intervene do so with greater integration, cooperation and empowerment. Policymakers should also think imaginatively about alternative, “parallel” ownership systems and opportunities for genuine public participation in decisionmaking at all stages in the regularization process.
Important, too, are financial commitment and sustainability. Unless regularization is tied to medium- and long-term cost recovery through taxes, user charges and deferred assessments, programs will continue to depend on major external funding and subsidies, which will severely limit the extent and scale of their application.
An exciting last session of the forum allowed participants to reflect on future directions for research and policy analysis on land market regularization. Five major areas emerged. First, we recognized the need to identify the various actors and interest groups involved in promoting irregular or illegal land development in the first place, and to make explicit the differences between land invasions, owner subdivisions, company subdivisions and other actions. The point here is that irregularity is produced by various actors and interests groups as a for-profit business, and is not just a result of dysfunctional urbanization.
Second, we discussed moving away from dualist thinking and breaking with the idea of conceptualizing the land market in terms of the formal and informal city, the parallel city, or normal and subnormal barrios, all of which implicitly assume that the poor are locked into a separate land market. In fact, there is a single land market that is segmented, not separated, along a continuum in terms of access and affordability.
Third, we need to confront the issue of financial replicability and the ways in which finance might be leveraged through cross-subsidies, plusvalia, valorization charges, tax-and-spend, progressive consumption charges, and other mechanisms. Fourth, we need to be less gender-blind. It is important to think more imaginatively about regularization priorities with respect to gender and to explore innovative titling schemes that address the need for women’s settlement and housing rights.
Finally, we need to be much more precise in our terminology, and, more importantly, to recognize that there is a “social construction” embedded within language. The terms adopted in any society are revealing about how that society views and diagnoses housing and related social issues. Terminology may lead to punitive or patronizing policy solutions; it may even “criminalize” local populations. Most of the differences and variations in the case studies stem from the way each society constructs its understanding of the housing problem and how it presents that vision to its people-through its terminology, through its laws, procedures and policies, and through the bureaucratic and administrative organization of the state itself.
1. Julio Calderon, “Regularization of Urban Land in Peru,” Land Lines, May 1998.
Peter M. Ward is professor of sociology and of public affairs at the University of Texas at Austin and a faculty associate of the Lincoln Institute. Among his many books is Methodology for Land and Housing Market Analysis, coedited with Gareth Jones and published by the Lincoln Institute in 1994.
Value capture is an increasingly popular concept that seeks to capture for public benefit all or part of the increments in land value resulting from community, rather than private, investments and actions. Yet, based on the Lincoln Institute’s experience in sponsoring many educational and research programs dealing with value capture policies in Latin America, it is also quite controversial.
This article addresses some of the contentious and persistent issues that have engaged participants in the ongoing debate over value capture, ranging from basic concerns, such as the proper understanding of the legal basis for land property rights, to larger political questions raised by new or higher charges on real estate property. Technical issues also are involved, such as distinguishing land value increments (or plusvalías) attributed to specific public investments or planning decisions from other more general sources or factors that influence land markets, as well as pragmatic challenges that arise in selecting the right instrument for the right circumstances at the right time.
To gain a better understanding of value capture, one cannot rely simply on technical arguments or expert authorities. At the same time, one cannot dismiss the issue on purely political grounds by attributing the main obstacles to the implementation of value capture policies to well-positioned interest groups. Rather, a considerable share of the “unexplained variance” in the application of value capture seems to be the result of inadequate information or misunderstanding held by major stakeholders in the debate.
Figure 1 summarizes 10 contentious value capture issues; items 1, 2 and 3 are discussed briefly below.
Unfair Charges for the Poor
Although support for direct subsidies or grants to the poor is waning in Latin America, many still believe that the poor should not pay for urban services, or should be exempted from taxes and other charges on their land, as is required by many of the more progressive value capture policies and laws.
A common argument in favor of exempting the poor from such charges raises an intergenerational dilemma: since wealthy residents for many years have enjoyed urban services that they did not pay for, why should the poor be charged now for services that they need and deserve? Another argument centers on the idea that most land value increments in poor areas have in fact been generated by the poor themselves, through sweat equity or private schemes to access basic services in their areas, not through public intervention. Some recognize that urban upgrading programs simply bring poor settlements to the first stage of the urbanization process, which is a bare minimum for participation in regular land markets. Others believe that even a socially neutral value capture instrument may produce a regressive result, perpetuating the disparity between the rich and the poor in the context of inequitable access to urban facilities and services, as is the case in most Latin American cities (Furtado 2000).
On the other end of the spectrum are those who argue that value capture payments are part of the poor sector’s claim to full citizenship, including the right to demand attention from the government. There are many examples where the poor have been eager to pay for receiving services (such as water systems, public lighting and flood control) since the cost of not accessing them is perceived to be higher than the actual payment. This was the case in Lima, Peru, in the early 1990s when more than 30 poor communities participated in a public service program that included payment for the cost of the services provided.
A more theoretical and perhaps less intuitive argument considers the capitalization effect of any charge on land prices. That effect is the reduction (or increase) of the current market price of land by the capitalized or discounted sum of the costs (or benefits) affecting the future earnings the property is expected to generate. To the extent that value capture charges on regularized or upgraded areas are integrated in the expectations regarding the future burden imposed on unserviced land bought from illegal or pirate subdividers, they would tend to be capitalized in the price that buyers would be willing to pay or the subdivider was able to charge (Smolka 2003). Although the poor would end up paying the same amount over time, the money would go to the local public treasury rather than the subdivider’s pocket.
Incidently, a common but mistaken view holds that such charges (value capture or land value taxes) are inflationary or increase the market price of land. Although the capitalization effect is complicated, most people can understand a situation comparing two otherwise identical apartments, where the one located in a building with a higher condo fee would get a lower rent in the marketplace than the apartment with a smaller fee. The same line of reasoning may be used to explain why there is no double taxation between value capture and the property tax. The relevant land value increment resulting from some public intervention accumulates or adds to an observed base market price that already is net of the capitalized effect of any anticipated future benefits or burdens, including the property tax.
Acquired Rights When Changing Land Uses
Although few would argue that expectations play a crucial role in determining land prices, it is widely considered unfair if price compensation falls below current market prices. This idea is now beginning to change, as reflected in recent legislation. For example, Law 388 of 1997 in Colombia allows for public acquisition of land at fair market prices, but not including the increment of land value resulting from previous public investments or changes in regulatory land uses (see article by Maldonado and Smolka, page 15). The same principle is stated in Brazil’s new City Statute (Law 10.257 of 2001) when land expropriation is used as a sanction against a landowner who is not complying with social uses of the land. Many lawyers agree that expectations do not create rights; therefore, expectations not realized should not be compensated. The social unrest around public land acquisition that led to the postponement of Mexico City’s proposed new airport mega-project vividly illustrates this problem.
It is hard for the typical landowner who in good faith bought a piece of land with the expectation of using its development potential to understand why he should not be compensated for the loss of that land at the current market price or at least the acquisition price, even if the development rights had not been exercised. However, the result often depends on the extent to which the new policy is actually implemented. In practice, prices reflect expectations regarding the (usually weak) enforcement of existing legislation, including legal variances or loopholes in the relevant fiscal and regulatory environment. This has been the case in most court decisions regarding fair compensation on public land acquisition processes and on claims from landowners (or developers) on whom local administrations impose plusvalías charges. A more pragmatic argument is that rights may indeed be restricted by a new legislation or zoning code, as long as it is accompanied by adequate transition rules to protect the rights of those who had previous legitimate claims. Others defend the transition process as an indispensable step toward allowing the market to gradually absorb such changes.
Economists struggle to convey the importance of expectations in determining the structure of current observed land prices. How the future affects current land prices is in fact harder to express to the general public than the notion that current prices reflect rights as realized in comparable properties in the past. In Latin America expectations associated with land uses are not always related to zoning or building codes, but rather to land speculation. It may be of interest to note that whereas speculation in Latin America is associated with long-term retention of land, in North America it is associated more with rapid turnover of properties. The phenomenon of land retention for future development, with the consequent private appropriation of unearned increments in land values, has stymied urban planning and development ever since cities began expanding rapidly over many decades.
Asymmetrical Compensation for Wipeouts
The debate over value capture (i.e., capturing land value increments, windfalls or plusvalías) inevitably raises the question: What about the wipeouts (minusvalías)? The common perception is that governments are more eager to approve legislation to capture land value increments than to provide legal protections for citizens against takings or arbitrary compensation for equally predictable losses (minusvalías). The Latin American record has shown, however, that the balance between the plusvalías captured and the minusvalías paid for is clearly negative. The amount paid in compensation to landowners surpasses by far the small and sporadic gains the public has been able to recover from the direct benefits it generates for private properties.
All rents, and land prices for that matter, are in essence nothing more than accumulated plusvalías, or land value increments, over time, echoing Henry George’s argument for full confiscation of land rents. Thus, the alleged minusvalías are considered incidental and just part of a value to which individual rights are not (or should not be) absolute. The debate on this asymmetry bears directly on the proper definition of wipeouts and on how those losses are understood, which raises the issue of development rights. While some are willing to restrict the compensation for land and building improvements that the owner may lose, others argue that development rights are permanently built in as an inherent attribute of the land.
In practice it is not easy to make these arguments. What may be valid in the aggregate does not necessarily hold true for the part, since individual landowners consider it a loss in land value when, for example, a walled expressway cuts across their back yard or a viaduct blocks their view and produces noise and pollution. The average citizen is not easily convinced by the above arguments. The quest for symmetrical treatment is too socially and culturally sensitive to be ignored.
Transfer of development rights (TDRs)—an instrument originally conceived for compensating minusvalías from historical, architectural, cultural or environmental preservation ordinances for plusvalías somewhere else—has now been extended to mitigate other legitimate claims for minusvalías compensation. Some argue that regular compensation for wipeouts is a guarantee, making it easier to accept payments for windfalls. Under the equity principle, planning decisions including zoning schemes are recognized as potentially unfair with regard to the distribution of values in land markets. However ingenious the TDR instrument may appear, it does not help clarify the issues at stake. On the contrary, it adds to the debate since it simultaneously recognizes the right for minusvalías to be compensated and sanctions the right of individuals to plusvalías, reintroducing the question of private appropriations of community values.
Final Comments
The complex debates over value capture policies and instruments in Latin America indicate that much remains to be researched and learned. If the issues do not necessarily have a single answer, the arguments discussed here demonstrate that a significant portion of the resistance to such ideas may be attributed to misconceptions and insufficient information. Although the positions taken by different groups are not as clear-cut or coherent as expected, perceptions and attitudes do change, as the accompanying article indicates.
Martim O. Smolka is a senior fellow and director of the Lincoln Institute’s Program on Latin America and the Caribbean. Fernanda Furtado is a fellow of the Institute and a professor in the Urbanism Department at the Fluminense Federal University in Niteroi, Brazil.
References
Furtado, Fernanda. 2000. Rethinking value capture policies for Latin America. Land Lines 12 (3): 8–10.
Smolka, Martim O. 2003. Informality, urban poverty and land market prices. Land Lines 15 (1): 4–7.
Figure 1: Contentious Propositions and Commentaries on Value Capture
Proposition Commentary
1. It is unfair to charge the urban poor who benefit from regularization or upgrading programs. Evidence shows that expectations regarding publicly funded future upgrading programs lead to higher markups or premiums on current land prices in irregular or illegal settlements. Charging for such benefits would simply switch the recipient of a payment burden that is already being imposed on the poor from the subdivider to the government collecting the charge.
2. Urban land policy must take into account previous development rights, for they are acquired rights. Although expectations are an important part of land market prices, they do not create rights. Zoning designations or development rights, when not realized, are not acquired rights and therefore they can be taken without compensation.
3. Minusvalías are not compensated for; the asymmetry between plusvalías and minusvalías is unfair. Minusvalías are the exception in Latin American cities where land value increments are much higher than the cost of servicing land. In practice, however, public compensation to private owners usually far surpasses collection through value capture policies.
4. Land value capture policy is “communist.” Paying for “free rides” is certainly not a communist idea. One is reminded of mainstream economic theories regarding the merits of a system where individuals and social costs and benefits converge at the margin.
5. Value capture over and above the property tax implies double taxation. In effect, observed land prices to which land value increments apply are already net of the capitalization effect of property tax on land values.
6. Value capture distorts the functioning of the land market. In actuality, it’s the opposite: uncontrolled land value increments distort the behavior of agents. The presence of plusvalías is as distorting a factor for urban development as inflation is for economic development in general.
7. Private appropriation of land value increments is no more objectionable than similar windfalls obtained in capital markets. There is a fundamental conceptual difference. In capital markets equity and bonds are issued against productive investments as collateral for increases in productivity in individual businesses. In the land market, by contrast, land value increments result from the community effort, not individual effort.
8. Value capture is technically impractical because it is impossible to measure the land value increment. With the technical resources available today it is ludicrous to think it “can’t be done.” Ingenious and practical solutions have been developed in Cartagena, Colombia, and Porto Alegre, Brazil, for example.
9. Value capture is overwhelmingly rejected by the citizens, and therefore is politically impractical. The privileged few are the main source of rejection, not the poorer majority of the population who often are charged higher prices in order to access public services through informal arrangements.
10. The amount that can be collected with supplementary value capture instruments is a negligible amount in the public budget. Because of limited collection of the property tax in Latin America, value capture resources can assume an important role in financing urban development. Besides, use of value capture brings to light plusvalías, which has traditionally been a key source of corruption, and thus contributes to a healthier fiscal environment.
SHARE
Thomas A. Jaconetty is the chief deputy commissioner of the Board of Review (formerly the Board of Appeals) of Cook County, Illinois. During the past 24 years he has been involved in the disposition or review of taxes on more than 600,000 parcels of real estate. He is a member of the International Association of Assessing Officers (IAAO); the Chicago, Illinois State (ISBA) and American Bar Associations; the Justinian Society of Lawyers; and many other professional associations. He has served as a member and chair of the ISBA State and Local Taxation Section Council and contributed to the Illinois Department of Revenue’s Recodification Project.
A certified review appraiser and formerly an arbitrator for the Circuit Court of Cook County, Jaconetty has authored numerous articles and chapters for legal and taxation publications, edited three books and is working on a fourth. He has lectured at or moderated many educational programs on property taxation and assessment administration, and has published over a dozen articles on those topics. In 1998 he was appointed to the Planning Committee of the National Conference of State Tax Judges, and he served as conference chairman for the past two years.
Land Lines: How did you first become involved with the Lincoln Institute?
Thomas Jaconetty: I was familiar with the Institute’s work through its presentations at the annual conferences of the International Association of Assessing Officers (IAAO) and various other educational seminars. In 1994 the chairman of the National Conference of State Tax Judges, Ignatius MacLellan of the New Hampshire Board of Tax and Land Appeals, invited me to attend the conference after reviewing articles I had written on “Highest and Best Use” and “Valuation of Federally Subsidized Housing.” I found the experience invigorating, challenging and intellectually stimulating. The conference was and continues to be the best seminar in which I am involved each year, and I attend quite a few.
LL: As the past chairman, how do you see the role of the National Conference?
TJ: For 25 years the conference has functioned as a clearinghouse of ideas for officials exercising judicial or quasi-judicial powers over tax cases for statewide or regional jurisdictions. Noted authorities in the field, state tax court judges and officials of established tax courts are drawn together in an informal, collegial environment. The conference encourages improved decision making, the exchange of data and resources, the analysis of complex legal issues, and an avenue for a free-flowing interchange of ideas. The personal and professional relationships are open, friendly and dynamic, and there is plenty of room for divergent opinion, eclectic thought and agreement to disagree.
The Planning Committee of about 15 regular participants develops annual programs, and the rest of the members are actively involved with making presentations, offering suggestions, working on committees, attending the sessions and contributing to the overall educational experience. The annual fall conference is the most significant opportunity for formal interaction, but ongoing discussions are supported by the use of e-mail, the Lincoln Web site and the members’ professional involvement in other organizations.
LL: Why is it important for tax adjudicators to have this forum?
TJ: We are surrounded by ever-changing ideas and theories that we must balance against time-honored principles of taxation, complex economic relationships and the expectations of government. Each state has individual statutes and case law, but there is a high level of commonality among basic tax principles and a finite number of responses to factual situations. In spite of the many recurring and vexing issues that confront us, regular communication offers an opportunity to encourage consistency and consensus on the one hand and divergent opinion and reasoned dissent on the other. Members actively seek suggestions, advice and even help from their colleagues, who eagerly and generously respond.
LL: How have you seen the National Conference evolve during the years of your involvement?
TJ: Actually, there has been a remarkable level of consistency. There has been a core group of representatives from about 15 states and another dozen or so that change over time. Many members predate my involvement and others are very new. The most significant changes have been the enhanced communication offered by e-mail and the willingness of the group to probe into ethical, theoretical, decision-making and policy-based questions. There also has been a noticeable increase in volunteerism and in the number of women who are active participants.
I think there is a growing awareness that the deference given to any fact-finding agency (such as the state tax courts from whence our members come) creates a complementary responsibility to evaluate tax controversies within a framework that addresses all of the pertinent legal, valuation, philosophical and public policy issues. From all of that we hope to attain “justice,” which James Madison argued “is the end of government.”
LL: What do you see as the greatest challenges to the conference?
TJ: Remaining timely and relevant, and maintaining a cutting-edge outlook. Not every ascendant theory is always supportable or reasonable, but we seek to remain receptive, open and flexible while respecting the basic principles of state and local taxation that have stood the test of time. As issues become more complex and multi-jurisdictional, there is always a tug-of-war between local control and innovation versus national consistency and uniformity. This era of enormous budgetary constraints on state and local agencies places a premium on knowing where to go for expertise.
We face new challenges and are learning every day, and the conference presents the opportunity to encourage that growth. As John Quincy Adams said, “To furnish the means of acquiring knowledge is . . . the greatest benefit that can be conferred upon mankind.” We are also working to increase our membership and recruit more participation from states not currently represented. The optimum goal is to have around 55 to 60 active participants at any one time.
LL: What role does the Lincoln Institute play?
TJ: It is the heart and the soul of the conference. Especially in these trying economic times, without the Institute’s support many of our members would not have the local funding and financial wherewithal to attend the conference. And, without the organizing ability of the Institute staff, there would be no conference. The Lincoln Institute is uniquely qualified to create the healthy intellectual environment that brings the tax policy, legislative, academic, practitioner and administrative points of view before those very persons who decide the cases and, in so doing, “make the law.”
LL: You alluded to policy. Should judges and tax adjudicators be involved in considering public policy?
TJ: I can only suggest my own view. How judges and adjudicative bodies rule is almost inevitably a reflection of what they learn, know, believe, have proven before them, sense and comprehend, as well as what appears to be just. Everything must be taken against the backdrop of the purposes of the law and the ends that the law seeks to achieve. The more informed, eclectic, analytical and open the decision maker, the better the outcome.
The valuation of contaminated property (brownfields) and subsidized housing are two real property tax areas that immediately come to mind. These are technical issues, but they require an appreciation of the larger context and policy implications, as well as the proper balance between legislation and its interpretation.
The Lincoln Institute has had a significant and salutary impact on the development of sound tax policy. Henry George, whose writings inspire the Institute’s work, addressed these issues in The Land Question “[Taxation] must not take from individuals what rightfully belongs to individuals.” In Progress and Poverty he stated, “It is the taking by the community, for the use of the community, of that value which is the creation of the community.” But, as an exercise of power, it “must not repress industry . . . check commerce . . . [or] punish thrift . . .”
LL: What are some of the major tax issues facing tribunals today?
TJ: On the real property taxation side there is the taxation of contaminated property; the use and misuse of the cost approach; valuation of subsidized housing; the effect of low-income housing tax credited property; and the changing face of charitable and nonprofit entities. There are so many other issues: the application of traditional sales, use, gross receipts and income tax principles to an ever-expanding and global economy; related questions of nexus jurisdiction and extraterritorial power; the impact of e-commerce; the clash and interrelationship of the due process and commerce clauses; local autonomy challenged by movements to adopt model acts.
Other more general concerns include alternative dispute resolution; pro se litigants; ethics (appraiser, assessor, judicial); regulation versus deregulation; court management; and the role of policy in decision making. Added to these are the routine daily determinations that must be made by tribunals and agencies that form the grist of the taxation process, which is the lifeblood of government—that which Oliver Wendell Holmes characterized as “what we pay for civilized society.”
LL: How does the National Conference of State Tax Judges interact with other professional associations?
TJ: Many members of the conference are active at the state and local level with continuing legal education (CLE), appraisal or assessment organizations, such as seminars offered with the Appraisal Institute. Others take part in presentations sponsored by local directors of revenue or bar-related symposia on tax issues. Some sit on advisory commissions, boards, panels and task forces. Still others, including myself, have a continuing relationship with the IAAO, which offers an especially valuable and practical access to the assessment side of the real property world.
LL: Any final thoughts on the conference and its future?
TJ: Having just completed my two-year term as chairman, I hope it can be said that the conference maintained the high standards set by my immediate predecessors—Ignatius MacLellan, Joseph Small and Blaine Davis. I certainly feel that the future is in capable hands with our new chair, Arnold Aronson. With the biannual rotation of the conference to different locations around the U.S., it returns to Cambridge next year to celebrate its twenty-fifth year. I will simply echo what many of us say every year when we convene: This conference is the finest and most beneficial professional education endeavor in which any of us are engaged.
SHARE
Compulsory purchase, expropriation, eminent domain, or simply “taking” are different names for the legal institution that allows governments to acquire property against the will of its owner in order to fulfill some public purpose. This tool has been used for a long time as a major instrument of land policy, but now it is subject to a number of criticisms and mounting social resistance in many parts of the world. Campaigns for housing rights, movements for the defense of property rights, and legislative and judiciary activism are among the factors changing the conditions under which governments exercise their power of eminent domain.
SHARE
Across the country, decision makers at the local and state levels increasingly are turning to new methods for resolving conflicts that arise during land use decision making processes. For disputes over permitting or enforcement of local and state land use regulations, mediation is considered a reasonable alternative to at least some litigation. Although mediation has successfully resolved many land use disputes, its use typically has been applied ad hoc as inclination and resources determine.
To better understand the use of mediation across a land use decision-making system within a single state, the Consensus Building Institute (CBI) and Green Mountain Environmental Resolutions (GMER) conducted an 18-month screening and evaluation study in Vermont.
Mediation and Land Use Disputes
Previous studies by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and the Consensus Building Institute have demonstrated that negotiation and mediation can be effective in resolving land use disputes. A successful mediation program requires selecting suitable cases for mediation at the right time in the process, and matching them with appropriate forms of mediation assistance.
Although mediation is widely used in some areas of law, such as family or employment cases, its application in land use law has been limited. There is no systematic program or set of programs that integrates mediation into the land use permitting process at all levels, from local planning boards to state courts. Increasing the use of mediation and integrating it into the land use permit application and appeal process can reduce the burden on valuable judicial resources, save the parties time and money, and, perhaps most important, resolve disputes that otherwise could divide a community into opposing camps. This study of Vermont aimed to identify lessons that can inform the land use decision-making process in other states.
Methodology
Vermont’s manageable size, its diversity of small cities and rural towns, and the frequent use of mediation, especially at the court level, made it an ideal laboratory in which to learn how mediation might be better integrated into different levels of land use decision making. Vermont also has a strong land use planning law, Act 250, passed in 1970 to protect the environment, balance growth and development needs, and provide a forum for neighbors, municipalities, and other interest groups to voice their concerns. Depending on the nature of a proposed development project, an applicant may need to obtain permits from a local board, a regional commission, various state agencies, or federal agencies.
As in most states, land use disputants in Vermont may utilize mediation via one of two routes: when there is consensus to try it, or in court when a judge orders mediation or a hearing officer suggests mediation at a prehearing conference.
This study investigated two methods for identifying cases that might be appropriate for mediation. First, we sought to better understand action at the state court level, after other opportunities for consensus building and mediation had failed. In collaboration with the Vermont Environmental Court, CBI developed a screening and evaluation process for 285 active land use cases in the court between July 1, 2006 and December 31, 2007. Judges were asked to fill out a form to identify why and how they screened each case for mediation, and the parties were asked to complete an evaluation form after the mediation ended.
Second, GMER and CBI developed a protocol to determine whether it was possible to identify cases appropriate for mediation at both local and Act 250 levels prior to the appeal stage. Over the 18-month study period, GMER screened 54 contested Act 250 permit applications. Most cases that make their way to the Act 250 and Vermont Environmental Court dispute systems start at the local level. However, despite many efforts by GMER to identify local-level cases to be screened, only 13 local cases were reviewed.
Nine Lessons Learned
1: Screening for mediation assists with settlement.
Mediation screening—that is, evaluation of the appropriateness of mediation for a particular case—prior to proceeding with traditional avenues of land use conflict resolution is an effective tool for encouraging settlement as a general approach; encouraging mediation specifically; and distinguishing among cases that are more amenable to resolution and those that require more formal quasi-judicial or judicial decision making. Given the current barriers to mediation—lack of knowledge about mediation, jointly finding a mediator, and simply communicating with the opposing party—screening is an effective tool to increase its use.
In the Act 250 cases, the act of screening itself seemed to encourage informal negotiations and settlement in some instances (figure 1). Many of the screenings were essentially informal phone mediations that included discussions of the parties’ interests and possible options to satisfy those interests.
2: Screening criteria are useful but not fully determinative.
There is no simple formula or correlation between key factors in a case and the parties’ willingness to mediate as a way to successfully resolve issues. However, the data on screening do suggest a few key criteria that are important in determining if a case is more likely to be recommended for mediation.
The data also suggest that some criteria are not important in determining whether mediation is appropriate for a specific case.
3: The screener’s qualifications and credibility do matter.
A mediation screener for land use disputes requires a specific skill set, knowledge base, and credibility. At the Environmental Court level, a judge’s expertise in land use issues, law, and regulatory structure allows a more informed assessment of cases amenable to mediation. Analysis of the court’s screening data concluded that the two most important factors in determining the appropiateness of mediation were the issue of law at stake and the judge’s “sense” of settlement potential. Both are professional judgments rather than more formulaic means of determining appropriateness. Furthermore, the judge’s authority gives the resulting determination legitimacy.
In a nonjudicial setting such as a permitting body, a screener without legal authority or stature can also be effective. Most parties will participate and take seriously the recommendations of the screener, as long as the screener has the express support and legitimacy provided by an official governing body.
4: Screening program design is also important for legitimacy.
As part of the research, we established and implemented the screening program for the District Commissions, entities that provide review under Act 250. This program was highly instructive because it raised several key issues. The primary question was whether screeners should be part of or separate and independent from an appropriate government agency (table 1). A secondary concern was whether a screener might also later mediate the case. Protocols can be used to avoid or minimize the perception of any potential conflict of interest.
A few survey respondents raised concern that the Act 250 screener was also available to mediate the cases screened, though the screener always provided the parties a roster of mediators from which to choose. The concerns were about ethics (Can one conduct a fair and neutral screening when one has both the economic and professional incentive to recommend mediation in order to then mediate?) and the marketplace (Is it fair to and competitive for other mediators if the screener has an “inside track” on certain cases?).
We assume that screeners as mediators may be influenced by the opportunity to mediate, if they are eligible. We would argue that this incentive is not merely financial, but also professional in the sense that one wishes to practice one’s craft. Nonetheless, countervailing arguments suggest that a strict separation of screening and mediation poses an equally difficult set of problems.
5: Land use mediation may be more effective in helping parties reach a settlement than in restoring relationships.
Data gathered through the court mediation evaluation forms offer a somewhat surprising reflection on how participants value their mediation experience. While mediation is often lauded for its contributions to improving relationships among parties, evaluation survey results suggest that parties valued mediation more for its ability to make them consider options than for its impact on their relationship with other parties.
Sixty-six percent of participants reported that the mediation process encouraged them to consider various options for resolving the dispute (59 percent [154] agreed and 7 percent [18] strongly agreed). On the other hand, 42 percent of respondents felt that at the end of the mediation process they were better able to discuss and seek to resolve problems with other parties on this project (39 percent [102] agreed and 3 percent [8] strongly agreed). While one might wish, optimistically, for a mediation program that restores relationships and rebuilds social capital, it seems that participants are more interested in exploring various options for settlement than in broader social or relational goals.
6: Land use mediation may not always result in satisfying agreements, but it generally results in satisfaction with the process.
Parties support mediation and are willing to participate again, despite indications by many that their most recent experience did not result in an agreement that satisfied them. Figure 2 shows that 40 percent agreed that mediation resulted in an agreement that was satisfying to them (88 agreed and 15 strongly agreed), while 35 percent disagreed (55 strongly disagreed and 36 disagreed).
Despite these findings, when asked if they would participate in a mediation again, respondents show more varied results (figure 3). More than 50 (131) agreed and 17 percent (45) strongly agreed to participate again, while only 19 percent (30) disagreed and 7 percent (19) strongly disagreed.
We interpret these data to mean that the agreement reached was tolerable, given their constrained choices. The mediation process more often than not seems to have offered enough benefits, cost or time savings, or some other advantage that many respondents would be willing to participate again.
The evaluation process did reveal some concerns about the role of pro se parties (who represent themselves without an attorney). Some pro se parties expressed frustration with the mediation process, which they felt did not provide an adequate forum for exploring and resolving the full range of issue that concerned them. Other parties expressed their own frustration with the pro se parties, whom they felt slowed down the process and demanded too much time from the mediator. Additional research on best practices for defining and communicating the role of pro se parties could improve overall satisfaction with the mediation process.
7: Mediation of particular issues does not relieve the larger burden on municipalities to make complex decisions on land use projects.
Lower levels of satisfaction were expressed by town officials than other parties, which suggests that mediation in and of itself is not assisting local officials to the extent one might hope. Town representatives were more likely to disagree or strongly disagree (56 percent) that the mediation resulted in an agreement that was satisfying to them than were applicants (36 percent), agencies (36 percent), and interested parties (35 percent).
By the time cases, especially enforcement cases, reach the Environmental Court, town officials may feel they have already tried to accommodate applicants and thus are less enthusiastic about mediation with parties who, in their perspective, have been “recalcitrant.” A court decision, even if it adopts a mediated settlement, may not resolve an entire dispute. Mediation may resolve issues pending before the court, but does not resolve all barriers to implementation of an agreement at the local level. This finding suggests that municipalities may need more assistance, not only in mediation of narrowed issues, but also in more comprehensive consensus building or public participation efforts.
8: Encouraging mediation at the municipal level remains challenging.
The research team was not successful in instituting any systematic local approaches to screening and mediation, despite an intensive outreach effort; a no-cost screening service; the support of mediation at the Act 250 and Court levels; a state generally amenable to alternative forms of dispute resolution; and a relatively vigorous development climate during the study.
Various factors may explain this resistance. The single largest obstacle on the local level is that in most cases the permitting bodies do not know if an application will be opposed until the hearing begins. Furthermore, most applications have only one hearing day, so there is little opportunity for mediation screening. Hearings that last multiple days clearly have other options.
Other obstacles include the fact that mediation as commonly understood may be introduced too early for parties wishing to see how they might fare in the standard administrative process. Local officials may view mediation as usurping their role. The status quo of existing administrative processes may simply be considered “good enough.” Town budgets may account for potential litigation, but not be flexible enough to fund mediation. Some officials may not know enough about mediation or simply be uninformed about its benefits. There may be too few cases in most municipalities in a rural state like Vermont to establish any programmatic approach.
In any case, this study reinforced the assumption that administering mediation at the local level is difficult, however promising the “idea” of mediation may be in assisting communities and their citizens.
9: The Environmental Court can influence attitudes toward mediation.
The Environmental Court’s embrace of mediation as a key tool to its proceedings appears to have an interesting effect on municipal land use decisions, despite the challenges at the local level. It is widely perceived (though inaccurately) among local and regional land use professionals across the state that if a case proceeds to the Environmental Court it “almost always” will be ordered into mediation. The court, in fact, is quite careful about referrals. During our study period, the court referred fewer than half of its cases to mediation.
This finding points to at least two interesting implications for a more rigorous, system-wide approach to mediation and dispute resolution. First, the data suggest that a powerful land use body’s support of mediation has a meaningful impact on perceptions of mediation across the system. Second, the active support of mediation by a body such as the court has likely salutary effects on settlements that can occur earlier in the process. This also suggests that when enough of a land use system’s regulatory bodies support and encourage mediation, a culture of settlement and dispute resolution may take hold.
Conclusions
This study supports the assertion that mediation is useful in land use conflicts. Upon evaluation of nearly 300 Vermont land use cases at the local, Act 250, and Environmental Court levels, this study found that mediation screening and actual mediation are effective tools for targeting and resolving many cases. As disputes become more complex, and resources, time, and money for resolving land use disputes become scarcer, it will be important to find efficient and reliable methods for settling cases. Mediation and mediation screening hold great potential for meeting those goals.
Related Publications
Susskind, Lawrence, Ole Amundsen, and Masahiro Matsuura. 1999. Using Assisted Negotiation to Settle Land Use Disputes: A Guidebook for Public Officials. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Susskind, Lawrence, Mieke van der Wansem, and Armand Ciccarelli. 2000. Mediating Land Use Disputes: Pros and Cons. Cambridge, MA; Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
About the Authors
Patrick Field is managing director of the Consensus Building Institute in Cambridge, Massachusetts, as well as associate director of the MIT-Harvard Public Disputes Program and senior fellow at the Center for Natural Resources and Environmental Policy of the University of Montana in Missoula.
Kate Harvey is an associate at the Consensus Building Institute.
Matt Strassberg is an director of the Environmental Mediation Center and principal of Green Mountain Environmental Resolutions based in Moretown, Vermont.
This research was made possible by the generous support of the JAMS Foundation and the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
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
Vivienda inclusiva: La creación y el mantenimiento de comunidades equitativas
Por Rick Jacobus
En diferentes ciudades, como Seattle, San Francisco, Chicago, y Portland, Maine, se ha desatado un debate sobre la vivienda inclusiva, es decir, el requisito de que los desarrolladores reserven un porcentaje de los nuevos desarrollos residenciales para viviendas asequibles. Algunos sostienen que esta política desalienta el desarrollo o, con alegación más polémica que podría llegar a la Corte Suprema, que constituye una amenaza a los derechos de propiedad. Mientras tanto, el alcalde de la ciudad de Nueva York, Bill de Blasio, se enfrenta a críticas desde ambas partes: que su propuesta de vivienda inclusiva va demasiado lejos, o que no es suficiente.
En este nuevo informe titulado “Vivienda inclusiva: Creación y mantenimiento de comunidades equitativas”, Rick Jacobus separa la realidad de los mitos y traza el camino a los gestores de políticas, mostrando cómo la vivienda inclusiva puede usarse de manera eficaz para reducir la segregación económica.
“En las ciudades con mercados inmobiliarios muy activos, el aumento de los precios de la vivienda, obliga a los residentes de clase media y de bajos ingresos a alejarse de los empleos mejor remunerados, del transporte confiable, de las buenas escuelas y de los barrios seguros”, sostiene George W. McCarthy, presidente y director ejecutivo del Instituto Lincoln. “La vivienda inclusiva por sí sola no solucionará nuestra crisis de la vivienda, pero es uno de los pocos baluartes que tenemos para contrarrestar los efectos del aburguesamiento, y únicamente si preservamos las unidades que tanto nos cuesta construir”.
Mediante un análisis de la bibliografía sobre el tema y casos de estudio, Rick Jacobus, de Street Level Urban Impact Advisors, ofrece soluciones para superar las principales barreras políticas, técnicas, legales y prácticas que enfrenta todo programa de vivienda inclusiva para tener éxito.
“Más de 500 comunidades han utilizado las políticas de vivienda inclusiva con el fin de mantener la vitalidad y diversidad de los barrios en transición, y hasta ahora hemos aprendido mucho”, señala Jacobus. “Según investigaciones realizadas, si los programas se diseñan e implementan concienzudamente, pueden llegar a ser una herramienta valiosa en tiempos en que la vivienda inclusiva se necesita desesperadamente”.
En particular, el autor se refiere en este informe a la preocupación de que la vivienda inclusiva podría impedir nuevas construcciones debido a que el desarrollo tendría un rendimiento económico menor. Según el informe, muchas ciudades han evitado dicho impacto otorgando flexibilidad a los desarrolladores para cumplir con las normas y ofreciendo incentivos, como la posibilidad de construir unidades con mayor densidad.
Otras conclusiones y recomendaciones clave que surgen del informe son las siguientes:
Durante muchos años, el Instituto Lincoln ha desarrollado estrategias para apoyar la vivienda permanentemente asequible, mediante, por ejemplo, el establecimiento de fideicomisos de suelo comunitarios y otros acuerdos de capital compartido. Estas medidas se han tomado teniendo en cuenta la actual crisis de acceso a la vivienda existente en muchas ciudades. Los precios estratosféricos de los precios de alquiler y compra de viviendas en los mercados inmobiliarios muy activos han ido desplazando a los antiguos residentes y cambiando el carácter de ciudades y barrios.
Para encargar ejemplares: http://www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/3583_Inclusionary-Housing.
Rick Jacobus, es experto nacional en vivienda inclusiva y en acceso a la propiedad de viviendas asequibles. Es director principal de Street Level Urban Impact Advisors (StreetLevelAdvisors.com). Fundó Cornerstone Partnership y actualmente es asesor estratégico en Cornerstone.
SHARE
The creation of economic and institutional conditions for efficient urban environmental management, which are also committed to the consolidation of democracy, the promotion of social justice and the eradication of urban poverty, constitutes one of the major challenges for leading political and social agents in this century. This challenge to promote sociospatial inclusion is even more significant in developing and transitional countries, given the complexity of problems resulting from intensive urbanization, environmental degradation, increasing socioeconomic inequalities and spatial segregation. The debate on the legal-political conditions of urban environmental development and management deserves special attention.
The discussion on law and illegality in the context of urban development has gathered momentum in recent years, especially since the Habitat Agenda1 stressed the central importance of urban law. At workshops promoted by the International Research Group on Law and Urban Space (IRGLUS) over the last eight years, researchers have argued for the need to undertake a critical analysis of the role played by legal provisions and institutions in the process of urbanization. The UNCHS2 Global Campaign for Good Urban Governance suggests that the promotion of law reform has been viewed by national and international organizations as one of the main conditions for changing the exclusionary nature of urban development in developing and transitional countries, and for the effective confrontation of growing urban illegality.
Illegal practices have taken many different forms, especially in the expanding informal economy. An increasing number of people have had to step outside the law to gain access to urban land and housing, and they have to live without proper security of tenure in very precarious conditions, usually in peripheral areas. This process has many serious implications-social, political, economic and environmental-and needs to be confronted by both governments and society. It is widely acknowledged that urban illegality has to be understood not only in terms of the dynamics of political systems and land markets, but also the nature of the legal order, particularly the definition of urban real property rights. The promotion of urban reform depends largely on a comprehensive reform of the legal order affecting the regulation of land property rights and the overall process of urban land development, policy-making and management. Special emphasis has been placed on land tenure regularization policies aimed at promoting the sociospatial integration of the urban poor, such as those proposed by the UNCHS Global Campaign for Secure Tenure.
Conservative versus Innovative Approaches
This complex legal-political debate has serious socioeconomic implications at the global level, and it has to be viewed against three conservative though influential and intertwined political-ideological approaches to law and legal regulation.
First, discussion of the role of law in urban development cannot be reduced to the simplistic terms proposed by those who suggest, despite historical evidence, that capitalism per se can distribute wealth widely and who defend a “hands-off” approach to state regulation aimed to control urban development. Whereas globalization is undoubtedly irreversible and in some ways independent of government action, there is no historical justification for the neoliberal ideology which assumes that by maximizing growth and wealth the free market also optimizes the distribution of that increment. (Hobsbawn 2000).
Several indicators of growing social poverty, especially those closely related to the precarious conditions of access to land and housing in urban areas, demonstrate that, even if the world has become wealthier as a result of global economic and financial growth, the regional and social distribution of this newly acquired wealth has been far from optimal. Moreover, the successful industrial development of many countries (e.g., the U.S., Germany, or even Brazil and Mexico) was achieved by adopting regulation measures and by not accepting unreservedly the logic of the free market. Perhaps more than ever, there is a fundamental role for redefined state action and economic regulation in developing and transitional countries, especially regarding the promotion of urban development, land reform, land use control and city management. The central role of law in this process cannot be dismissed.
Second, the impact of economic and financial globalization on the development of land markets has put pressure on developing and transitional countries to reform their national land laws and homogenize their legal systems to facilitate the operation of land markets internationally. This emphasis on a globalized, market-oriented land law reform, with the resulting “‘Americanization’ of commercial laws and the growth of global Anglo-American law firms,” is based on an approach to land “purely as an economic asset which should be made available to anyone who can use it to its highest and best economic use.” This view aims to facilitate foreign investment in land rather than recognize that there is “a social role for land in society” and that land is a “part of the social patrimony of the state” (McAuslan 2000).
A third and increasingly influential approach has been largely, and sometime loosely, based on the work of the economist Hernando de Soto. He defends the notion that global poverty can be solved by linking the growing informal “extra-legal” economy to the formal economy, particularly in urban areas. In this view, small informal businesses and precarious shanty homes are essentially economic assets, “dead capital” which should be revived by the official legal system so people could have access to formal credit, invest in their homes and businesses, and thus reinvigorate the urban economy as a whole. Rather than questioning the nature of the legal system that generated urban illegality in the first place, the full (and frequently unqualified) legalization of informal businesses and the recognition of individual freehold property titles for urban dwellers in informal settlements have been proposed in several countries as the “radical” way to transform urban economies.
Contrary to these conservative approaches, several recent studies have argued that, in the absence of a coherent, well-structured and progressive urban agenda, the approach of legal (neo)liberalism will only aggravate the already serious problem of sociospatial exclusion. However, policy makers and public agencies should become aware of the wide, and often perverse, implications of their proposals, especially those concerning the legalization of informal settlements. The long claimed recognition of the state’s responsibility for the provision of social housing rights cannot be reduced to simply the recognition of property rights. The legalization of informal activities, particularly through the attribution of individual property titles, does not necessarily entail sociospatial integration.
Unless tenure legalization policies are formulated within the scope of comprehensive socioeconomic policies and are assimilated into a broader strategy of urban management, they can have negative effects (Alfonsin 2001). These consequences can include bringing unintended financial burdens to the urban poor; having little impact on alleviating urban poverty; and, most important, directly reinforcing the overall disposition of political and economic power that has traditionally caused sociospatial exclusion. New policies need to reconcile four major factors:
The search for innovative legal-political approaches to tenure for the urban poor includes reconciling the promotion of individual tenure with the recognition of social housing rights; incorporating a long-neglected gender dimension; and attempting to minimize impacts on the land market so the benefits of public investment are “captured” by the poor rather than by private land subdividers. Pursuit of these goals is of utmost importance within the context of a broader, inclusionary urban reform strategy (Payne forthcoming). Several cities, such as Porto Alegre, Mexico City and Caracas, have attempted to operationalize this progressive urban agenda by reforming their traditional legal system. Significant developments to democratize access to land and property have included less exclusive urban norms and regulations, special residential zoning for the urban poor, and changes in the nature of fiscal land value capture mechanisms to make them less regressive.
Widening the Debate
In the context of this lively debate on urban law, the Lincoln Institute supported three recent international conferences:
Law in Urban Governance
Given the relatively new emphasis on reconciling urban studies and legal studies, the legal dimension of the urban development process still needs to be made more explicitly the focus of research. This requires a more consistent approach to language so key concepts, such as property rights, can be adequately discussed in both political and legal terms. Most of the papers presented at this IRGLUS conference focused on land regularization. While regularization has become the most frequent policy response to the general problem of illegal settlement, the term is used in a variety of ways, each with different meanings, by different agencies and researchers. The implementation of the physical dimension of regularization policies entails upgrading infrastructure and introducing services. It also highlights the need to be culturally sensitive. For example, regularization policies to provide security of tenure require greater attention to the gender implications of the process.
Participants also discussed the impacts of regularization policies on both formal and informal land market. Regularization was seen by some as the “marketization” of processes operating in erstwhile illegal settlements. One area of concern was the possibility of “gentrification,” which in this case means not the rehabilitation and changed use of buildings but the process of middle-income groups “raiding” newly regularized settlements for residential or other purposes and displacing the original inhabitants. Clearly, a broad range of economic and political issues needs to be addressed when defining regularization policies. In particular, the residents of illegal settlements need to be included in the economic and political life of the city to avoid the dangers of increased socioeconomic segregation.
Responding successfully to the complex problems of illegal settlement is difficult, and particular solutions cannot always be replicated in other places. Ultimately successful regularization is dependent on government and requires costly programs and legal reform. However, the gap between the questions raised and actual practice in the field is significant. Because of the pressing need to “get ahead” of the process of illegal settlement, public agencies are concentrating on cure not prevention.
How do local governments halt the process of illegal settlement? By working on more effective housing and land delivery systems. Conference participants defended the legitimacy of tenure programs, pragmatically in some cases, or as a fundamental right in others. Given the “top-down” approach frequently given to this issue, the discussion on empowerment needs to be widened so the voice of the urban poor can emerge.
The UNCHS/ECLAC Conference
Latin America was the only region to draw up a plan of action for Habitat II-an indication that, despite the existence of fundamental linguistic, historical and cultural differences in the region, there is a common agenda that should mobilize collaboration. The region’s urban structure is undergoing significant transformation as a result of several combined processes:
All such problems have worsened because of expanding economic globalization, inappropriate liberalization policies and largely unregulated privatization schemes. Despite its rapid integration into the growing global market, Latin America has seen social poverty escalate in the last decade. World Bank projections suggest that if this picture remains unchallenged 55 million Latin Americans may be living on less than US$1 a day in the next decade.
The Santiago Declaration resulting from this conference clarified the goal of an urban environmental agenda for political-institutional dialogue and joint action. The focus is to create the conditions needed to overcome political governance obstacles that still challenge the efforts made over the last two decades to promote economic reforms and democratization in the region. To develop a more competitive and efficient urban structure, such a regional action plan should:
An urgent need is to provide better and more accessible housing conditions for the urban poor, as part of a broader urban reform strategy. Since public investment in housing in much of Latin America has decreased recently, the provision of new housing units, improvements to the existing housing stock and the regularization of informal settlements cannot be postponed any longer.
The Santiago Declaration also advanced a number of proposals, including new regulation frameworks for urban and housing policies; territorial organization policies and land use control mechanisms; and public policies for social integration and gender equity. However, it failed to confront the fact that many of the region’s social, urban and environmental problems have been caused by the conservative, elitist and largely obsolete national legal systems still in force in many countries. Any proposed new balance between states, markets and citizens to support the process of urban reform requires not only economic and political-institutional changes but a comprehensive legal reform as well, especially the legal-political approach to property rights.
Brazilian Urban Law Conference
Brazil’s 1988 Constitution introduced a ground-breaking chapter on urban policy by consolidating the notion of the “social function of property and of the city” as the main framework for Brazilian urban law. Although previous Brazilian constitutions since 1934 nominally stated that the recognition of individual property rights was conditioned to the fulfillment of a “social function,” until 1988 this principle was not clearly defined or made operational with enforcement mechanisms. In short, the 1988 Constitution recognizes individual property rights in urban areas only if the use and development of land and property meets the socially oriented and environmentally sound provisions of urban legislation, especially master plans formulated at the local level. As a result, countless urban and environmental laws have been enacted at the municipal level to support a wide range of progressive urban policies and management strategies.
Some of the most interesting international experiences in urban management are taking place in Brazil, such as the participatory budgeting process which has been adopted in several cities (Goldsmith and Vainer 2001). The imminent approval of National Urban Development Law (the so-called “City Statute”) should help consolidate the new constitutional paradigm for urban planning and management, especially by regulating constitutional enforcement mechanisms such as mandatory edification, transfer of development rights, expropriation through progressive taxation and special usucapiao (adverse possession) rights.
This change in the legal paradigm is of utmost importance. The incipient tradition of urban legal studies in Brazil tends to be essentially legalistic, but it reinforces traditional notions of individual property rights found in the long-standing 1916 Civil Code. This obsolete Code views land and property rights almost exclusively in terms of the economic possibilities granted to individual owners, allowing little room for socially oriented state intervention aimed at reconciling different interests over the use of land and property. Just as important as enacting new laws is the need to consolidate the conceptual framework proposed by the 1988 Constitution, and thus replace the individualistic provisions of the Civil Code, which still provide the basis for conservative judicial interpretations on land development. Much of the ideological resistance to progressive urban policies held by large conservative sectors of Brazilian society stems from the Code, which does not address the role of law and illegality in the process of urban development and management.
The papers presented at this conference explored the legal, political and institutional possibilities created by the new constitutional framework for state and social action in the process of urban development and land use control. Participants emphasized that the discussion of laws, legal institutions and judicial decisions has to be supported by an understanding of the nature of the law-making process, the conditions for law enforcement, and the dynamics of the process of social production of urban illegality.
Participants also remarked that if the legal treatment of property rights is to be taken out of the narrow context of civil law so it can be interpreted from the more progressive criteria of redefined public urban law, then the possibilities offered by administrative law in Brazil are not satisfactory either. The limited and formalistic administrative provisions now in force do not have enough flexibility and scope to deal with and provide legal security to the complex and rapidly changing political-institutional relations at various levels-inside the state, among governmental levels, between state and society, and inside society. New urban management strategies are based on ideas such as planning gains, public-private partnerships, so-called “urban” and “linkage” operations, privatization and public service subcontracting, and participatory budgeting, but they lack full support in the legal system. Furthermore, the new constitutional basis of Brazilian urban law still needs to be consolidated as the main legal framework for urban management.
Conclusion
Many important questions about law and urban illegality remain unanswered, and much more work, research and discussion needs to be undertaken before they can be properly answered. However, sometimes formulating the right questions is as important as providing the right answers. Thus, the discussion of the legal dimension of the urban development and management process will continue to explore questions and answers in the regional context of Latin America and internationally.
Notes
1) Habitat Agenda – the global plan of action adopted by the international community at the Habitat II Conference in Istanbul, Turkey, in June 1996
2) UNCHS: United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat). See www.unchs.org/govern for information on the UNCHS Global Campaign on Good Urban Governance and www.unchs.org/tenure for information on the UNCHS Global Campaign for Secure Tenure.
References
Alfonsin, Betania de Moraes. 2001. “Politicas de regularizacao fundiaria: justificacao, impactos e sustentabilidade”, in Fernandes, Edesio (org) Direito Urbanistico e Politica Urbana no Brasil. Belo Horizonte: Del Rey.
de Soto, Hernando. 2000. The Mystery of Capital. London: Bantam Press.
1989. The Other Path. London: I.B.Tauris & Co.
Fernandes, Edesio. 1999. “Redefining property rights in the age of liberalization and privatization,” Land Lines (November) 11(6):4-5.
Goldsmith, William W., and Carlos B. Vainer. 2001. “Participatory budgeting and power politics in Porto Alegre.” Land Lines (January) 13(1):7-9.
Hobsbawn, Eric. 2000. The New Century. London: Abacus.
McAuslan, Patrick. 2000. “From Greenland’s icy mountains, from India’s coral strand: the globalisation of land markets and its impact on national land law.” Paper presented at the 1st Brazilian Urban Law Conference.
Payne, Geoffrey. Forthcoming. “Innovative approaches to tenure for the urban poor.” United Kingdom Department for International Development.
Edésio Fernandes is a Brazilian jurist and lecturer at DPU-Development Planning Unit of University College London. He is also the coordinator of IRGLUS-International Research Group on Law and Urban Space. He thanks the participants in the IRGLUS Cairo workshop who shared their notes, especially Ann Varley, Gareth A. Jones and Peter Marcuse.
SHARE
Una versión más actualizada de este artículo está disponible como parte del capítulo 4 del libro Perspectivas urbanas: Temas críticos en políticas de suelo de América Latina.
El 18 de julio de 1997 el Congreso de la República de Colombia aprobó una innovadora Ley de Desarrollo Territorial con objetivos ambiciosos que permiten que los municipios y distritos recuperen el valor de la tierra creado socialmente, es decir, las plusvalías. Específicamente, la Ley 388 establece que los ciudadanos tienen derecho a “participar” en el aumento del valor de la tierra cuando el marco legal que regula su uso aumenta el potencial de desarrollo. Se distinguen tres categorías de acción urbanística:
Para expresarlo de forma breve, la legislación estipula que el precio del metro cuadrado de tierra se calculará antes y después de cualquier acción urbanística. Cualquier municipio, por iniciativa del alcalde, podrá exigir su “participación” y así podrá recuperar entre el 30 y el 50 por ciento (según lo decida el mismo municipio) de la plusvalía generada. El precio se determina multiplicando los dos precios en metros cuadrados por el área de cada predio individual en cuestión y restando el precio antes de la acción urbanística del nuevo precio de referencia. Se fijó una tasa máxima del 50 por ciento para garantizar que siguiera habiendo motivación financiera para los promotores inmobiliarios.
Con esta legislación, Colombia ha dado fuerza de ley nacional a la premisa fundamental de los postulados de Henry George, quien sostenía que los ciudadanos tienen el derecho moral de recuperar el valor creado socialmente, como se evidencia en este caso con el aumento del precio de la tierra generado por las tres categorías de acción urbanística mencionadas anteriormente. Tal vez con la única excepción de Taiwán, pocos países, por no decir ningún otro, han intentado incorporar de manera tan directa los principios de George en una ley verdadera de carácter nacional.
Procedimientos para la aplicación
La legislación actual es apenas el primer paso. Según las prácticas colombianas, el Congreso actúa para trazar las políticas generales, pero su aplicación depende del seguimiento que se haga en el nivel ejecutivo nacional y en el nivel municipal. Para hacer el peritazgo crítico por metro cuadrado anterior y posterior a la acción urbanística con la mayor objetividad posible, una entidad independiente llamada Instituto Geográfico Agustín Codazzi llevará a cabo los avalúos de acuerdo a las directrices establecidas en la ley para cada una de las tres categorías.
Las tasas (denominadas participaciones en la ley) deben pagarse cuando el propietario solicita una licencia de urbanización o construcción, cuando cambia el uso del inmueble, cuando hay transferencia del dominio sobre el inmueble o cuando se adquieren títulos valores (representativos de los derechos adicionales de desarrollo y construcción). Estas tasas deben quedar asentadas en el registro de escrituras de propiedades para garantizar el cumplimiento del pago, y el dominio del inmueble no podrá ser transferido en dicho registro hasta que se paguen las tasas mediante alguna de estas modalidades de pago:
Es de esperar que la mayoría de los promotores privados preferirá asociarse con los municipios en lugar de pagar dinero efectivo. De hecho, la legislación prevé a manera de incentivo un descuento del 10 por ciento sobre el monto de la participación al utilizar la modalidad (6) y un descuento del 5 por ciento al utilizar las modalidades (2) y (4).
Los municipios y distritos deben destinar los recursos provenientes de las participaciones en las plusvalías para fines específicos:
Posibles repercusiones de la ley
Esta legislación aborda muchos aspectos de las políticas de la tierra que por mucho tiempo han sido de interés para el Instituto Lincoln. Martim Smolka, director del Programa para América Latina y el Caribe del Instituto y otras instituciones asociadas realizan seminarios y programas de capacitación con el propósito de compartir las experiencias adquiridas durante los procedimientos de implementación, posiblemente brindar asistencia en los proyectos piloto y seguir la evolución del experimento colombiano.
Uno de estos programas fue un taller de tres días impartido en marzo y copatrocinado por la Universidad Nacional de Colombia y la Escuela Superior de Administración Pública de Bogotá. El taller comprendía las observaciones formales e informales de un amplio espectro de partes interesadas en el tema, tanto de Colombia como de otros países. Puesto que es obvio que Colombia ha dado un paso atrevido y existen pocos precedentes que sirvan de orientación, los funcionarios públicos responsables de la implementación deben actuar de manera innovadora. En el taller se identificaba un número de posibles complicaciones que pueden presentarse a medida que avanza la implementación.
Aspectos constitucionales: La nueva ley se fundamenta inequívocamente en el artículo 82 de la Constitución de Colombia de 1991, que en sí mismo es un documento sumamente novedoso en muchos aspectos de la reforma de políticas de tierra urbanas. Para expresarlo de forma sencilla, el artículo 82 establece que cuando las acciones urbanísticas aumentan el potencial de desarrollo de la tierra, los ciudadanos tienen el derecho de participar en la plusvalía generada por tales acciones, de manera que se sufrague y distribuya equitativamente el costo del desarrollo urbano.
El debate legal y constitucional tiene dos facetas: 1) ¿Pueden los municipios actuar con base únicamente en la ley o deben esperar hasta que el gobierno nacional decrete “regulaciones” para luego ceñirse a ellas por completo? y 2) ¿debe la ley limitarse a establecer los principios generales comunes, dado que la Constitución de 1991 confiere la responsabilidad de los impuestos territoriales exclusivamente a los municipios?
Efectos prácticos de la sindéresis municipal: En el taller también se señaló que la naturaleza voluntaria de la ley puede tener consecuencias negativas y posiblemente imprevistas. Puesto que es el alcalde de cada municipio quien da inicio a la tasación de la “participación”, puede verse sometido a una presión considerable, tanto financiera como de otra índole. En áreas de rápido desarrollo, una tasa entre el 30 y el 50 por ciento del incremento en el valor de la propiedad puede ser una suma altísima. Un vocero, por ejemplo, aseguró que en Cali el 60 por ciento de las plusvalías generadas por las decisiones de planificación equivalían al monto total del presupuesto municipal. Por otra parte, la ley puede facilitar negociaciones y asociaciones de beneficio mutuo entre los municipios y los promotores inmobiliarios, las cuales no ocurren en este momento.
Cuidado del electorado: El ambiente político que produjo esta valiente legislación abarcaba casos escandalosos de fortunas repentinas que surgieron a raíz del cambio de zonificación en Bogotá y de la decisión de extender el perímetro urbano de Cali. En este último caso, se dijo que el precio de la tierra llegó a multiplicarse, ¡más de mil veces!
Además de la implementación inicial, se plantea la cuestión sempiterna de mantener un electorado que permita la efectiva implementación de dicha ley de cara a la resistencia poderosa y bien financiada que oponen los terratenientes y promotores inmobiliarios privados. Por otra parte, la habilidad de cualquier gobierno nacional que haya aprobado una ley de este tipo es de por sí un logro que despierta interés especial en aquellos que consideran la “recuperación de plusvalías” como un elemento esencial de la política de desarrollo urbano.
Objetividad de los avalúos: A pesar de los procedimientos tan específicos estipulados en la ley con la finalidad de lograr la mayor objetividad y transparencia posibles, no será fácil para el Instituto Codazzi cumplir a cabalidad con el avalúo previo y posterior a la acción urbanística dadas las limitaciones de tiempo que establece la ley. Más aún, las distintas alternativas de transferencia para el pago de las tasas con dinero efectivo, que seguramente gozarán de mayor popularidad, dependen de la apreciación local que se haga de lo que se considera “valor equivalente”. Varios oradores señalaron que este proceso podría ser una invitación a la corrupción.
Aspectos técnicos: Los oradores también hicieron mención a un número de problemas de avalúo técnico con las directrices establecidas en la ley. Por ejemplo, si la zonificación restrictiva hace que un propietario pierda valor de su propiedad, y esto a su vez aumenta el valor de un propietario adyacente, ¿qué disposición puede estipularse para proteger al primer propietario sin dejar de recuperar la plusvalía del segundo? Es más, puesto que el mercado anticipa la acción urbanística, ¿se reflejará ya en el avalúo “previo” el aumento de valor que provoca la probabilidad de la acción? O, si las regulaciones del uso de la tierra o de la construcción aumentan el valor de los propietarios de bajos ingresos con predios o inmuebles pequeños, es posible que éstos no cuenten con el dinero efectivo necesario para pagar las tasas por desarrollo, y a pequeña escala tampoco serían viables las otras modalidades de pago. Esto podría traer como resultado ventas forzadas o el desplazamiento de los habitantes pobres. Estos asuntos plantean un reto para la viabilidad de la política: ¿Es mejor seguir adelante y resolver las dificultades a medida que se presenten o intentar una modificación legislativa de los problemas técnicos antes de proseguir?
Efectos económicos: Aunque legalmente se describe como participación pública en el aumento del valor que generan las acciones urbanísticas, la legislación también puede ser considerada como una forma de impuesto a las ganancias de capital. ¿Con qué frecuencia se aplicará? ¿La implementación tenderá a bajar los precios de las tierras afectadas o será el consumidor final el que absorba los cambios en el valor? Si ocurre esto último, la ley podría tener un efecto negativo sobre las viviendas de precio asequible. Por esta razón el artículo 83 (4) exonera del cobro de la participación a los inmuebles destinados a “viviendas de interés social”, según la definición que de esto hace el gobierno nacional. ¿Se convertirá esto en una ruta de escape para la evasión masiva? Existe poca experiencia internacional para responder estas interrogantes.
Planes de ordenamiento territorial: La Ley 388 de 1997 también estipula que todos los municipios y distritos deben elaborar planes de ordenamiento y proporciona descripciones bastante detalladas de dichos planes en los artículos 9 al 35. Sin duda la planificación altera las expectativas de los propietarios y, por ende, el valor de los inmuebles. La interacción administrativa y económica del proceso de planificación de la ciudad y la recuperación de las plusvalías seguramente será un asunto complejo.
Conflictos en los objetivos: Como suele suceder con los instrumentos fiscales, los nuevos cambios buscan alcanzar varios objetivos que no siempre son compatibles: financiar un mejor desarrollo urbano, reducir la especulación inmobiliaria, darle mayor equidad y carácter progresivo a la tributación y cerrar algunas de las vías predilectas para la corrupción de los funcionarios municipales.
Aprendizaje mediante la innovación
Pese a estas inquietudes, Colombia continúa la tradición de ser una de las naciones más innovadoras del mundo en el campo de la planificación de desarrollo urbano, legislación y finanzas. Bogotá fue la primera ciudad importante del mundo en crear un distrito de zonificación especial que reconocía las realidades de las prácticas de vivienda para sectores de ingresos menores. Con el estímulo producido por las ideas y la influencia del fallecido Lachlin Currie, asesor económico del gobierno nacional durante aproximadamente 30 años, la ciudad utilizó distritos de avalúo especial (llamados contribuciones de valoración) para llevar a cabo una transformación física de envergadura en los años 1960. Las leyes colombianas sobre el desarrollo territorial de 1989 y 1991, modificadas y ampliadas por esta ley de 1997, se encuentran entre los enfoques más integrales de la planificación urbana desde la ley británica para el control del desarrollo urbano promulgada en 1947 (British Town and Country Planning Act of 1947). Asimismo, la constitución colombiana prácticamente es única en mencionar el derecho moral que tienen los ciudadanos a las plusvalías generadas por las acciones urbanísticas.
Como cabría esperarse, algunas de estas innovaciones a la larga no llenarán las expectativas iniciales. De hecho, algunos participantes del taller sostenían que los esfuerzos invertidos en la recuperación de la plusvalía podrían ser de mayor utilidad en el mejoramiento de la eficacia de los impuestos a la propiedad convencionales. Por otra parte, la nueva ley está abordando y resolviendo algunos problemas causados por legislaciones y políticas anteriores, y el país está aprendiendo de esta experiencia. La conclusión de los participantes en el taller fue que el proceso bien ha valido la pena y que la nueva ley debe entenderse y evaluarse comparándola con otros instrumentos para la recuperación de plusvalías establecidos anteriormente y la política fiscal en general.
William A. Doebele es profesor emérito de planificación urbana y diseño en la Escuela de Postrado en Diseño de la Universidad de Harvard y miembro asociado del cuerpo docente del Instituto Lincoln. La preparación de este artículo contó con las valiosas colaboraciones de Martim Smolka, miembro superior de los programas para América Latina, Fernando Rojas, docente invitado del Instituto, y Fernanda Furtado, asociada del cuerpo docente y de investigación del Instituto.
Una versión más actualizada de este artículo está disponible como parte del capítulo 4 del libro Perspectivas urbanas: Temas críticos en políticas de suelo de América Latina.
Las políticas públicas y acciones urbanísticas relacionadas con la vivienda de interés social en Colombia, como en otros países latinoamericanos, se han concentrado en los programas de regularización y mejoras, que en muchos casos están vinculados a la necesidad de fondos para infraestructura. Estos programas también se consideran como el único instrumento paliativo para abordar un problema que parece no tener solución –el desarrollo urbano ilegal (pirata)–, aunque han resultado ser bastante limitados y hasta contraproducentes. En este trabajo presentamos una política alternativa: la aplicación de principios e instrumentos para la gestión del suelo y la participación en plusvalías (participación pública en los incrementos del valor del suelo derivados de las acciones administrativas). Esta política fue establecida en la constitución colombiana y en la Ley 388 de 1997, que estipula que los ingresos provenientes de los incrementos del valor del suelo deben usarse en inversiones sociales.
Operación Urbanística Nuevo Usme es uno de los proyectos estratégicos promovidos por el alcalde de Bogotá Antanas Mockus para resolver el problema de los desarrollos urbanos ilegales. Ubicada en el sureste de la ciudad, la localidad de Usme es una de las áreas más vulnerables a las presiones de la urbanización ilegal; poderosos urbanizadores piratas han dispuesto más de la mitad de las 1.000 hectáreas ya designadas para uso urbano. El mecanismo predominante para este tipo de desarrollo informal, además de las invasiones y los asentamientos humanos ilegales, ha sido la venta de lotes por parte de urbanizadores que compran grandes extensiones de tierra a precio rural y las venden sin redes de servicios públicos ni infraestructura y sin aprobación de la administración pública. Entre las consecuencias negativas de este tipo de desarrollo encontramos precios del suelo relativamente altos y patrones desiguales de ocupación territorial.
Se espera que Usme se extienda e incorpore otras 600 hectáreas de cerros y terrenos ecológicamente frágiles –considerados en gran parte suelo rural–, según el plan maestro de la ciudad (Plan de Ordenamiento Territorial o POT) que fue aprobado en junio de 2000. El gobierno de Bogotá ya ha invertido en sistemas de acueducto y alcantarillado para el área y está ejecutando otros proyectos, entre ellos la ampliación del sistema de transporte público TransMilenio y la construcción de 6.200 viviendas para el sector de bajos ingresos. Además, por iniciativa de organizaciones de ciudadanos, dos grandes áreas –el Parque entre Nubes y el Agroparque Los Soches– han sido designadas en el POT como hitos urbanos locales de gran significado y simbolismo. La primera es un parque grande que marca la transición entre el territorio urbano y el rural, amenazado constantemente por el desarrollo ilegal y la explotación. La segunda, un tipo de zona de amortiguación agrícola, fue creada por una organización campesina que aceptó a sabiendas una reducción en el precio del suelo al cambiar la clasificación del mismo de suburbano a rural, a fin de preservar su carácter agrario. Actualmente esta organización aplica medios alternativos novedosos de gestión de suelo mediante proyectos de conservación ecológica para beneficiar a la ciudad en su conjunto y obstaculizar la amenaza del crecimiento urbano ilegal.
¿Cómo puede la diversidad de elementos, desde la vivienda social hasta el transporte público y la conservación de tierras agrícolas, crear una oportunidad para condiciones de vida sostenible para los habitantes más pobres de la ciudad? ¿Cómo reconciliamos los objetivos de la política urbana y la justicia social? ¿Cómo puede la ciudad impedir que los urbanizadores piratas se aprovechen inmerecidamente de la nueva área de desarrollo de Usme? Este es el desafío que enfrentan el gobierno municipal, las organizaciones de vivienda popular y los residentes del sur de la ciudad.
Mecanismos alternativos para la recuperación de plusvalías
Uno de los temas de debate con respecto a la Ley 388 es el precedente de recuperación de plusvalías en áreas destinadas para viviendas sociales. Las organizaciones de vivienda han buscado exonerar esos suelos de la participación en plusvalías, debido a una frecuente interpretación errónea de la naturaleza del instrumento, según la cual el valor recuperado se transfiere al precio final de la vivienda (véase Smolka y Furtado, página 12). Desde un enfoque diferente, el proyecto Usme está estructurado a partir de varios mecanismos alternativos para la recuperación de plusvalías que van más allá de la función restringida y malinterpretada de un impuesto.
El primer mecanismo consiste simplemente en anunciar el proyecto Usme, puesto que la Ley 388 establece que en caso de adquisición pública de suelo, el valor comercial del mismo (para fines de indemnización) no puede incluir el monto correspondiente a las plusvalías derivadas del proyecto. Esta disposición congela el precio del suelo en su nivel anterior al anuncio del proyecto, por lo que es un instrumento oportuno para reducir el costo del suelo que de otra manera tendría que pagar la administración local para sus propios proyectos de desarrollo urbano.
El segundo mecanismo es el Plan Parcial, un plan para parcelas de desarrollo local que se basa en el principio de reparto equitativo de cargas y beneficios y que la legislación colombiana ha adoptado de la legislación de España. Esta modalidad de reparcelación (o reajuste equitativo del suelo) abarca la distribución de los costos de infraestructura, así como los derechos de desarrollo, y permite que la administración pública obtenga una porción del suelo urbanizado como retribución por su inversión en las obras de desarrollo. Mediante este mecanismo el Municipio de Bogotá obtiene suelo de forma gratuita o por un costo bajo que luego puede destinar para infraestructura o servicios públicos, o para viviendas de interés social.
Un tercer mecanismo es la recuperación de plusvalías, tal como la establece la Ley 388, para la cual se requiere que la Alcaldía Mayor apruebe un acuerdo específico. Si se aprueba el plan de recuperación, el municipio puede recobrar entre el 30% y el 50% del incremento del precio del suelo derivado del cambio en su clasificación de rural a urbano, la autorización para usos más rentables o el incremento de los derechos de desarrollo. Las plusvalías podrían pagarse con suelo, como un porcentaje de participación en el proyecto, en infraestructura o en dinero efectivo. Una vez más, el efecto que se busca es reducir el precio del suelo obtenido por la administración local por el cumplimiento de sus objetivos sociales.
Una alternativa más innovadora consiste en que la administración local o el municipio asigna los derechos de desarrollo del suelo directamente a beneficiarios de pocos ingresos del programa de viviendas. Este ingenioso mecanismo, basado en la separación de los derechos de construcción de los derechos de propiedad, en efecto traslada el equilibrio de fuerzas desde los urbanizadores hacia las familias de pocos ingresos que se residencian en el área y por consecuencia comparten el incremento del valor del suelo generado por el desarrollo. Estos nuevos residentes ahora tienen los derechos sobre la tierra que de otra manera habrían tenido que comprar a urbanizadores piratas que ya no tienen un mercado cautivo para la venta de lotes irregulares a precios altos en anticipación de futuros programas de mejoras.
Al adoptar una actitud activa en la regulación de la ocupación del área mediante la distribución de tales derechos de construcción, el municipio se encuentra en una posición más ventajosa para negociar directamente con los urbanizadores piratas y para emular de alguna manera sus acciones mediante la dotación de suelo urbanizado (“terrenos y servicios”) a precios asequibles. Con este enfoque jurídico el municipio garantiza la dotación de carreteras, redes de servicios públicos, zonas verdes y espacios públicos y recreativos que por lo general los urbanizadores piratas no ofrecen o que los propietarios de tierras rurales no pueden mantener. En síntesis, el procedimiento asigna los derechos de construcción a los habitantes de pocos ingresos que con el tiempo construirán viviendas gracias a sus propios esfuerzos. Al reducir los derechos de construcción del propietario original a través del Plan Parcial, también se reduce el precio del suelo.
Ampliación de la participación en plusvalías
La política de plusvalías que busca recuperar los incrementos del valor del suelo para beneficio público ha sido aceptada en áreas de ingresos altos, donde las rentas públicas se utilizan para subsidiar inversiones sociales en otras localidades. Sin embargo, los urbanizadores piratas suelen encontrar maneras de expropiar estas inversiones en áreas de ingresos bajos mediante las actividades ilegales y clandestinas prevalecientes utilizadas para el acceso y ocupación del suelo. El proyecto Usme representa un intento por trasladar el poder de negociación de la población con respecto a los urbanizadores piratas mediante el diseño de procesos de urbanización alternativos.
La Alcaldía Mayor ya ha hecho un compromiso de facto para aplicar los instrumentos de recuperación de plusvalías, aunque éstos siguen siendo objeto de explicaciones y discusiones dentro del debate general sobre la política de participación en plusvalías. Como ya hemos visto, el principio práctico en que se basa esta política es la separación de los derechos de propiedad de los derechos de construcción. No obstante, esta política afronta una enorme resistencia debido a la tradición jurídica civil de que los derechos unitarios y absolutos están asociados con la tenencia privada de la tierra.
La novedad del programa radica en su potencial para abordar directamente los retos de la urbanización de bajos ingresos. Las expectativas han hecho aumentar el precio de las tierras parceladas ilegalmente en Usme y han propiciado que los urbanizadores piratas “produzcan suelo comercial” mediante la destrucción de comunidades campesinas, la degradación de áreas de importancia ecológica y la ocupación de zonas de riesgo. La tolerancia de tales prácticas llegó a un extremo tal que los precios elevados prevalecientes en las transacciones de estos mercados inmobiliarios –ilegales, en su mayoría– han sido utilizados por la administración local como precio de referencia para determinar la indemnización justa por la adquisición de tierras.
A falta de mecanismos públicos para intervenir en el mercado del suelo, tales como la participación en plusvalías, los propietarios –particularmente los urbanizadores piratas– no sólo han recuperado todos los incrementos del precio derivado del desarrollo urbano, sino que además han tomado bajo control el proceso. La urbanización ilegal resultante es costosa para los ocupantes individuales de dichos asentamientos y para la sociedad como un todo, ya que eleva el costo de los futuros programas de mejoras entre tres y cinco veces, en comparación con el costo de urbanizar suelo no ocupado.
Mediante los mecanismos alternativos mencionados anteriormente, se espera que otras conversiones del uso del suelo, como en el caso de la urbanización de Usme, se hagan más en un entorno político-económico alternativo, en el cual el municipio participe como un regulador activo y socialmente responsable del proceso. Estos proyectos forjarán nexos estrechos entre las políticas de regulación del suelo y las reglas que se aplican para la compra o subasta pública de tierras, para la distribución de los costos de dotación de infraestructura y servicios públicos y para el ejercicio de los derechos de desarrollo. La devolución a la comunidad de las plusvalías derivadas de estos cambios en las regulaciones del desarrollo urbano y las inversiones públicas constituye la manera más eficaz de construir relaciones más democráticas basadas en el ejercicio de una demanda renovada de reforma urbana y el derecho de acceso al suelo.
María Mercedes Maldonado Copello es profesora e investigadora del Centro Interdisciplinario de Estudios Regionales (CIDER) de la Universidad de Los Andes en Bogotá, Colombia. Martim O. Smolka es miembro principal y director del Programa para América Latina y el Caribe del Instituto Lincoln.
