Alan Mallach is a nonresident senior fellow at the Metropolitan Policy Program of the Brookings Institution and a senior fellow at the Center for Community Progress, both in Washington, DC; and a visiting scholar at the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia. He has been engaged as a practitioner, advocate, and scholar in the fields of housing, planning, and community development for nearly 40 years, during which time he has made contributions in many areas including affordable and mixed-income housing development, neighborhood revitalization, and urban regeneration. In 2003 he was named a member of the College of Fellows of the American Institute of Certified Planners in recognition of his lifetime achievements as a leader in the city planning profession.

Mallach is also a visiting professor in the graduate city planning program at Pratt Institute, in New York, and has taught at Rutgers University and the New Jersey School of Architecture. He has published numerous books and articles on housing, community development, and land use; his book Bringing Buildings Back: From Abandoned Properties to Community Assets is recognized as the standard work on the subject. His most recent book, Rebuilding America’s Legacy Cities: New Directions for the Industrial Heartland, was published in 2012 by the American Assembly at Columbia University. He is a resident of Roosevelt, New Jersey, and holds a B.A. degree from Yale College.

Land Lines: How did you become involved with the Lincoln Institute?

Alan Mallach: I have known about the Lincoln Institute for many years, and initially became involved in the 1990s through my work on brownfields redevelopment. Since then, I have served as faculty in a number of training sessions sponsored by the Institute and participated in meetings and conferences at Lincoln House. About seven years ago, Nico Calavita, professor emeritus in the Graduate Program in City Planning at San Diego State University, and I undertook research on inclusionary housing. This project led to the Institute’s 2010 publication of our co-edited book, Inclusionary Housing in International Perspective: Affordable Housing, Social Inclusion, and Land Value Recapture. Most recently, I have been working with Lavea Brachman, executive director of the Greater Ohio Policy Center, on a policy focus report that looks at the issues associated with regenerating America’s legacy cities.

Land Lines: What do you mean by legacy cities?

Alan Mallach: “Legacy cities” is a term that has come into use increasingly to replace “shrinking cities” as a way to describe the nation’s older industrial cities that have lost a significant share of their population and jobs over the past 50 or more years. Iconic American cities such as Pittsburgh, Detroit, and Cleveland are typically mentioned in this context, but the category also includes many smaller cities like Flint, Michigan; Utica, New York; and Scranton, Pennsylvania.

Land Lines: How do the issues of legacy cities engage the Lincoln Institute’s central policy concerns?

Alan Mallach: They do so in many different respects, but I think the strongest connection is around the question of how land is to be used in these cities. All of these cities have had a significant oversupply of both residential and nonresidential buildings relative to demand, at least since the 1960s. As a result of extensive demolition over decades, they have accumulated large inventories of vacant or underutilized land. Detroit alone contains over 100,000 separate vacant land parcels and another 40,000 to 50,000 vacant buildings. While this inventory is a burden, it could also become an enormous asset for the city’s future. How to develop effective strategies to use this land in ways that both benefit the public and stimulate economic growth and market demand is one of the central issues facing these legacy cities.

Land Lines: How would you compare this challenge to your work on inclusionary housing?

Alan Mallach: From an economic standpoint, it’s the other side of the coin. Inclusionary housing is a way of using the planning approval process to channel strong market demand in ways that create public benefit in the form of affordable housing—either directly, by incorporating some number of affordable housing units into the development gaining the approval, or indirectly, through off-site development or cash contributions by the developer. As such, it involves explicitly or implicitly recapturing the incremental land value being created by the planning approval process. Inclusionary housing presupposes the presence of strong market demand and cannot happen without it.

Land reuse strategies in legacy cities seek to create demand where it doesn’t currently exist or alternatively find ways to use the land that benefit the public and can be implemented even under conditions where market demand cannot be induced, at least for the foreseeable future. These approaches are often called “green” land uses, such as urban agriculture, open space, wetlands restoration, or stormwater management. It can be difficult to get local officials and citizens to recognize that the traditional forms of redevelopment, including building new houses, shopping centers, and so forth, require the existence of a market for those products. However, the demand simply does not exist in many of these devastated areas. Moreover, the demand cannot be induced artificially by massive public subsidies, even though public funds can, under certain conditions, act as a stimulus to build demand.

Land Lines: Is lack of demand evident everywhere in legacy cities?

Alan Mallach: No, and that’s one of the most interesting things about these cities. Some cities are seeing demand grow far more than others, but in most cases the revitalization is limited to certain parts of the city. One noticeable trend is that downtown and near-downtown areas, particularly those with strong walkable urban character, such as the Washington Avenue corridor in St. Louis or Cleveland’s Warehouse District, are showing great dynamism, even while many other parts of those two cities are continuing to see population loss and housing abandonment.

Part of this dynamism is driven by walkability and strong urban form (see the new Lincoln Institute book by Julie Campoli, Made for Walking: Density and Neighborhood Form (2012), which examines 12 such walkable neighborhoods and the forces behind their recent popularity). A second important factor is that these areas appeal to a particular demographic—young single individuals and couples. This group is not only increasingly urbanoriented, but is growing in terms of its share of the overall American population.

Land Lines: What other issues are you exploring in your work on legacy cities?

Alan Mallach:I am focusing on two research areas, one more quantitative and one more qualitative. In the first area, I am looking at how many of these cities are going through a pronounced spatial and demographic reconfiguration—a process that is exacerbating the economic disparities between different geographic areas and populations within these cities. While many older city downtowns, such as those of St. Louis, Cleveland, Baltimore, and even Detroit, are becoming increasingly attractive, particularly to young adults, and are gaining population and economic activity, many other neighborhoods in these cities are losing ground at an increasing rate. In many places these trends are accentuating already problematic racial divides.

My second area of research revolves around the question of what it takes to foster successful, sustained regeneration. Lavea Brachman and I touch on this challenge in our policy focus report, but I am hoping to delve into it much more deeply, including looking at some European cities that have found themselves in situations similar to those of American legacy cities. I think the experiences of cities in northern England, for example, or Germany’s Ruhr Valley, parallel changes in our own former industrial cities quite closely.

Land Lines: What do you mean by successful regeneration?

Alan Mallach: That’s a very important question. I think there’s often a tendency to see a particular event—the Olympics in Barcelona or a major building like the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, Spain, for example—as evidence of regeneration, rather than, at best, a discrete spur to more substantial change. I believe that regeneration has to be a function of change in three fundamental areas: first, the well-being of the population, reflected in such measures as higher educational attainment and income or lower unemployment; second, a stronger housing market and greater neighborhood strength; and third, the creation of new export-oriented economic sectors to replace the lost industrial sector. Population growth alone (that is, reversal of historic population decline) may or may not be evidence of regeneration. It is more likely to follow these three changes rather than lead them.

Land Lines: What do you see as the future of America’s legacy cities?

Alan Mallach: I see a very mixed picture. As shown in the policy focus report, certain cities are doing far better than others. Pittsburgh and Philadelphia are showing strong signs of revival, while Cleveland, Detroit, and Buffalo are still losing ground. I think legacy cities are facing two daunting challenges as they look to the future.

The first issue is what the new economic engines of these cities will be. The cities that have been more successful up to now tend to have the most significant clusters of major national research universities and medical centers. These institutions tend to dominate their cities’ economies. While they have helped cities like Pittsburgh and Baltimore rebuild in the post-industrial era, I think a lot of questions remain about their sustainability as long-term economic engines.

The second question is demographic. Downtowns may be drawing young, single people and couples, but many of these cities’ residential neighborhoods were built around 100 years ago as communities mainly for married couples to raise children. Now they are falling apart, including many neighborhoods that have remained stable until relatively recently. This demographic of married couples with children is shrinking across the country and even more so in our older cities. Today, only 8 percent of the households in Baltimore, for example, fit this description. I believe that the future of these neighborhoods is very important to the future of their cities, and I am very concerned about their prospects.

Land Lines: In spite of these challenges, how do you think your work is making a difference?

Alan Mallach: The fact is, many cities are making progress. Pittsburgh has done an excellent job building on its assets to develop new economic engines, while Baltimore and Philadelphia are making impressive strides in reorganizing many of their governmental functions to better deal with their vacant and problem property challenges. Baltimore, for example, has initiated a program called Vacants to Value, which integrates code enforcement and problem property work with larger market-building strategies. I have been fortunate to be directly involved in this work in some cities, including Philadelphia and Detroit; elsewhere, I’m always gratified when local officials or community leaders tell me that they use my work, or that they have been influenced by my thinking. It makes all the effort very much worthwhile.

En mis tiempos de becario en la Universidad de Cambridge, durante la década de 1990, mi colega y amigo Wynne Godley, que ya no está entre nosotros, pasaba a buscarme los domingos para llevarme a una de las iglesias medievales de las que pueden verse en todo lugar en los pueblos de East Anglia. Wynne decía frecuentemente que “una iglesia es más un proceso que un edificio. Se desarrolla a lo largo de los siglos e involucra a generaciones de familias en su construcción y mantenimiento”. Wynne tenía buen ojo para los detalles arquitectónicos, por lo que podía señalar un contrafuerte o un campanario que ilustraba la práctica de una técnica específica, el uso de materiales fuera de lo común, o ambos. Una sola iglesia ofrecía un registro vivo y estratificado de la forma en que cada generación en una comunidad resolvía el desafío de construir y mantener grandes espacios cerrados y abiertos que posibilitaran la belleza del culto.

En este sentido, las ciudades tienen mucho de iglesias medievales. A medida que transcurre el tiempo, las ciudades ilustran la colaboración de generaciones de residentes, así como también la evolución de las herramientas económicas, técnicas e, incluso, sociales que se utilizaron para construirlas y mantenerlas. Las reliquias de mármol que encontramos en Roma son un testimonio vivo de la estética y los valores antiguos y de la ingenuidad en la construcción, mientras que la ciudad moderna florece a su alrededor. El icónico horizonte de Manhattan, en apariencia inmóvil, en realidad fluye constantemente y hoy en día evoluciona en forma radical a fin de responder a las demandas de sustentabilidad, resiliencia, desarrollos mixtos y otras cuestiones del siglo 21.

Los límites de las ciudades también evolucionan y narran otra historia de importancia crucial. Es posible que el futuro de nuestro planeta dependa de nuestra capacidad de comprender dicha historia y desarrollar las herramientas y la voluntad colectiva necesarias para gestionar el patrón y la progresión del crecimiento urbano. Shlomo (Solly) Angel documenta esta trayectoria en el Atlas of Urban Expansion (Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 2012), en el que se utilizan imágenes satelitales captadas a lo largo de décadas con el fin de llevar un registro de la evolución espacial de 120 ciudades en todo el mundo, desde Bamako y Guadalajara hasta Shangai y Milán. El último medio siglo de crecimiento urbano ha proporcionado un cuento con moraleja sobre la seducción de la expansión urbana descontrolada, un camino sin mucha resistencia que genera beneficios económicos de forma rápida pero cuyo desarrollo es poco sustentable. Nuestra capacidad para controlar la huella ecológica que dejamos y minimizar nuestro impacto a nivel mundial estará estrechamente relacionada con nuestra capacidad para planificar y construir asentamientos humanos más densos y eficientes. En vista de la predicción de las Naciones Unidas en cuanto a una población urbana mundial que casi se duplicará para llegar a las 6 mil millones de personas en el año 2050, la suerte del planeta dependerá de si los humanos, como especie, podremos adoptar un paradigma de desarrollo más apropiado en este medio siglo por venir.

A medida que nos esforzamos en reinventar nuestros asentamientos urbanos, nos enfrentaremos a un viejo enemigo: el suelo que ya ha recibido mejoras y desarrollo pero que debe adaptarse a usos nuevos. Aunque no desconocemos este proceso tan polémico, podemos decir que todavía no hemos logrado descifrar el código para gestionarlo. En este número de Land Lines analizamos algunas de las necesidades impulsoras que requerirán enfoques creativos para el redesarrollo en diferentes ciudades y contextos: cómo cubrir la demanda insatisfecha de vivienda que lleva a millones de trabajadores en Beijing a habitar en viviendas subterráneas; cómo financiar la infraestructura para gestionar la presión de la población en Río de Janeiro y otras ciudades de Brasil; o cómo darle nuevos usos al suelo ante la agonía derivada de un completo ajuste industrial, demográfico y fiscal en Detroit. Estos lugares son diferentes entre sí, pero todos enfrentarán desafíos similares a medida que evolucionen en las décadas futuras.

En el Instituto Lincoln somos profundamente conscientes de la necesidad de nuevas ideas y nuevas prácticas que faciliten el redesarrollo sustentable del suelo que ya se ha desarrollado o ya se encuentra ocupado. Durante el próximo año, comenzaremos a generar un emprendimiento intelectual para tratar los múltiples desafíos de la regeneración urbana, extrayendo lecciones de las medidas tomadas tiempo atrás en los Estados Unidos y en otros países desarrollados después de la Segunda Guerra Mundial, buscando maneras nuevas y creativas de financiar la infraestructura para mejorar el suelo en asentamientos informales que ahogan a las ciudades en los países en vías de desarrollo, o reavivando la salud fiscal de ciudades tradicionales del acervo estadounidense, como Detroit, descubriendo las causas que provocaron la insolvencia y probando soluciones para remediarla.

Las iglesias medievales que visité durante la década de 1990 ofrecían lecciones en piedra: técnicas y materiales innovadores que permitían a los arquitectos medievales desafiar a la gravedad. Y tal vez lo que resulta más importante es el hecho de que eran monumentos al esfuerzo comunitario y al compromiso a largo plazo de las congregaciones que construyeron y sostuvieron estas iglesias durante siglos. Al fin y al cabo, la supervivencia humana podría depender de nuestra habilidad para superar, de forma similar, las fuerzas centrípetas que socavan la acción colectiva, y construir y mantener las estructuras sociales y los marcos normativos con el fin de desarrollar y redesarrollar nuestras ciudades para el bien mutuo y para la posteridad.

El acceso universal a internet de alta velocidad es un sueño generalizado en estos tiempos. Todos, desde el presidente de Google, Inc. hasta cualquiera de nosotros, lo hemos anhelado. Y la prensa tecnológica se inunda de irritadas críticas, preguntándose por qué las velocidades de banda ancha habituales en los Estados Unidos están tan retrasadas con respecto a las que existen, por ejemplo, en Corea del Sur.

Sin embargo, hace sólo cinco años este no era un tema candente. En aquel entonces, el debate (y las acciones) no era liderado por el gobierno federal o el sector privado. Los primeros en movilizarse fueron diversos municipios con un pensamiento innovador: ciudades y distritos como Chattanooga, Tennessee; Lafayette, Louisiana; Sandy, Oregón; y Opelika, Alabama.

De más está decir que los motivos y las soluciones eran variadas. No obstante, ahora que la conectividad de alta velocidad se está reconociendo como una infraestructura urbana fundamental, Chattanooga se ha convertido en un caso de estudio muy útil. El proceso por el cual llegó a autodenominarse “gigaciudad” (en referencia a la disponibilidad de conexiones a Internet con velocidades de transferencia de datos de 1 gigabit por segundo, es decir, hasta 200 veces más rápidas que la velocidad habitual de banda ancha que tienen muchos estadounidenses) comenzó con una iniciativa municipal visionaria desarrollada mediante una meditada coordinación entre el sector público y el privado. Recientemente esta medida ha comenzado incluso a mostrar efectos tangibles en la planificación y el desarrollo de la ciudad, especialmente la nueva imagen que se le está dando al centro de la ciudad, rezagado durante tanto tiempo. En resumen, Chattanooga está comenzando a responder a una pregunta crucial: Una vez que una ciudad tiene acceso a Internet de primera clase, ¿qué hace en realidad con ello?

Esta historia comienza hace más de una década, cuando EPB, la empresa de energía eléctrica propiedad de la ciudad de Chattanooga, planificaba una mejora importante en su red eléctrica. El director ejecutivo de EPB, Harold Depriest, abogaba por un plan que consistía en el despliegue de cables de fibra óptica que también pudieran usarse para el acceso a Internet. Una vez eliminados los obstáculos normativos locales, el nuevo sistema se construyó hacia el año 2010, y cada cliente de energía eléctrica de EPB en el área de Chattanooga (lo que significó prácticamente todos los hogares y negocios) obtuvo acceso a Internet de 1 gigabit. Sin embargo, había que pagar por este servicio, al igual que se pagaba la electricidad, y el precio que se estableció al principio para el acceso a la velocidad más rápida de Internet fue de aproximadamente US$350 al mes.

“Tenían muy, muy pocos clientes”, recuerda Ken Hays, presidente de The Enterprise Center, una organización sin fines de lucro que, desde el año 2014, se ha enfocado (a petición de los funcionarios municipales electos) en desarrollar estrategias en torno a lo que los habitantes de Chattanooga denominan “el giga”. Según Hays, el presidente de Lamp Post Group, una exitosa empresa de capital de riesgo dedicada a la tecnología, expresó su adhesión inmediatamente. Sin embargo, a nivel ciudadano, “no teníamos el mismo entusiasmo” que el debate sobre el acceso a Internet de 1 giga genera hoy en día. En 2010 “no había muchos buenos casos de estudio”, concluye Hays.

Sin embargo, un gran cambio estaba en marcha. El anuncio de Google Fiber (la incursión del gigante de las búsquedas en Internet en el desarrollo de infraestructura de Internet de alta velocidad) despertó nuevo interés. Además, en el año 2013, Jenny Toomey, directora de la Fundación Ford que se dedica a los derechos en Internet, ayudó a organizar una especie de cumbre para que los funcionarios de municipios como Chattanooga, Lafayette y otras ciudades pudieran reunirse y comparar notas. “Todavía era muy incipiente en ese momento”, recuerda George W. McCarthy, presidente y director ejecutivo del Instituto Lincoln y economista, quien, en ese entonces, era director de la iniciativa Oportunidad Metropolitana de la Fundación Ford. Sin embargo, según McCarthy, esa cumbre marcó el inicio de nuevas conversaciones sobre la forma en que tales iniciativas podrían hacer más competitivas y equitativas a las ciudades, así como también menos dependientes de las soluciones que provienen exclusivamente del sector privado y que, con frecuencia, consideramos más eficientes que las ofrecidas por el gobierno. “Y dos años después de esa cumbre, el tema acaba de explotar”, concluye McCarthy.

De hecho, la cumbre se convirtió en ese tipo de acontecimiento extraño que dio a luz a una nueva organización, Next Century Cities, fundada en 2014 y que actualmente posee una membresía de más de 100 municipios. Esta organización comparte las buenas prácticas basadas en un plan según el cual el acceso a Internet de alta velocidad es una cuestión de infraestructura fundamental e independiente que las comunidades pueden y deben controlar y diseñar.

Contra este telón de fondo, Chattanooga estaba tomando medidas para demostrar cómo podría aprovecharse “el giga”. The Lamp Post Group se había trasladado al centro de la ciudad y el acceso a Internet de alta velocidad era sólo el comienzo para los jóvenes emprendedores y especialistas en tecnología que deseaba atraer. “Si no tenemos opciones de vivienda, si no tenemos un espacio abierto, si no tenemos cafeterías de moda… se irán a ciudades que sí los tengan”, señala Kim White, presidente y director ejecutivo de River City Company, una organización de desarrollo sin fines de lucro.

A partir de 2013, River City propuso, mediante un plan para el centro de la ciudad y un estudio de mercado, estrategias para mejorar la accesibilidad a peatones y ciclistas, los espacios verdes y, en especial, las opciones de vivienda. Más de 600 personas participaron en el proceso de planificación posterior, el cual tuvo como meta final la revitalización (o demolición) de 22 edificios. Hoy en día, según White, la mitad de dichos edificios están en proceso de redesarrollo y se han invertido más de 400 millones de dólares en el centro de la ciudad. En el próximo año y medio se incorporarán 1.500 apartamentos al mercado de la zona del centro, además de nuevas viviendas para estudiantes y plazas de hotel. La ciudad ha ofrecido incentivos fiscales, algunos de los cuales se han diseñado con el fin de que un cierto porcentaje de las nuevas viviendas sea económicamente asequible. La ciudad también invirtió 2,8 millones de dólares en un parque en el centro de la ciudad, que representa una parte “clave” del plan para “ofrecer áreas donde la gente pueda reunirse y disfrutar del espacio público”, según señala White. Uno de los proyectos de apartamentos, el edificio Tomorrow, ofrecerá “microunidades” y un restaurante a pie de calle. “No creo que hubiéramos podido atraer estos tipos de negocios ni la curiosidad de los jóvenes” sin el empuje brindado por el aspecto tecnológico y de acceso a Internet de alta velocidad, concluye White. “Esto nos ha dado a conocer”.

Según Hays, el giga también inspiró una iniciativa respaldada por el municipio, consistente en identificar estrategias clave de desarrollo que dieron como resultado un “distrito innovador” en el centro de la ciudad impulsado por Enterprise Center. El fundamento de esta iniciativa consiste en restaurar un edificio de oficinas de 10 pisos para transformarlo en el Centro de Innovación Edney, que tendrá espacios de trabajo compartido y alojará a la sede de CO.LAB., una organización incubadora de negocios locales. La Universidad de Tennessee en Chattanooga tiene un proyecto consistente en un laboratorio de impresoras 3D en el distrito innovador; incluso se ha remodelado la oficina del centro de la Biblioteca Pública de Chattanooga, para incluir un espacio educativo tecnocéntrico.

EPB, cuya visión original de la fibra óptica puso en movimiento la idea de la gigaciudad, ya hace tiempo que ha logrado dar con una solución respecto a los precios (en la actualidad, el acceso a Internet de velocidad de 1 giga cuesta desde aproximadamente US$70 al mes) y ha atraído a más de 70.000 clientes. Desde hace poco también ofrece a los residentes de bajos recursos que reúnan ciertos requisitos acceso a Internet de 100 megabit, mucho más rápido que la mayoría de las conexiones de banda ancha disponibles en los Estados Unidos, por US$27 al mes. Además, las acciones de EPB para expandirse a las áreas adyacentes a Chattanooga que no reciben servicios se han convertido en un componente importante de las medidas más amplias que están surgiendo para desafiar las normas en muchos estados, desde Texas a Minnesota o Washington, las cuales limitan efectivamente a los municipios a la hora de ofrecer sus propias conexiones a Internet de alta velocidad.

En resumen: las cosas han cambiado mucho, tanto en Chattanooga como en otras ciudades y distritos que han impulsado el desarrollo de una infraestructura de Internet que el sector privado no estaba ofreciendo. “La mayor parte de este trabajo se está dando en este mismo momento a nivel municipal”, comenta Deb Socia, directora de Next Century Cities. “Son los alcaldes, los administradores municipales y los gerentes de sistemas los que están tomando medidas para averiguar qué necesitan sus ciudades”. Las implicaciones que esto tiene para cuestiones cívicas fundamentales como la educación, la salud, la seguridad, etc. todavía están en pleno desarrollo. Y, precisamente debido a que el debate y la planificación se están dando a nivel municipal, esta cuestión no dependerá solamente de consideraciones de mercado que favorecen lo redituable sobre lo posible. “Lo mejor de esto”, resume McCarthy, “es que se trata de una cuestión integradora, no excluyente”.

Rob Walker (robwalker.net) es colaborador de Design Observer y The New York Times.

The richness and multidimensional nature of the Lincoln Institute’s educational program is well demonstrated by the seminars, courses and lectures offered at Lincoln House recently. We are proud that the Institute is playing a significant role in helping scholars and practitioners from throughout the United States and around the world to clarify the issues and their own positions on complex land and tax policies.

In late May, Armando Carbonell, cochairman of the Institute’s Department of Planning and Development, and Harvey Jacobs, professor of planning at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, assembled a group of leading scholars to discuss the changing nature of property rights in the twenty-first century. This topic has taken a prominent place in local debates around the U.S., and the Supreme Court is regularly asked to review property rights cases. Property rights and land tenure issues are also increasingly important in many contexts around the world. In rapidly growing cities in developing countries, for example, new calls for constitutional changes seek to ensure rights for the poor.

In another arena, the Institute continues to provide training for journalists who cover land use and property tax issues. We are all aware of the significant role that journalists play in informing the public on a variety of topics, yet most journalists are by training generalists rather than specialists. Our programs are designed to provide valuable background material and resources on land use and taxation issues to inform their work. Following the seminar on property rights, Carbonell and Jacobs reviewed the key themes of that debate with an invited group of 28 journalists who spent two days at Lincoln House. This course also included presentations by Joan Youngman, chairman of the Institute’s Department of Valuation and Taxation, and Bob Schwab, an economist at the University of Maryland, on the interplay between property taxation and school finance. Rosalind Greenstein, cochairman of the Institute’s Department of Planning and Development, and John Landis, professor of planning at the University of California, Berkeley, detailed the policy concerns related to sprawling patterns of development in California and other regions.

Training practitioners continues to be another major focus of our courses and seminars. We regularly provide training for transportation planners, state and regional planning officials, community development corporation directors, and professionals in urban universities who are responsible for real estate and community development. Martim Smolka, director of the Institute’s Latin America Program, brought 23 policy makers and academics from 12 Latin America countries to examine the opportunities and pitfalls of large-scale urban developments. Finally, as part of our Lincoln Lecture Series, Anthony Vickers, the former president of the Henry George Foundation of Great Britain, presented a talk on the prospects for land value taxation in Great Britain.

Lincoln House is a busy place. We believe we are making a difference in many different ways—training a broad cross-section of scholars, educators, journalists and practitioners in land and tax policy, and providing a forum for public debate. We look forward to the new academic year that begins in July, and hope you will find a way to share this experience with us.

Since its inception just over a year ago, the Northeast State Planning (NESP) Leadership Retreat has been a valuable professional development tool for state planners from Maine to Maryland. This collaboration between Lincoln Institute and Regional Plan Association (RPA) brings together high-level state officials to discuss current state planning issues. After only two annual meetings the participants from 11 northeast states already have implemented ideas discussed with their peers, and a few states have initiated and built smart growth planning and community development schemes inspired by this interstate exchange.

At the second retreat held in March 2000, the participants shared new ideas and success stories, addressed “the do’s and don’ts” of building state planning programs, and took steps toward establishing an economic development program for the northeast corridor. They compared state growth management initiatives in the Northeast to those occurring in the rest of the country, and traded caveats and suggestions on how to sustain political support in the face of a changing economy, bipartisan politics and conflicting interests.

Smart Growth Across the Nation

According to John M. DeGrove, Eminent Scholar of Growth Management and Development at Florida Atlantic University, a new and bipartisan commitment to smart growth is developing across the United States. No longer is the nation enshrouded in a “no-planning” or “planning in isolation” mindset by state and local governments.

As the keynote speaker at the retreat, DeGrove outlined prerequisite factors crucial to a sustainable smart growth program. A primary realization is that the protection of natural systems and the revitalization of urban systems on a local level should happen concurrently with support and coordination from state agencies. Executive leadership can strengthen state legislative initiatives and is usually crucial to program development and implementation. The involvement of diverse coalitions can also be critical in accelerating a smart growth agenda at the state level.

For a progressive smart growth program to survive, there must be an impetus to place growth management in a state or regional framework bolstered by strong incentives and disincentives. State actions linked to federal programs-TEA 21, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the possible renewed funding of the Land and Water Conservation Fund-can enhance the success of strategic, comprehensive planning. Finally, bottom-up coalition building, grassroots efforts, and state agency coordination should be used in place of or in conjunction with top-down approaches. Experiences in Maryland and Pennsylvania have shown that such processes are effective.

Patricia Salkin, associate dean and director of the Government Law Center of Albany Law School in New York, is also at the forefront of growth management research. She has compiled and analyzed information about state planning programs across the country, citing gubernatorial support and legislative reforms as the primary factors driving smart growth programs. She reported that gubernatorial support is generally strong in the Northeast and is growing in such states as Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Minnesota, North Carolina, Utah and Wisconsin.

Salkin mentioned three main categories of legislative reform: 1) recodification and tightening of existing laws, 2) authorization for innovative and flexible controls, and 3) major overhauls. As examples, Oklahoma’s Senate Bill 1151 created a Planning and Land Use Legislative Study Task Force to evaluate the effectiveness of current laws, review model legislation, and identify public information needs; California’s Assembly Bill 1575, encourages innovative land use policies such as unified county plans; and Tennessee is undertaking a study to overhaul its planning and growth management framework and replace it with a smart growth program.

Sustaining Political Support

Sustaining political support for smart growth plans is a challenging task. Bipartisan politics, influential lobbying interests, changes in administration, and home rule are just a few of the most commonly mentioned obstacles to comprehensive, regional programs that address urban, suburban, rural and conservation issues. Arguably, the current strong economy may be facilitating smart growth incentives as many states, especially in the Northeast, offer monetary and capital rewards to municipalities whose policies are consistent with state and regional plans.

A number of common practices on this topic were outlined at the retreat. State agencies such as the office of planning or the department of community affairs may develop coalitions with entities other than fellow state agencies, especially if the “state” is seen as a meddling force in local issues. Some success stories tell of coalition building with elder communities, religious leaders and faith-based communities. Others have tried the silent partner approach in a public/private venture. Most importantly, the political force of local voices can be potent in getting local officials, state congressional representatives and agencies involved.

One key area that requires cautious handling is the presentation and dissemination of information. When plans move from general to specific, care must be taken to allow a broad range of interests to perceive personal and community benefits at the present time and through continued participation in the future. The use of proper terminology is also crucial. For example, in a politically driven world, executives may strive to separate themselves from counterparts with original ideas and phraseology. A state can gain distinction by interchanging the prevalent term “smart growth” with “community preservation,” or “locally designated growth areas” with “urban growth boundaries.”

Political support also can be sustained by creating educational programs to address the planning needs of a community. Training and curricula can be developed for elected public officials and for citizens appointed to planning boards, board of appeals and historic preservation committees. Some efforts have even begun to institutionalize planning studies at the elementary, middle and high school levels. Stamford, Connecticut, for example, is engaged in a program modeled after the recycling movement to encourage school children to bring home planning issues and initiate their family’s involvement in the development and growth of their communities.

Revitalizing the Northeast Corridor

Numerous areas around the globe have adopted the regional corridor concept of economic development. Major capital campaigns are in the process of feasibility analysis or implementation in such diverse locations as California’s San Francisco to San Diego corridor and China’s Beijing to Shanghai corridor. Representatives from several northeast states reported that they are working collaboratively to encourage the economic development of their corridor. Transportation, especially the utilization of rail, is an essential component of the strategy to move goods and people more efficiently throughout the Northeast. Of particular interest is linking the economies of mid-sized cities with the region’s megalopolis anchors-Washington, DC, New York and Boston. The intermediary cities include Providence, RI; Hartford, New Haven, Bridgeport and Stamford, CT; Newark and Trenton, NJ; Philadelphia, PA; Baltimore, MD; and Wilmington, DE.

This planning group, led by the Regional Plan Association, will create a vision and mission statement for the project and then conduct an economic analysis to quantify the benefits. Once a plan is formulated, its cost will be calculated and a timeline will detail the phasing-in of each segment. The participants will then begin an outreach effort to gain backing from various state and local officials, as well as advocacy groups and community representatives. Amtrak, the main source of passenger rail in the corridor, plans to have its high-speed regional train service on-line in late 2000, and a number of partnerships could evolve from the already active advocacy efforts of several groups, such as the National Corridors Initiative/NCI, the I-95 Corridor Coalition, and the Coalition of Northeastern Governors (CONEG). A diverse coalition of business, civic and nonprofit organizations may be instrumental in advancing a regional economic development instrument.

A Southeastern Massachusetts Case Study

The planning retreat culminated with an exercise that looked at the rural southeastern region of Massachusetts where the Commonwealth and the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs (EOEA) are planning to cultivate a bioreserve. Now in its initial stages, this program seeks to preserve vast tracts of valuable land, including forests and wetlands, and curb haphazard and uncoordinated development. The area of concern is the largest high-yield, sole-source aquifer in Massachusetts, with close to 70,000 acres of cranberry bogs, areas of endangered habitat, and a cluster of pine barrens. The Commonwealth is exploring various avenues to preserve these natural resources.

Through a statewide Community Preservation Initiative, the Commonwealth has begun to provide technical assistance to towns in the region by helping them forecast their commercial/industrial buildouts based on current zoning and population estimates. The EOEA hopes this information will help the communities make better decisions regarding future development and put this knowledge to use on a cooperative regional level to create beneficial growth plans for all nearby cities and towns.

The participants emphasized three considerations that specifically addressed the issues raised by the EOEA, and that are transferable to other regional planning initiatives. First, negotiated processes, whether between state government and a municipality, between municipalities, or between a community and a state agency, are effective in consensus building and cutting costs. Investing in consensus building at the beginning of the planning process can preclude litigation costs and the costs of stalled development due to community opposition. Second, technical assistance must be provided in a manner that keeps communities engaged throughout the entire analysis stage. Engagement increases support for the results and demystifies the “technical experience,” thus giving a sense of empowerment and control to those most affected by the final plan. Finally, local government involvement is key to any planning process, since local officials usually have their fingers on the pulse of community vitality and needs, and can use that knowledge to ensure effective programs.

Alternatively, participants mentioned a few pitfalls that need to be avoided in the context of this southeastern Massachusetts case. The original mapping of the bioreserve maximized the layout of open spaces and land in need of protection. However, in the desire to classify maximum acreage for protection, some new boundaries would have cut through municipalities, leaving the potential of an insider/outsider dichotomy. In areas where home rule is a coveted prize, as in Massachusetts towns, government programs are often met with suspicion and resistance. Further, if state government presents an agenda for preservation with lines drawn and boundaries sited without local input, communities will often react adversely to any plans, regardless of the goodwill and intent of the program. The ideal action to preclude these problems is to offer technical assistance to achieve through collaboration the preservation that the state ultimately wants. Preferably, the entire municipality should be represented in any regional framework for southeastern Massachusetts to facilitate inter- and intra-muncipal support for the desired program.

In conclusion, the discussions at the Second Annual NESP Retreat offered a great deal of insight into the experiences of the 11 states represented. Though they share a common geographic location, they have taken many approaches to address future growth and development. The retreat offered instructive lessons on the common theories, practices and principles that are useful in building a diverse array of programs appropriate to each state’s local conditions, and it underscored the value of continuing such meetings.

Robert D. Yaro is executive director and Raymond R. Janairo is senior research associate of the Regional Plan Association, based in New York City.

Cuba is a striking country. Its historic capital city of Havana boasts 400 years of architectural heritage. Many areas are in a state of sad decay but some represent very creative approaches to preservation and economic development. Because of the focus on rural development after the 1959 revolution, Cuba did not experience the same kind of popular migration from the countryside to the cities as did other parts of Latin America. What modern redevelopment did occur happened largely outside the historic core of Havana. The good news is that the city’s architectural heritage is still standing; the bad news is that it is just barely standing.

Architects and planners in Cuba are struggling with the basic tasks of improving infrastructure and housing while encouraging economic development appropriate to their socialist vision. They are developing models of neighborhood transformation through local organizing and self-help programs, and are creating models of “value capture” in the process of historic preservation and tourism development.

Through connections with the Group for the Integrated Development of the Capital (Grupo para el Desarrollo Integral de la Capital, GDIC), nine environmental design professionals traveled to Cuba in June to explore the issues of decay and innovation in the built and natural environment. The team included nine of the eleven 1997-98 Loeb Fellows from the Harvard University Graduate School of Design.

The Loeb Fellowship in Advanced Environmental Studies was established in 1970 through the generosity of Harvard alumnus John L. Loeb. The Fellowship annually awards ten to twelve leaders in the design and environmental professions with support for a year of independent study at Harvard University. A recent tradition of the Fellowship program is for the Fellows to take a trip together at the end of the academic year, to solidify their ties developed over the year, explore a new environment together, and share their knowledge and expertise with others.

The Loeb Fellows who traveled to Cuba have a variety of interests that together represent a cross-section of the environmental design professions:

• Charles Birnbaum, a landscape architect who advocates the preservation of significant landscapes.
• Toni Griffin, an architect concerned with economic and community development in urban neighborhoods.
• Pamela Hawkes, an architect specializing in historic preservation.
• Daniel Hernandez, an architect who creates affordable housing.
• Leonard McGee, a community leader who works to transform and improve inner-city communities.
• Julio Peterson, a community developer interested in economic development in inner cities and developing countries.
• Peter Pollock, a city planner who specializes in growth management issues.
• Anne Raver, a journalist interested in people’s relationship with the natural environment.
• Jean Rogers, an environmental engineer and planner who focuses on ameliorating the impacts of industrialization on the environment.

The Fellows were hosted in Havana by GDIC, which was created in 1987 as a small, interdisciplinary team of experts advising the city government on urban policies. “The group intended since its very beginning to promote a new model for the built environment that would be less imposing, more decentralized and participatory, ecologically sound and economically feasible-in short, holistically sustainable,” according to Mario Coyula, an architect, planner and vice-president of GDIC. He and his GDIC colleagues put together a series of informative seminars and tours for the Fellows in Havana, and made arrangements for them to visit planners and designers in the cities of Las Terrazas, Matanzas, and Trinidad.

Several foundations and groups lent support to the project: the Arca Foundation, the William Reynolds Foundation, the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, the Loeb Fellowship Alumni Association, and the Harvard University Graduate School of Design Loeb Fellowship Program. Each Loeb Fellow will write an essay on a relevant area of research and its relationship to conditions in Cuba. These papers will be compiled and made available to GDIC, Harvard University and potentially to others through publication in a journal or special report.

Peter Pollock is director of community planning for the city of Boulder, Colorado. In 1997-98 he was a Loeb Fellow at Harvard and a visiting fellow at the Lincoln Institute.

Una versión más actualizada de este artículo está disponible como parte del capítulo 6 del libro Perspectivas urbanas: Temas críticos en políticas de suelo de América Latina.

Hoy en día la mayoría de los países de América Latina son más urbanos que rurales y están tratando de desarrollar sus economías como partes integrales del mercado global. Este proceso introduce profundos cambios culturales y espaciales tales como mayor segregación y conflictos sobre el uso del suelo urbano.

Es sabida la necesidad de fortalecer la conciencia ciudadana sobre la liberalización de los mercados y la pérdida de protagonismo del Estado en los esquemas de economía y planificación. Este cambio en el papel del Estado —de “proveedor” a “facilitador”— crea un vacío en las necesidades sociales urbanas. Los participantes sugirieron tres abordajes para poder mejorar la gestión del suelo urbano y la igualdad social de manera simultánea.

Primero que todo, utilizar herramientas básicas para establecer y apoyar los sistemas de información urbana: un mecanismo de monitoreo con capacidad para identificar datos de agentes y transacciones, incluidos los precios del suelo; conocimiento de los “ciclos de vida” de las zonas urbanas; y modelos de predicción que permitan establecer la relación entre las economías municipales y nacionales y el mercado de bienes raíces.

En segundo lugar, instituir políticas urbanas que equilibren los mecanismos de mercado existentes, que suelen ser contradictorios. Por ejemplo, es difícil liberalizar los mercados y al mismo tiempo imponer límites en la expansión urbana cuando se intenta ofrecer suministros de suelo adecuados para satisfacer las necesidades de la población pobre trabajadora.

Tercero, reconocer y dar apoyo a las acciones positivas de grupos comunitarios y organizaciones no gubernamentales que se propongan combatir los patrones de segregación de clases, como también a los intentos municipales de utilizar instrumentos como reservas territoriales, mecanismos de financiamiento progresivos y mejoras en los procedimientos administrativos y fiscales.

Uno de los mayores problemas de la planificación territorial en América Latina es encontrar el “borde” de la ciudad, especialmente cuando la tenencia y ocupación del suelo responden a la necesidad social, más que a la ley. Entre las formas de propiedad urbana que funcionan fuera de los reglamentos comerciales está la tierra mantenida bajo el sistema de ejido , que ocupa más del 50 por ciento del territorio mexicano y forma parte de las zonas metropolitanas más importantes. El ejido dificulta el crecimiento natural del mercado de bienes raíces y propicia la expansión de mercados secundarios (informales) descontrolados.

Estos y otros temas afines concentraron la discusión en una reunión que tuvo lugar en México en el mes de abril. En ella, peritos y personalidades académicas compartieron sus puntos de vista sobre los procesos que afectan el orden territorial urbano y los instrumentos disponibles y necesarios para poder lograr una intervención pública eficaz, conducente al logro de objetivos de igualdad social y planificación territorial. Si bien los participantes del seminario manifestaron sus inquietudes por el efecto a largo plazo de la globalización en América Latina, también reconocieron que el escenario de acción, al menos durante los años venideros, será a nivel municipal más que a nivel nacional.

Sobre los autores

Luis Fernando Alvarez es investigador principal del Centro de Estudios Metropolitanos, Centro Universitario de Arte, Arquitectura y Diseño de la Universidad de Guadalajara, México.

William J. Siembieda es profesor de planificación de la Escuela de Arquitectura y Planificación de la Universidad de Nuevo México. El seminario sobre temas de suelo urbano y reserva territorial fue copatrocinado por el Instituto Lincoln y por el Centro de Estudios Metropolitanos en la Universidad de Guadalajara.

In their new book, Land Use in America, copublished by the Lincoln Institute and Island Press, Henry L. Diamond and Patrick F. Noonan propose a 10-point agenda to help America’s communities accommodate future growth in more environmentally sound and fiscally responsible ways.

Diamond is a partner in the law firm of Beveridge & Diamond in Washington, D.C., and Noonan is founder and chairman of The Conservation Fund in Arlington, Virginia. Together they founded the Sustainable Use of Land Project, from which the book is derived. Their research examined land use practices and trends over the past two decades. They report that while substantial gains have been made in many environmental areas, such as air and water quality, land use remains a highly emotional and complex topic.

The first part of the book presents Diamond and Noonan’s synthesis of the issues, numerous case studies and their agenda for community action. The second part includes the following papers contributed by leading figures in government, business, academia and the nongovernmental arena:

“Growth Management Plans”

Howard Dean, Governor of Vermont

“Ecosystem Management: An Organizing Principle for Land Use” Douglas P. Wheeler, Secretary, California Resources Agency

“Transportation: A Key Element in Sustainable Communities” James Lighthizer, Former Secretary, Maryland Department of Transportation

“Across the Barricades” William K. Reilly, Former Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

“Metropolitan Development Trends of the Late 1990s: Social and Environmental Implications” Christopher B. Leinberger, Managing Partner, Robert Charles Lesser & Company

“Our Critical Forest Resources” John A. Georges, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, International Paper Company

“Land Use Planning: A Farmer’s Perspective” Kenneth Buelt, Past President, Washington County Farm Bureau

“Patience, Problem Solving and Private Initiative: Local Groups Chart a New Course for Land Conservation” Jean W. Hocker, President/Executive Director, Land Trust Alliance

“Sustainability and Social Justice: The Changing Face of Land Use and Environmentalism” Charles Jordan, Director, Bureau of Parks and Recreation, Portland, Oregon

“Science and the Sustainable Use of Land” Norman L. Christensen, Jr., Dean, School of the Environment, Duke University

“Private Property Rights, Government Regulation and the Constitution: Searching for Balance” Jerold S. Kayden, Professor, Graduate School of Design, Harvard University

“An Economic Perspective on the Sustainable Use of Land” John A. Baden, Chairman, Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment

Conference to Explore the Sustainable Use of Land

In conjunction with publication of this book, the Lincoln Institute is presenting a conference on June 12 in Washington, D.C. Participants will discuss varied perspectives on the important political and jurisdictional issues raised by the authors and contributors. Some of these questions may be addressed:

How might the 10 agenda recommendations be implemented in the current climate of popular reaction against federal and state government regulation of local policymaking?

What is the political feasibility of developing broad-based and long-term land use plans, especially in pro-property rights states in the South and West?

Given the likelihood of decreased federal financial support, how can states and localities be encouraged to take the initiative in future land use planning?

How can private landowners and corporate entities with large holdings be motivated to engage in regional conservation plans and provide environmentally sensitive stewardship in the face of economic pressures for development of their land?

A Land Use Agenda for 21st Century America

Item 1.

Local governments must take the lead role in securing good land use. Initiatives in land use planning and growth management need to be anchored in a community-based process that develops a vision for the future.

Item 2.

State governments must help local governments by establishing reasonable ground rules and planning requirements, assisting small and rural areas, and providing leadership on matters that affect more than one local jurisdiction.

Item 3.

The rules governing land development need to be overhauled. They need to be more efficient and more flexible, encouraging–not hindering–new approaches to land development and conservation.

Item 4.

Landowners must be treated fairly and oppressive regulations fixed. But making government pay in order to apply environmental safeguards for the common good is a bad idea.

Item 5.

Many government policies and actions–agricultural, highway, and environmental programs–impact land use. If they are not better coordinated, they will continue to result in land use policy by accident.

Item 6.

In selective situations, public land acquisition is needed, and a reliable source of funds must be available to pay for it.

Item 7.

Older areas in cities and suburbs must become a focus for renewal. Government policies should help fill in vacant land in already built-up areas and renew older properties rather than promote unplanned expansion at the urban fringe.

Item 8. As most land is privately held, private landowners must be galvanized to assure a healthy land base. Corporate and individual stewardship must be encouraged by providing education, tax incentives and other benefits.

Item 9. A constituency for better land use is needed based on new partnerships that reach beyond traditional alliances to bring together conservationists, social justice advocates and economic development interests. These partnerships can be mobilized around natural and cultural resources that people value.

Item 10. New tools are required to meet the new challenges of land use. Land use disputes should be solved through negotiation or mediation rather than through confrontation and litigation. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and other advances in technology also offer new opportunities for improving land use decision making.

As we complete one academic year and plan for the next, I am impressed by the richness and multidimensional nature of the Lincoln Institute’s educational programs. We have developed a strong curriculum in two departments and in our Program on Latin America and the Caribbean. Most of our planning efforts for 2003-2004 are focused on consolidating and improving what we have established, but I thought it might be instructive to discuss some new initiatives that illustrate our forward thinking. The program is described fully in the Institute’s catalog, which will be available by late summer (see page 4).

There are a couple of new efforts in the Department of Planning and Development that I find especially exciting. The first involves documenting the relationship between land price changes and problems associated with providing affordable housing, and then using that research in a variety of educational programs to explore the effectiveness of policies to improve housing affordability. The second effort seeks to develop links among several one-day courses so they can be consolidated into longer, richer experiences for both faculty and participants.

We have offered a basic curriculum in the Department of Valuation and Taxation for several years, and we are continuing to enhance the program by developing additional second-level courses to supplement the introductory offerings. One such course will help participants develop the statistical and economic skills necessary for using mass appraisal techniques to measure land value, as part of our two-rate tax program.

The faculty, participants and Lincoln staff have been so enthusiastic about the week-long seminars offered at Lincoln House for our Latin American colleagues that for next year we are scheduling some refresher courses in Latin America for former participants, as well as some short introductory sessions for those who would like some orientation before attending the full-length courses in Cambridge.

Finally, everyone on our staff is trying to find ways to use the new technology to improve our effectiveness in getting information to those who need it. Over the past year our website has been redesigned and enhanced to provide easy access to information about courses, publications and other educational products, as well as online ordering options. In addition we now have more than 330 working papers and more than 350 Land Lines articles in English and Spanish that can be downloaded quickly from our website. Our Planning Fundamentals course for local planning and zoning board members is available on the web, and companion versions have been modified to fit the special circumstances of Vermont and Montana. We are also investigating other ways to use technology to help participants prepare for our face-to-face courses, to interact after attending courses, and to provide course materials for those who are unable to attend the course sessions.

I am proud of the many ways the Institute is providing assistance to practitioners, professionals and others involved in land and tax policy so they can do their jobs better. If you have ideas about other things we can and should be doing, please let us know.

We announced in the last issue of Land Lines that I will be stepping down next year as president of the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Rather than use this column to talk about the many innovative programs we have undertaken in the past, I want to offer my view of the factors that will guide the work of the Institute in the future.

Most important, the staff and board are committed to continuing the Institute’s educational focus. We hope that this work will improve the quality of information available to decision makers in the areas of land policy and land-related tax policy, and will enhance public discussion and debate by disseminating ideas, information, analysis and experience to institutions and individuals engaged in these topical areas. Our focus on land and tax policy stems from our commitment to introduce the thinking and ideas of Henry George, especially as developed in his book Progress and Poverty, into contemporary policy making in the United States and through our international programs.

To help guide particular projects at the Institute, the staff has developed and the board has approved eight objectives.

1. To build capacity for better decision making by offering educational programs that provide information, ideas and analytical tools to public officials, professionals and citizens.
2. To identify, support and disseminate research that will lead to better understanding, decisions and actions.
3. To develop and demonstrate more effective, fair and efficient programs and policies for accomplishing public goals.
4. To advance the understanding and application of new methods, tools and techniques for achieving policy goals.
5. To foster and participate in communications and interactions with scholars, practitioners, public officials, policy advisers and civic leaders.
6. To encourage and support scholars who will pursue academic disciplines related to land policy and land-related tax policy.
7. To develop training materials and other educational resources that can be used in our programs and those of other organizations.
8. To identify relevant audiences in our topical areas and disseminate our work to them through the most effective means available, including courses, seminars, conferences, printed publications, Web-based materials, electronic media, audio and video resources, and other methods of communication.

   Each program and activity of the Institute is designed to serve one or more of these objectives. I believe that the conformation of our educational focus with these specific program objectives will provide valuable guidance to the Institute’s leadership to improve ongoing programs and develop new ones in the future.