SHARE
In the nearly 35 years since Bosselman and Callies (1972) published The Quiet Revolution in Land Use Control, land use policies in states across the nation have continued to change and evolve. The state of Maryland offers a good example. The history of land use policy in Maryland records a variety of conservation, development, and growth management acts, but in 1997 the state burst into the national spotlight with its innovative Smart Growth and Neighborhood Conservation package of land use reforms.
Today, some 10 years later, a new initiative is aiming to take the reform process in Maryland even further. Named Reality Check Plus: Imagine Maryland, this effort is supported in part by the Lincoln Institute, along with other nonprofit organizations, foundations, corporations, and individuals. It remains to be seen how far this effort will go and in what ways it may produce significant policy change, but regardless of the outcome it represents an interesting test of whether a privately led reform initiative can foster land use change at state and local levels.
A Rich Planning History
Maryland has a longstanding reputation as a national leader in land use policy and planning. The historical roots of Maryland’s smart growth program date to 1933, when Maryland established the nation’s first state planning commission. Recent planning history begins with the formation of the Chesapeake Bay Commission in 1980. Although the commission has no explicit land use authority in the signatory states (Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia), its recommendations have been instrumental in shaping land use policy in Maryland. The state’s Critical Area Act of 1984, for example, required local governments to adopt special development regulations within a 1,000-foot buffer of the Bay shoreline, and the Economic Growth, Resource Protection, and Planning Act of 1992 required local governments to address six visions originally outlined in a report prepared for the Chesapeake Executive Council (DeGrove 2005, 254–256).
Although the 1992 Planning Act provided a framework for local comprehensive plans, it failed to stem the tide of urban sprawl, according to the Growth Commission, established by the act as a new state advisory body. Following an extensive listening campaign, many meetings, and frequent forums, Governor Parris Glendening (1995–2003) proposed and the 1997 legislature passed the initiatives that have led to Maryland’s recognition as a leader in the promotion of smart growth. The original 1997 package of smart growth legislation included five separate measures; the first two captured the primary focus of the program (see Figure 1), and three others supported the overall concept.
Incentive-based Programs
Maryland’s smart growth programs are interesting in a number of ways, but the most distinctive feature is their reliance on spatially specific incentives instead of land use regulations (Cohen 2002). For example:
This reliance on incentives is what enabled these programs to pass the Maryland legislature, and what makes them so attractive to other states. After nearly 10 years, Maryland remains a national model for state efforts to promote smart growth, although many within the state believe the program has not gone far enough. According to John W. Frece, a former aide to Glendening, the smart growth program was “unquestionably a move in the right direction,” but it also represented only as much change as was politically possible at the time (Frece 2005). He concludes that the Maryland program might have been more effective if it had set specific goals and benchmarks when it was created, and that it failed to conduct any statewide visioning or other exercises to determine what the public thought their region or state should look like in the future. He also notes that the basic planning blocks of smart growth, the priority funding areas, proved to be too weak and porous to slow sprawl, much less stop it.
Because Maryland’s smart growth policies relied extensively on state incentives, their efficacy waned when those incentives were not maintained after Glendening left office. In some cases the policies were simply insufficient to counteract the economic factors that drive sprawl development. Moreover, if a development project was approved by the local government but did not need or rely on financial incentives from the state, the smart growth initiative had no effect on it. Finally, the smart growth program skirted the politically sensitive issue of whether the state should have more authority over local land use decisions. If local decisions were contrary to the state’s smart growth policies, the state had little recourse (Frece 2005).
Several recent studies support these assertions.
These reports suggest that although Maryland has adopted some of the most innovative land use policies in the country, there is limited evidence that these policies have significantly altered urban development trends. The reasons are complex, but the available research suggests that state incentives are either too small or are poorly suited to the situation to have major impacts on land development trends, especially without supportive regulatory policies at the local level.
Reality Check Plus: Imagine Maryland
To rekindle interest in urban development trends and land use policy in Maryland, and to advance progress in land use reform, a new initiative was launched in 2005. Reality Check Plus: Imagine Maryland is a broad-based, long-term effort led by the Baltimore District Council of the Urban Land Institute (ULI), the National Center for Smart Growth Research and Education at the University of Maryland, and 1000 Friends of Maryland. It is also supported by more than 130 organizations throughout the state.
The first component of the effort involved four public participatory visioning exercises based on similar exercises in Washington, DC, and Fredericksburg, Virginia, led by ULI and the National Center for Smart Growth. In these exercises citizens representing civic, government, and business interests, including elected officials, were literally brought to the table to confront the issues of urban growth and express a desired vision for their region’s future. The Maryland exercises were held in May and June in four regions: the Eastern Shore, Southern Maryland, Western Maryland, and the Baltimore-Washington Corridor. Participants expressed their vision for where future growth should go by placing plastic Lego® blocks representing projected job and housing growth through 2030 on large, table-top regional maps.
The final results of the four Maryland exercises will not be fully integrated and analyzed until September, but preliminary results presented at each event reveal similar but distinct results (see Figure 2). The consensus visioning principles expressed public desires to (1) protect open spaces and natural resources; (2) utilize existing infrastructure; (3) concentrate growth near transit stations in existing urban areas; and (4) balance the location of jobs and households. And at all four events, the placement of Legos was consistent with these principles. Specifically, when compared with current development patterns, participants placed larger proportions of growth inside PFAs and near transit stations and highway corridors, and placed more jobs in job-poor areas.
Notable support was given in all regions for new and expanded transit service and for more regional cooperation or even regional authorities to plan for future growth. There were also some important regional differences: participants from the Eastern Shore focused on protecting the region’s small town and agrarian way of life; in Western Maryland there was concern about uneven economic growth; the primary concern in Central Maryland was traffic congestion; and in Southern Maryland there was apprehension about the impacts of growth in military jobs.
Although these exercises represent one of the largest forums on growth ever conducted in a single state, it is important not to overstate what these events can produce. A pile of Legos placed on a table for a few hours cannot be confused with a thorough analysis of alternative development patterns, a careful consideration of consequences, and a true statewide consensus about the results. These events, however, do represent an important beginning to what must be a continuing dialogue on growth in the state.
In September, during the state’s quadrennial election cycle, a synthesis of the four regional events will be presented at a statewide forum. Candidates for state and local office, including candidates for governor, will be invited to attend and pledge their support for implementing the results. In the meantime, each of the three lead organizations is developing work plans for the implementation phase. The Baltimore District Council of ULI will offer a series of education and outreach programs designed to disseminate the results of the four events throughout each region, especially to elected officials. 1000 Friends of Maryland will sponsor a series of candidate forums and regional caucuses to encourage the implementation of the results, especially through state and local policy reform. The National Center, with support from the Lincoln Institute, will conduct more extensive analyses of alternative statewide development scenarios and existing land use policies in Maryland and other states.
For Maryland, these four regional exercises, and whatever changes in land use policies may follow, represent just the latest chapter in the state’s closely watched history of land use planning and policy. For other states, these exercises represent a rare natural experiment. Can a privately led visioning exercise precipitate significant change in the substance of state and/or local land use policy, local development decisions, and development trends? Stay tuned.
The Visioning Experience
At each Reality Check Plus event, up to 10 participants at each table were asked to think about how their region should accommodate the growth projected over the next 25 years. A six-foot by eight-foot map of the region was shaded in various colors to represent the existing population and employment density. The maps also depicted major highways; subway and commuter rail lines and stations; parkland or other protected conservation areas; airports, military bases, and other government installations; and rivers, floodplains, and other bodies of water.
To encourage participants to think regionally rather than locally, all jurisdictional boundaries were intentionally omitted, although place names of cities and towns helped with orientation. Each table was staffed by a scribe/computer operator and a trained facilitator to lead the three-hour exercise. Before considering where to accommodate growth, participants were asked to reach consensus on a set of principles to guide their decisions about where to place the new development, such as protecting open space, making use of existing infrastructure, and maintaining jobs-housing balance.
The exercise used Lego® blocks of four different colors: white blocks represented the top 80 percent of new housing units in the region based on price, or essentially market-rate housing; yellow blocks represented the bottom 20 percent of housing based on price, essentially a stand-in for nonsubsidized affordable housing; black blocks represented lower density housing development that could be exchanged for higher density white blocks at a ratio of 4:1; and blue blocks represented jobs.
The maps were overlaid with a checkered grid and scaled so a single block fit on each grid. Participants who wanted to add more than one housing or employment block to a single grid simply stacked the blocks. Those who proposed a mixed-use development pattern could stack various types of blocks together. Once all the Legos were placed on the map, the result yields a three-dimensional representation of where future growth in the region is or is not desired.
After all the Legos were placed, the participants were asked to assess their work. Have they allocated jobs and households across the region in a manner consistent with their vision for what the future should hold? Does the quantity of growth seem appropriate for a 25–30 year timeframe, or would they prefer more or less growth? Finally, if they are comfortable with the consensus vision, what policies or land development tools do they favor for assuring that the preferred vision is the one that is actually realized? What new infrastructure will be necessary to accommodate the projected level of growth? What might be the environmental impacts and tax implications? The participants’ considered responses to these questions are perhaps the most important products of the exercise.
During the lunch break a team of students from the University of Maryland counted the numbers of Legos at each table, entered the information into a computer, and then converted the results into two– and three-dimensional maps for each table. The data were also analyzed and inserted into a formatted PowerPoint presentation. The slides identified results for each table in a quantitative analysis of urban development indicators, such as percentages of jobs and households within one-quarter mile of a transit station; inside metropolitan beltways; inside existing urban areas; and in existing greenfields and farmland. Other indicators measured location of affordable housing and the degree to which it is integrated with market-rate housing; and the extent of jobs-housing balance.
After lunch the participants gathered in a large auditorium to hear a presentation of the results, which included a summary of the consensus principles, selected results from various tables, and a synthesis of the results from all the tables. Subsequent events included a town hall-type panel discussion focused on how to implement the pattern of development envisioned by the participants at each regional event.
Gerrit-Jan Knaap, an economist and professor of urban studies and planning, is executive director of the National Center for Smart Growth Research and Education at the University of Maryland. He is one of three co-chairs of the Reality Check Plus visioning exercise.
Dru Schmidt-Perkins is executive director of 1000 Friends of Maryland, a statewide citizens’ coalition that supports protection of natural resources, revitalization of existing communities, preservation of historic resources, efficient and effective transportation choices, and development that takes into account the public’s interest. She is also one of three co-chairs of the Reality Check Plus project.
References
Bosselman, Fred, and David Callies. 1972. The quiet revolution in land use control. Washington, DC: Council on Environmental Quality.
Cohen, J. R. 2002. Maryland’s “smart growth”: Using incentives to combat sprawl. In Urban sprawl: Causes, consequences and policy response, G. Squires, ed. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
DeGrove, John M. 2005. Planning policy and politics: Smart growth and the states. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Frece, John W. 2005. Twenty lessons from Maryland’s smart growth initiative. Vermont Journal of Environmental Law 6: 106–132.
Howland, Marie. 2000. The impact of contamination on the Canton/Southeast Baltimore land market. Journal of the American Planning Association 66 (4): 411–420.
———. 2003. Private initiatives and public responsibility for the redevelopment of industrial brownfields: Three Baltimore case studies. Economic Development Quarterly 17 (4): 367–381.
Howland, Marie, and Jungyul Sohn. Forthcoming. Has Maryland’s priority funding areas initiative constrained the expansion of water and sewer investments? Land Use Policy.
National Center for Smart Growth. 2003. Smart growth, housing markets, and development trends in the Baltimore-Washington Corridor. http://www.smartgrowth.umd.edu/research/pdf/KnaapSohnFreceEtAl_SGHousingMarketsBalWash_DateNA.pdf.
———. 2006. Adequate public facilities ordinances in Maryland: Inappropriate use, inconsistent standards, unintended consequences. http://www.smartgrowth.umd.edu/research/pdf/NCSG_APFOMaryland_041906.pdf.
1000 Friends of Maryland. 1999. Smart growth: How is your county doing—Baltimore Region. http://www.friendsofmd.org.
———. 2001. Smart growth: How is your county doing—Eastern Shore. http://www.friendsofmd.org.
Shen, Qing and Feng Zhang. Forthcoming, Land-use changes in a pro–smart growth state: Maryland, USA. Environment and Planning A.
Sohn, Jungyul, and Gerrit-Jan Knaap. 2005. Does the job creation tax credit program in Maryland help concentrate employment growth? Economic Development Quarterly 19: 313–326.
Tassone, Joseph, Erik Balsley, Lynda Eisenberg, Stephanie Martins, and Rich Hall. 2004. Maximizing return on public investment in Maryland’s rural land preservation programs. Annapolis, MD: Maryland Department of Planning.
SHARE
Many historic centers in Latin America have been the focus of government and private initiatives seeking to rehabilitate the building stock and position the areas to serve the tourism industry. In most cases these efforts have led to the displacement of lowincome residents or of residential activities altogether, due to gentrification and commercialization of the district (Scarpaci 2005). More recently, the rehabilitation of these historic cores has been framed as part of broader debates and efforts that pursue the recovery of the city centers (historical or otherwise) because of their key role as collective symbols or spaces of social interaction, or because of their potential efficiency as dense, well-serviced urban districts (Pérez, Pujol, and Polèse 2003; Rojas 2004).
This article seeks to advance this discussion based on the experience in Panama City’s historic center, “Casco Antiguo.” It describes some recent, innovative policies that have explored the intersections of tourism, affordable housing, employment, and culture in a historical context, and draws some general insights and lessons.
SHARE
A medida que una ciudad crece, tanto en tamaño como en su densidad de edificación, una parte de este proceso de crecimiento consiste, por lo general, en las mejoras que se realizan en el suelo a raíz de los nuevos desarrollos. No obstante, la combinación de la demanda de sitios de construcción adicionales y de la cantidad limitada de espacio físico disponible para el desarrollo generalmente da como resultado un aumento en los precios de los terrenos.
Esta escasez de suelo se debe a tres factores principales: la capacidad de los propietarios de no poner a disposición del mercado sus terrenos con servicios (una causa que se atribuye a la concentración de la propiedad de terrenos y a otras limitaciones legales e institucionales); las dificultades para tener acceso a ciertas áreas que aún no están listas para ser ocupadas debido a la falta de infraestructura; y las restricciones impuestas por las normas de zonificación. Cada uno de estos factores presenta su propia dinámica, aunque no necesariamente aparecen al mismo tiempo. Este es el caso de las ciudades brasileñas, particularmente São Paulo, donde estos factores restrictivos no siempre se presentan de la misma manera en relación con el precio de los terrenos.
Por ejemplo, las normas de edificación pueden reducir el precio de los lotes individuales, pero pueden aumentar el precio general cuando dichas normas afectan a todos los lotes y, como consecuencia, restringen la oferta de viviendas. Una gran oferta de terrenos vacantes controlados por unos pocos propietarios puede ocasionar el aumento de los precios, mientras que la falta de accesibilidad puede dar como resultado la reducción de los precios.
El precio de los terrenos también depende de las características de las normas sobre el suelo. A medida que la ciudad crece, la mayor demanda de terrenos urbanos edificables por lo general genera valores más altos si la infraestructura existente tiene la capacidad de contener una ocupación de terrenos más intensa y si las normas sobre zonificación (o las modificaciones a dichas normas) permiten además una mayor densidad de edificación.
Con el fin de examinar estas cuestiones, debemos, en primer lugar, considerar de qué forma se financia la inversión en infraestructura que brinda o intensifica los medios para acceder a los terrenos y utilizarlos y, en segundo lugar, analizar cómo se distribuyen los beneficios y costos derivados de las mejoras al suelo. Por lo general, el costo de los servicios públicos (tales como calles, puentes, alcantarillado, alumbrado público, agua potable, etc.) se financia mediante los fondos públicos, mientras que las mejoras o el valor agregado a los terrenos como resultado de la inversión pública en infraestructura son aprovechados, salvo pocas excepciones, por los propietarios de los terrenos mejorados sin ningún tipo de costo.
El aumento en los valores de las propiedades también puede provenir de simples cambios en la utilización del suelo que ya se encuentra accesible, como por ejemplo cuando un terreno que anteriormente se consideraba rural ahora se redefine como urbano. Los cambios en las posibles densidades como consecuencia de nuevas normas de zonificación pueden generar grandes beneficios para las propiedades afectadas, aunque en este caso, como en el caso anterior, la presión futura en cuanto a la infraestructura requerirá una importante inversión pública.
Marco legal
Los propietarios de inmuebles mejorados en Brasil tradicionalmente se apropiaban, tal como ocurre en la mayoría de los países, del valor agregado que se derivaba de la inversión del sector público y de los cambios en la zonificación. El concepto de que los propietarios no deberían ser los únicos beneficiarios de dichas mejoras se introdujo en forma gradual en Brasil durante la década de 1970, y este principio se incorporó en los artículos 182 y 183 de la Constitución Federal de 1988. Con posterioridad, dichos artículos se regularon mediante la Ley Federal Nº 10.257 del año 2001, conocida también como la Ley de Desarrollo Urbano o Estatuto de la Ciudad (Estatuto da Cidade).
Desde 1988, el desarrollo urbano se ha convertido en una cuestión del derecho federal. En la práctica, la legislación federal ratificó el principio de la función social de la propiedad de terrenos urbanos y la separación del derecho a la propiedad del derecho de edificar. Sobre la base de la ley de 2001, la ciudad de São Paulo aprobó su Plan Estratégico de Ordenamiento Territorial en el año 2002, así como también la Ley sobre la Utilización del Suelo Nº 13.885 en 2004. Las mencionadas leyes introdujeron el mecanismo de Compensación Monetaria por el Derecho de Edificación (Outorga Onerosa do Direito de Construir u OODC), establecieron coeficientes de utilización del suelo (o coeficientes de edificabilidad) mínimos, básicos y máximos, y limitaron la oferta de superficies edificables. La utilización de estas herramientas en conjunto permitió al municipio mejorar la eficiencia en la gestión del suelo, promover los resultados sociales deseados y aumentar los ingresos.
El coeficiente de edificabilidad (CE) mínimo se refiere a la utilización mínima que se espera de un lote para que cumpla con su función social; el CE básico se relaciona con la superficie edificable que todo propietario tiene el derecho de desarrollar en virtud de su propiedad; y el CE máximo es la cantidad de desarrollo permitida por la infraestructura existente y las normas de zonificación. Los cargos asociados con la OODC se aplican sobre la diferencia existente entre el CE máximo y el CE básico de un lote.
Administración de los derechos de edificación
La OODC es la compensación monetaria que pagan aquellos a quienes el gobierno les otorga nuevos derechos de edificación (superficie edificable). Esta concesión de desarrollo (establecida en los artículos 28, 29, 30 y 31 de la Ley Federal Nº 10.257 de 2001 y definida en los artículos 209 a 216 del Plan Estratégico de Ordenamiento Territorial de 2002) es una de las herramientas normativas que se utilizan a los fines de administrar los derechos de edificación en la ciudad, con excepción de aquellas áreas destinadas a proyectos urbanos a gran escala en los que se utiliza una herramienta legal especial cuyo fin es fomentar las intervenciones públicas y privadas (Biderman, Sandroni y Smolka 2006).
El CE básico de utilización del suelo establecido en el año 2004 varía entre 1 y 2, dependiendo del área de la ciudad a considerar. El CE máximo puede ser 1, 2, 2,5 ó 4, dependiendo asimismo del área. En algunas áreas urbanas, estas nuevas normas redujeron los derechos de edificación, estableciendo un CE básico de 1 para aquellos terrenos que se habían clasificado como 2 o más según la legislación anterior. En forma paralela, el municipio de São Paulo utilizó la OODC para extender el potencial de edificación o el CE máximo hasta 4 en aquellos terrenos que, según la legislación anterior, solo podían desarrollarse hasta 1 ó 2.
Como resultado, en algunas áreas en las que se redujo el CE de 2 a 1, los emprendedores pudieron presentar proyectos utilizando el CE 2 anterior, o hasta el CE máximo de 3 ó 4, siempre y cuando pagaran al gobierno el monto relativo a la superficie edificable adicional correspondiente a la diferencia entre el CE básico y el CE utilizado en el proyecto. Suponiendo que los cargos sean efectivos en cuanto al costo para los emprendedores, este instrumento los beneficia, ya que les permite edificar hasta un CE 4 en áreas en donde previamente el máximo era de CE 2. No obstante, el propietario promedio no siempre considera que esta herramienta sea una ventaja, debido a que el potencial de edificación de su terreno podría verse reducido y se le podría aplicar un cargo sobre lo que anteriormente percibía como un derecho de edificación libre de todo cargo.
Los propietarios de pequeños lotes y viviendas de baja densidad tal vez no se den cuenta de lo que podrían estar perdiendo cuando se modifica el CE, debido a que, por lo general, consideran su propiedad como una combinación del terreno, la edificación y otras mejoras. Resulta difícil separar el valor del terreno del valor de las mejoras, por lo que una futura reducción en el valor del terreno no se percibe en forma inmediata. Asimismo, la expansion del mercado inmobiliario en São Paulo coincidió con la aprobación de la nueva legislación en el año 2004, por lo que el aumento general en los precios de los terrenos puede haber compensado la futura reducción de los precios de los terrenos asociada con las modificaciones del CE. Debe destacarse además que la expansión del crédito gubernamental destinado a la financiación de la vivienda desde el año 2006 contribuyó a un aumento en la demanda de terrenos y, en consecuencia, a un aumento en los precios de los mismos.
Para los emprendedores, el aumento del CE a 4 en aquellas áreas en las que el máximo había sido 1 ó 2 constituyó una situación favorable, ya que pudieron invertir más capital en los terrenos y llevar a cabo proyectos más lucrativos que compensaron los pagos adicionales realizados en concepto de la diferencia entre el CE básico y el CE máximo. En forma gradual, los emprendedores se convencieron de que era mejor pagar este aumento en el valor del terreno al gobierno que a los propietarios privados, ya que el gobierno convertía dichos pagos en mejoras que, por lo general, generaban un beneficio para los proyectos de los emprendedores.
El Plan Estratégico de Ordenamiento Territorial de 2002 y la Ley 13.885 de 2004 también limitaron la oferta de potencial edificable, tanto residencial como no residencial, en todos los distritos municipales, estableciendo una superficie edificable adicional total de 9.769 millones m2: 6.919 millones m2 para uso residencial y 2.850 millones m2 para uso no residencial (ver tabla 1). Dicho potencial no incluyó las superficies edificables que se encontraban dentro del perímetro de los 13 proyectos urbanos de São Paulo. Las superficies adicionales se distribuyeron entre 91 de los 96 distritos municipales, exceptuando cinco áreas destinadas a la protección ambiental. Esta definición y delimitación de la oferta de edificación potencial introdujo un nuevo elemento en el mercado inmobiliario.
Una vez que los emprendedores supieron cuál era la superficie edificable máxima, previeron la escasez de terrenos en aquellos distritos en los que la oferta era baja y la dinámica inmobiliaria era alt y, así, desataron una tendencia hacia un aumento de los precios de terrenos. A su vez, la falta de superficie edificable originó presiones por parte de los emprendedores inmobiliarios para que el gobierno aumentara la oferta, es decir, modificara los límites de la superficie edificable en algunos distritos durante la revisión del Plan Estratégico que se llevó a cabo en el año 2007, aunque no tuvieron éxito. Hacia octubre de 2010, la oferta de terrenos se había agotado totalmente (o casi por completo) para la utilización residencial en 17 distritos, y para la utilización no residencial en 5 distritos (ver figura 1).
Factores de planificación e interés social
La fórmula para calcular la OODC, adoptada en el Plan Estratégico de Ordenamiento Territorial de 2002 de São Paulo, tiene en cuenta factores de planificación e interés social, además de las características de la parcela en cuestión y del beneficio económico real que se le asigna a la propiedad como resultado de la OODC. El factor de la planificación es un instrumento cuyo fin es el de fomentar o desalentar densidades altas en ciertas áreas dependiendo de la infraestructura existente, en particular del transporte público y el tránsito masivo. El factor de la planificación también se utiliza con el fin de obtener una mayor compensación económica derivada de la venta de derechos de edificación para empresas ubicadas en áreas de la ciudad que han experimentado mejoras, ya que el coeficiente varía según los terrenos se utilicen con fines residenciales o no residenciales.
El factor del interés social establece exenciones o reducciones en los cargos financieros, dependiendo del tipo de actividad que se desarrollará en la parcela en cuestión. El coeficiente varía de 0 a 1 y se aplica sobre una variedad de actividades. A modo de ejemplo, el coeficiente correspondiente a viviendas económicas o de interés social es 0, lo que significa que los emprendedores de este tipo de viviendas nopagan compensación alguna por los derechos de edificación adicionales. De manera similar, las instituciones sin fines de lucro, tales como hospitales, escuelas, clínicas de salud y maternoinfantiles, centros culturales, instituciones deportivas y recreativas y centros religiosos, poseen un coeficiente 0.
Los mencionados factores actúan a modo de incentivos para lograr los resultados sociales deseados, ya que cuanto menor sea el coeficiente correspondiente al factor de planificación e interés social aplicable a un área determinada, menor será el cargo que se abonará, y mayor será el incentivo para llevar a cabo proyectos de desarrollo en dicha área.
Los efectos en los ingresos y la asignación de fondos
Los ingresos totales provenientes de los pagos de la OODC alcanzaron los R$650 millones (US$325 millones) en aproximadamente cinco años, a pesar de la crisis económica mundial que restringió el crédito hacia finales del período (ver tabla 2). Dichos fondos se depositan en el Fondo de Desarrollo Urbano (FUNDURB), creado con el fin de llevar a cabo planes y proyectos en áreas urbanas y de protección ambiental, u otros tipos de intervenciones contempladas en el Plan Estratégico de 2002.
Para septiembre de 2008, los proyectos aprobados para ser financiados por el FUNDURB fueron 15 parques lineales (R$42,5 millones), mejoras en las aceras y calles (R$21,2 millones), drenajes y obras sanitarias (R$108 millones), instalaciones comunitarias (R$21,1 millones), regularización de asentamientos informales (R$50 millones) y restauración de edificios del patrimonio cultural (R$37 millones).
Comentarios finales
Después de que la ciudad de São Paulo aprobó el Plan Estratégico de Ordenamiento Territorial de 2002, el principio de concesiones de desarrollo y terrenos edificables se aplicó en todo el territorio de la ciudad. Cuando un proyecto inmobiliario excede el CE básico y el emprendedor desea edificar hasta un máximo de 4, deberá abonar al gobierno ciertas compensaciones económicas. Desde que se introdujo la OODC, los ingresos han aumentado todos los años. Debe tenerse en cuenta que dichos ingresos son netos de los más de mil millones de dólares generados por 2 de los 13 proyectos urbanos de la ciudad (Faria Lima y Agua Espraiada) donde están ocurriendo los mayores cambios en cuanto a zonificación y densidad (Biderman, Sandroni y Smolka 2006). En dichas áreas, los nuevos derechos de edificación obtienen su precio a través de la subasta de Certificados de Potencial Adicional de Construcción (CEPAC), y los ingresos deben invertirse en el área correspondiente al proyecto urbano, en lugar de colocarse en el FUNDURB para el beneficio de toda la ciudad (Sandroni 2010).
El cargo correspondiente a derechos de edificación en São Paulo parece no haber afectado el rendimiento económico de los emprendedores. Por el contrario, el aumento del CE máximo hasta 4 en algunas áreas de la ciudad contribuyó a mejorar las tasas de rendimiento de los emprendedores. Sin embargo, el establecimiento de una reserva máxima para derechos de edificación parece haber generado una tendencia de aumentos en los precios de los terrenos, en particular en aquellos distritos en los que la oferta de superficies edificables es baja. En algunos distritos, los emprendedores agotaron rápidamente la oferta de derechos de edificación residencial. Este tipo de respuesta tal vez se intensifique en el futuro, lo que dará como resultado que el gobierno municipal se vea presionado para aumentar la oferta máxima de superficies edificables y/o el CE máximo. De ser así, existe el riesgo de que la motivación para aumentar los ingresos municipales tal vez llegue a tener más peso que los criterios de planificación urbana y las limitaciones de la infraestructura, en particular el transporte público y el tránsito masivo.
Por otro lado, el flujo de compensación económica no será continuo. A diferencia de los ingresos derivados de impuestos inmobiliarios, que se repiten en forma anual, los ingresos generados por la venta de derechos de edificación irán desapareciendo con el tiempo a medida que se agote el potencial de edificación adicional. En algunos sectores de la ciudad, la oferta de superficies edificables ya se encuentra agotada y la ciudad ya ha llegado al límite de densidad de edificación definido en la normativa. No obstante, las modificaciones que se realicen en un futuro al Plan Estratégico tal vez establezcan un mayor potencial de edificación para dichas áreas, dependiendo de las recomendaciones técnicas y las condiciones políticas para que ocurran dichos cambios.
En resumen, la aplicación del principio de la función social de la propiedad, incluido en el Plan Estratégico de Ordenamiento Territorial de 2002 de la ciudad de São Paulo, permitió la promulgación de una legislación municipal que separa claramente el derecho a la propiedad del derecho a edificar.
Como resultado, ya no se sostiene la noción tradicional de los derechos de propiedad globales, por lo que el hecho de poseer la propiedad de un terreno no puede invalidar el interés público ni estar por encima de la función social de la propiedad. En consecuencia, los derechos de edificación existents pueden reducirse sin que los propietarios tengan el derecho a recibir una compensación económica por el simple hecho de que se han frustrado sus sueños.
Sobre el Autor
Paulo Henrique Sandroni es economista y fue director de planificación urbana y transporte público de la ciudad de São Paulo desde 1988 hasta 1993 y, por un breve período, fue viceministro de administración del gobierno federal. Ha publicado artículos y libros sobre economía, entre los que se cuenta un diccionario considerado como referencia principal en temas de economía en Brasil. Sandroni es, además, profesor de la Facultad de Economía y Negocios en la Fundación Getulio Vargas de São Paulo, consultor independiente en temas de desarrollo urbano y transporte y conferencista en programas patrocinados por el Instituto Lincoln.
Referencias
Biderman, Ciro, Paulo Sandroni y Martim O. Smolka. 2006. “Large-scale urban interventions: The case of Faria Lima in São Paulo”. En
Ayuntamiento Municipal de São Paulo, Secretaría de Finanzas. www.prefeitura.sp.gov.br/cidade/secretarias/financas.
Sandroni, Paulo. 2010. “A new financial instrument of value capture in São Paulo: Certificates of additional construction potential”. En Municipal revenues and land policies, Gregory K. Ingram y Yu-Hung Hong, editores, 218–236. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
SECOVI. 2010. Estoque de Outorga Onerosa Residencial. Septiembre. www.geosecovi.com.br.
SHARE
A large share of national energy consumption takes place in cities—in the United States about three-quarters of energy use is in or related to urban areas. Accordingly, cities offer significant opportunities for energy savings from increased efficiency, but important issues remain: Will market forces produce efficiency gains when appropriate, or will market failures such as imperfect information, unavailable financing, or misunderstood risks impede market solutions? How much do people value energy savings, and how sensitive are they to changes in energy prices? The Lincoln Institute hosted a conference on energy efficiency and cities in October 2012 to address these and related issues, and a few highlights follow.
Valuing Energy Efficiency
Consumers should be willing to pay more for built space that uses less energy. Evidence indicates that users of commercial space value energy efficiency and are willing to pay more for it, and many studies indicate that LEED-certified office and commercial space sells or rents at a premium over traditional space. There is much less evidence of such preferences for residences, in part because it is difficult for most homebuyers to determine the energy efficiency of a dwelling, especially a new one with no operating record.
Some residential developments are now being classified using procedures similar to LEED certification or to the Energy Star ratings such as those used for major appliances. Dwellings in California that have the highest energy efficiency ratings sell at a premium of about 9 percent above units with average energy efficiency. Similar price premiums have been observed in the Netherlands for houses certified at the highest efficiency level using a European certification procedure. Some of these premiums may reflect the improved comfort levels that these buildings provide in addition to energy savings. It also seems likely that the energy efficiency premium observed in California is up to three times greater than the incremental cost of the higher efficiency of these dwellings.
Determining Cost
The cost of integrating energy efficiency into new buildings is less than the cost of improving the efficiency of older buildings. A home built since 2000 uses about 25 percent less energy per square foot than one built in the 1960s or earlier. The technical potential for improved energy efficiency in older homes seems evident, but homeowners face two challenges: to determine which improvements have the highest payoff per dollar spent, and to obtain a contractor and financing for the work.
While many diagnostic tools are available to assess existing dwellings, their accuracy varies widely and depends critically on detailed inputs about both the dwelling’s attributes and the household’s living style. Obtaining a contractor and financing can involve high transaction costs for households in effort, time, and money. Many utility companies are offering both technical and financial support for energy retrofitting, but progress has been slow.
Changing Energy Consumption
It may be easier to change residential living styles than to retrofit old buildings, and many utilities are experimenting with schemes to modify household behavior. The most common program involves “nudging” households toward more efficient habits by providing periodic home energy reports that compare their recent energy use with that of their neighbors. Analysis indicates that these reports have both a short-term impact on household energy consumption and a longer-term cumulative impact that continues after the reports end. The energy savings from these programs are small, ranging from a half to one kilowatt hour per day for a household, but the program’s low cost makes the results as cost-effective as many other policies.
Recognizing John Quigley
This conference was designed with John Quigley, economics professor at the University of California at Berkeley, who passed away before the conference took place. In addition to the original papers on energy and cities, papers on urban economics were presented by some of his former students, colleagues, and coauthors. All of the papers will be submitted for a forthcoming special edition of Regional Science and Urban Economics, which will recognize his contributions over a long and distinguished career.
SHARE
Es para mí un honor suceder a Gregory K. Ingram como quinto presidente del Lincoln Institute of Land Policy (ver página 28) y participar junto con ustedes en mi número inaugural de Land Lines. Será un gran desafío para mí poder estar a la altura de la capacidad de liderazgo de Greg y los años extraordinariamente productivos desde que él se hizo cargo del Instituto en 2005. Espero poder combinar mis habilidades y experiencia con las formidables herramientas y el talentoso personal del Instituto para continuar con nuestra misión singular: conectar a académicos, funcionarios públicos y líderes empresariales para combinar la teoría y la práctica de las políticas de suelo con el fin de abordar una gran variedad de desafíos sociales, económicos y medioambientales.
Hay fuerzas tectónicas —naturales, artificiales o ambas— que están dando nueva forma a nuestro planeta. A medida que confrontamos el cambio climático, la aceleración de la urbanización en Asia y África, el envejecimiento de las poblaciones de Europa y América del Norte, la suburbanización de la pobreza en los Estados Unidos y la insolvencia económica de las ciudades estadounidenses, las decisiones sobre el uso del suelo que tomemos hoy dictarán la calidad de vida de cientos de millones de personas en los próximos cien años. Hay una demanda crítica de planes y políticas integrales que regulen de manera equitativa el uso del suelo, sistemas políticos y sociales que garanticen la sostenibilidad, y análisis económicos sólidos con los que abordar estos desafíos, y esta demanda seguirá siendo alta durante las próximas décadas.
En este número de Land Lines, autores estrechamente relacionados con el Instituto Lincoln exploran estos temas. La fellow Lincoln/Loeb de 2013, Lynn Richards, próxima presidente del Congreso para el Nuevo Urbanismo, expone 10 pasos ingeniosos que las comunidades de los Estados Unidos han tomado para hacer sus suburbios más accesibles a los peatones, con viviendas económicas para compensar la suburbanización de la pobreza y emprendimientos más densos de uso mixto y transporte público para reducir el uso del automóvil y ayudar a retrasar el cambio climático. La arquitecta y fellow Lincoln/Loeb de 2014, Helen Lochhead, analiza los proyectos ganadores de Rebuild by Design (Reconstrucción por Diseño), el concurso internacional que promovió innovaciones de diseño para integrar resiliencia, sostenibilidad y habitabilidad en las regiones afectadas por la supertormenta Sandy. El Director de Relaciones Públicas Anthony Flint informa sobre el séptimo Foro periodístico anual del Instituto Lincoln sobre el suelo y el entorno edificado, que exploró opciones para realizar inversiones más inteligentes y equitativas en infraestructura en las ciudades del siglo XXI. Finalmente, en el Perfil académico, el analista de investigación senior del Instituto Lincoln, Adam Langley, comenta la base de datos de ciudades fiscalmente estandarizadas (FiSC) del Instituto, una nueva herramienta que servirá de base para nuevos análisis importantes que guiarán las respuestas locales a los desafíos fiscales de los Estados Unidos.
Y ahora un poco sobre mí. En los últimos 14 años trabajé en la Fundación Ford, donde ocupé un puesto singular en el sistema filantrópico global que me permitió apoyar, demostrar y ensayar nuevas maneras de resolver importantes problemas sociales. Algunos de los logros que más me enorgullecen son haber creado la Campaña Nacional de Propiedades Vacantes y Abandonadas, para ayudar a construir e incrementar la bolsa de viviendas de patrimonio compartido de la nación, por medio de colaboraciones con la Red Nacional de Fideicomisos de Suelo Comunitario y otras organizaciones asociadas. Ayudé a diseñar y posteriormente lideré Metropolitan Opportunity (Oportunidad Metropolitana), la próxima generación de programación comunitaria y de desarrollo económico de la Fundación, que se propone reducir el aislamiento espacial de las poblaciones necesitadas en regiones metropolitanas integrando la planificación del uso del suelo, el desarrollo de viviendas económicas y la inversión en infraestructura para ofrecer un mejor servicio a todos sus residentes.
Antes de trabajar en la Fundación Ford, había acumulado una gran experiencia en investigación sobre vivienda, economía y análisis de políticas públicas. Tuve la oportunidad de trabajar con académicos de todo el mundo en temas tan diversos como el nacimiento del movimiento medioambiental en Rusia, el papel de los desequilibrios de intercambio comercial y la deuda en los ciclos macroeconómicos y el impacto de la propiedad de la vivienda en las vidas de familias de bajos ingresos. He sido maestro y mentor de miles de estudiantes y he seguido sus logros con gran orgullo. Presenté investigaciones, abogué por cambios políticos y colaboré con éxito con investigadores, activistas y funcionarios públicos en cuatro continentes. Y ahora estoy entusiasmado y me siento honrado por unirme a ustedes en esta aventura con el Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
SHARE
Siendo estudiante universitario de diseño y planificación urbana, Matt Tomasulo organizó un ingenioso proyecto de señalización de calles para animar a los residentes de Raleigh, Carolina del Norte, a caminar en lugar de usar el automóvil. Junto con un grupo de cómplices, diseñó y produjo 27 carteles de plástico (Coroplast) de 30 cm2, en los que imprimió mensajes sencillos como “Camine 7 minutos para llegar al cementerio de la ciudad de Raleigh”, con un código de color según la categoría de destino y una flecha que apuntaba en la dirección correspondiente. El grupo fijó estos carteles con sujeciones de plástico en los postes de los semáforos y similares en torno a tres intersecciones de calles en el centro de la ciudad. Les llevó menos de 45 minutos instalar todos los carteles (lo hicieron por la noche, ya que, aunque los carteles parecían señales oficiales, este proyecto se consideraba “no autorizado”, como dijo Tomasulo).
Como era de esperarse, el municipio retiró los carteles. Y esto podría haber sido el fin de la acción: un gesto provocativo y una pieza ingeniosa más en su cartera de diseño. Sin embargo, Walk Raleigh ha experimentado una metamorfosis inesperada desde que apareció por primera vez en el año 2012 al evolucionar hasta lo que hoy se conoce como Walk [Your City] (WalkYourCity.org), un ambicioso intento por extender la idea subyacente de este proyecto por todo el país y trabajar junto con el municipio y los funcionarios encargados de la planificación, en lugar de esquivarlos. Este año, la joven organización de Tomasulo recibió un subsidio de US$182.000 de la Fundación Knight, que ha desencadenado una nueva fase del proyecto, que incluye el despliegue de una serie de carteles con un mensaje particularmente meditado, en coordinación con los funcionarios de San José, California.
Este resultado tan sorprendente se debe en gran medida a la utilización de la tecnología de una forma perspicaz, y quizá, todavía más, a las aportaciones de unos pocos funcionarios de planificación que vieron el potencial que encerraba lo que podría haber sido un divertido pero efímero recurso publicitario.
El objetivo principal de la idea original de Tomasulo era sondear e intentar provocar un cambio en las percepciones existentes sobre caminar: Tomasulo se había topado con una interesante investigación, según la cual la gente a menudo decide no caminar sencillamente porque el lugar de destino “parece” estar más lejos de lo que realmente está.
Los centros más antiguos, como el de Raleigh, por lo general “pueden caminarse más de lo que la gente piensa”, indica Julie Campoli, diseñadora urbana y autora del libro Made for Walking: Density and Neighborhood Form (Hecho para caminar: Densidad y forma del barrio), publicado en 2012 por el Instituto Lincoln. Sin embargo, en muchos casos, décadas de ingeniería de tráfico han socavado la idea de la posibilidad de caminar por los entornos construidos, en donde la señalización está colocada para que la vean los conductores, y cuya información sobre distancias está expresada en un formato dirigido a los automóviles, es decir, en millas. Según Campoli, en su mayoría “las calles están diseñadas para los automóviles”.
Tomasulo realizó una investigación por su cuenta en Raleigh, preguntando a los vecinos y otras personas si, por ejemplo, estarían dispuestos a ir a cierto supermercado caminando en lugar de ir en automóvil si ello les llevara 14 minutos. La gente respondía: “Seguro… o, al menos algunas veces”, y Tomasulo les decía: “Bueno, en realidad el supermercado está a 12 minutos”. Según Tomasulo, “Tuve esta conversación una y otra vez. La gente me decía: ‘Siempre pensé que estaba muy lejos para ir caminando’”.
Por ello, los carteles originales de Tomasulo estaban colocados al nivel de los ojos de los peatones y describían las distancias en minutos hasta un destino en particular que podría interesarles. Tomasulo documentó y promovió el proyecto en Facebook. El entusiasmo que generó en la red social captó la atención de los medios de comunicación, lo que culminó nada menos que con la visita de un equipo de filmación de la BBC.
Fue entonces cuando Tomasulo se comunicó por Twitter con Mitchell Silver, por entonces director de planificación de Raleigh y expresidente de la Asociación Estadounidense de Planificación. Silver no sabía mucho acerca de Walk Raleigh, pero igualmente aceptó hablar con la BBC sobre lo buenas que eran las actividades que fomentaban el caminar, elogiando esta iniciativa como un ejemplo “genial”… que primero debería haber obtenido un permiso. Este documental despertó aún mayor atención. Y cuando, como resultado, se recibieron consultas sobre la legalidad de los carteles, el mismo Silver los retiró y se los devolvió a Tomasulo.
No obstante, Silver también reconoció la gran oportunidad. El plan integral a largo plazo de Raleigh ponía explícitamente énfasis en el fomento de los espacios para caminar (y para andar en bicicleta), una cuestión que tocaba de cerca a la población notablemente joven de este municipio, que crecía rápidamente (en ese entonces, cerca del 70 por ciento de la población tenía menos de 47 años de edad). “Realmente se volvió un tema crucial”, recuerda Silver. “¿Vamos a aceptar la innovación? ¿Walk Raleigh hizo algo incorrecto o nuestros códigos están desactualizados?”, se pregunta Silver, actualmente comisionado del Departamento de Parques y Recreación de la Ciudad de Nueva York. “La innovación pone a prueba las normas. Matt, sin darse cuenta, nos puso a prueba”.
¿Cuál fue la solución a corto plazo? Tomasulo podría donar sus carteles al municipio, que luego los reinstalaría según un “programa educativo piloto”. Para ayudar a Silver a convencer al Concejo Municipal, Tomasulo utilizó la herramienta de firma de peticiones en línea SignOn.org y recolectó 1.255 firmas en tres días. El Concejo aprobó unánimemente el regreso de Walk Raleigh.
Tomasulo fue un poco más allá (por entonces había concluido sus estudios, y tenía una maestría en planificación de ciudades y regiones por la Universidad de Carolina del Norte, sede de Chapel Hill, y otra maestría en arquitectura de paisajes por la Universidad Estatal de Carolina del Norte): recabó fondos por US$11.364 en Kickstarter y, junto con sus socios, construyó WalkYourCity.org, un sitio web en el que se ofrecen plantillas de carteles personalizables para cualquier persona y cualquier lugar. Como resultado, más de cien comunidades de municipios tanto grandes como pequeños de todo el país (y del exterior también) generaron proyectos dirigidos por los ciudadanos.
Esto no debería sorprender, en vista de lo que Campoli describe como un creciente interés, tanto entre los ciudadanos como los planificadores, en el fomento de espacios para caminar. Según Campoli, el movimiento de crecimiento inteligente ha reavivado el interés por formatos de ciudad compactos, “y, en los últimos diez años, se ha producido una convergencia en torno a esta idea del fomento de espacios hechos para caminar”. Particularmente entre grupos demográficos clave (especialmente la generación del milenio y aquellos en la etapa del nido vacío), ha surgido un reconocimiento de que la cultura del automóvil “ya no es tan maravillosa como se pensaba”, observa Campoli.
Y existe además una dimensión económica para las ciudades, según la autora. Una forma de medir esto es el creciente aumento de los valores inmobiliarios asociados con los formatos más compactos y que ofrecen más posibilidades de caminar.
El factor de impacto económico inspiró, hace poco, la oportunidad de cooperar con funcionarios de San José, lo que se destaca como un ejemplo sobre cómo el urbanismo táctico puede llegar a tener una influencia verdadera en la planificación. Sal Alvarez, de la Oficina de Desarrollo Económico de la ciudad, era seguidor de WalkYourCity.org como plataforma abierta en línea, pero destaca que “la ciudad probablemente retirará los carteles. En realidad se necesita un precursor dentro de la organización”. Tanto él como Jessica Zenk, del Departamento de Transporte de la ciudad, asumieron esta función en San José y rápidamente pusieron en marcha tres programas piloto.
Cada programa es concentrado y estratégico. El primero aprovecha la popularidad del Mercado de la Plaza de San Pedro, inaugurado recientemente: una concentración de restaurantes y negocios en el centro de la ciudad de 3 km2. Es un destino muy frecuentado, aunque la gente suele ir y venir en automóvil sin explorar mucho el lugar. Por lo tanto, se colocó una serie de 47 carteles que indican diferentes atracciones en el contiguo distrito de la “Pequeña Italia”, un parque con muchísimos senderos para caminar, el estadio donde juega el equipo de la Liga Nacional de Hockey y un segundo parque que ha sido objeto de medidas de revitalización continuas. El segundo proyecto llevado a cabo en el centro de la ciudad consistió en reclutar a una docena de voluntarios que ayudaran a colocar 74 carteles con el propósito de conectar el distrito artístico SoFA de la ciudad con otros lugares importantes a los que se puede llegar caminando, como el centro de convenciones.
La popularidad de estos dos experimentos inspiró a un concejal a proponer un tercer programa dirigido a un barrio fuera del centro propiamente dicho. El proyecto consiste en convertir una carretera de cuatro carriles en una de dos carriles, con un carril en el medio para girar y otro carril para bicicletas que permita dejar un poco de lado el viaje en automóvil. Tomasulo ha agregado una nueva serie de diseños de señales con códigos de color que indican específicamente otras infraestructuras alternativas al automóvil, tales como sitios de alquiler de bicicletas y paradas del tren de California (CalTrain). El municipio ha estado recabando información sobre el tránsito en relación con este proyecto, a fin de poder medir el impacto de los aproximadamente 50 carteles colocados en 12 intersecciones de calles. Según Alvarez, los carteles son herramientas útiles para fomentar los cambios culturales que ayudan a que los cambios en infraestructura se afiancen.
En términos más generales, los funcionarios de San José están trabajando junto con Tomasulo para “poner algunas herramientas más en la caja” de Walk [Your City], con el fin de motivar y ayudar a los entusiastas a encontrar a sus propios paladines dentro de cada municipio, para que estos proyectos contribuyan al proceso de planificación. “Si no logramos que el municipio acepte la idea en algún momento”, indica Capoli, “no obtendremos el cambio permanente que pretende alcanzar una actuación de corto plazo”.
En cuanto a Raleigh, el proyecto original está evolucionando y transformándose en un aspecto permanente del paisaje, con campañas completamente planificadas y controladas en cuatro barrios y la formación de una sociedad con la empresa Blue Cross & Blue Shield. Y este es un claro ejemplo de lo que Silver proponía: una ciudad que recibe con los brazos abiertos un proyecto de urbanización comunitario, en lugar de limitarse a reglamentar.
Sin embargo, el ejemplo de San José demuestra hasta qué punto el extremo opuesto también es importante: el urbanismo táctico puede recibir beneficios de las estructuras de planificación oficial. A Tomasulo se lo ve realmente satisfecho al observar que este proyecto pasó de ser un experimento “no autorizado” a lograr asociaciones activas con paladines dentro del municipio de San José y otros lugares. Tomasulo acuña un término para referirse a los funcionarios cuyo entusiasmo, creatividad y sabiduría práctica para lograr cosas rompe con todos los estereotipos comunes. “No son burócratas”, señala. “Son herócratas”.
Rob Walker (robwalker.net) colabora con Yahoo Tech, Design Observer y The New York Times.
SHARE
This article reviews the Western State Planning Leadership Retreat, in which state planners from 13 western states have participated. The retreats provide a forum for state-level planners to compare their experiences, learn from each other’s successes and failures, and build a common base of experience for land use planning in their states and across the region. Rather than promote a particular approach to land use planning and growth management, the retreats encourage planners to explore a range of land use planning strategies for responding to growth and land use issues in the West. This article summarizes what we learned during the first two retreats in 2000 and 2001.
Forces and trends of land use planning. The West is changing and there are many differences in the states’ approach to land use planning. New forces and trends are redefining the region’s quality of life, communities, and landscapes—directly influencing how we approach land use planning and growth management. Within these trends, western state planners recognize a variety of common challenges—pockets of explosive population growth, sprawl, drought, out-of-date legislation, a lack of funding, and a lack of public and political support for planning, and changing the way development occurs.
Major themes related to land use planning and growth in the West;
Why plan? How can we build public and political support for planning? Historically, land use planning was motivated by a concern to promote orderly development of the landscape, preserve some open spaces, and provide consistency among developments. These continue to be important objectives, but they are insufficient for building public and political support.
What is the role of state government? State programs should support local land use planning efforts, and should try to engage the “big players,” such as transportation departments, to work with local jurisdictions and maintain their state’s economic competitiveness by encouraging local communities to improve their quality of life through infill, redevelopment, and preserving the natural environment.
How can regional approaches to land use planning complement state actions? Regionalism allows multiple jurisdictions to share common resources and manage joint services, such as water treatment facilities and roads. Regional approaches are gaining momentum, but they also create new challenges.
Foster effective planning and growth management through collaboration. Collaboration can be defined many ways, but most planners agree with the premise that if you bring together the right people with good information they will create effective, sustainable solutions to their shared problems. Collaboration, when done correctly, allows the people most affected by land use planning decisions to drive the decisions.
How do we measure success? In 1998, the Arizona legislature passed the Growing Smarter Act, which was amended in 2000, and created a Growing Smarter Commission. The act reformed land use planning and zoning policies and required more public participation in local land use planning. This brings us full circle to our first theme—Why are we planning?
The Three Cs of Planning—three recommendations emerge from the western state planners’ retreats that can be implemented throughout the country. First, identify the most compelling reason to plan in your community; second, rely on collaborative approaches; third, foster regional connections.
“This [the West] is the native home of hope. When it fully learns that cooperation, not rugged individualism, is the quality that most characterizes and preserves it, then it will have achieved itself and outlived its origins. Then it has a chance to create a society to match its scenery.”
Wallace Stegner, The Sound of Mountain Water (Penguin Books 1980, 38)
During the past two years, state planners in 13 western states have met in the Western State Planning Leadership Retreat, an annual event sponsored by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and the Western Consensus Council. Cosponsors include the Western Governors’ Association, the Council of State Governments–WEST, and the Western Planners’ Association. The retreats provide a forum for state-level planners to compare their experiences, learn from each other’s successes and failures, and build a common base of experience for planning in their states and across the region. Rather than promote a particular approach to planning and growth management, the retreats encourage planners to explore a range of strategies for responding to growth and land use issues in the West. This article summarizes what we have learned during the first two retreats in 2000 and 2001.
Forces and Trends
The West is changing. New forces and trends are redefining the region’s quality of life, communities and landscapes, directly influencing how we approach land use planning and growth management. One force that sets the West apart from other regions of the country is the overwhelming presence of the landscape. The West has more land and fewer people than any other region, yet is also very urbanized. More people live in urban centers than in rural communities.
The dominance of land in the politics and public policy of the West is due in part to the large amount of land governed by federal and tribal entities (see Figure 1). More than 90 percent of all federal land in the U.S. lies in Alaska and the 11 westernmost contiguous states. The U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service manage most of the West’s geography and significantly influence the politics of land use decisions. Indian tribes govern one-fifth of the interior West and are key players in managing water, fish and wildlife.
The West is also the fastest growing region of the country (see Figure 2). The five fastest-growing states of the 1990s were Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, Utah and Idaho. Between 1990 and 1998, the region’s cities grew by 25 percent and its rural areas by 18 percent, both significantly higher rates than elsewhere in the U.S. As western demographics diversify, the political geography has grown remarkably homogeneous. Following the 2000 elections, Republicans held three-quarters of the congressional districts in the interior West (see Figure 3) and all governorships except the coastal states of California, Oregon and Washington.
Within these trends, western state planners recognize a variety of common challenges—pockets of explosive population growth, sprawl, drought, out-of-date legislation, a lack of funding, and a lack of public and political support for planning and changing the way development occurs in the West. They also point out many differences in their states’ approaches to planning. Oregon and Hawaii have long-standing statewide land use planning efforts, but planning in Nevada is a recent phenomenon, limited mainly to the Las Vegas and Reno areas. Vast federal holdings in Nevada, Idaho and Utah dictate land use management more than in other states, and Arizona and New Mexico share planning responsibilities with many sovereign tribal governments. Alaska and Wyoming—with small populations and little or no growth—do very little planning.
Major Themes
Based on the first two retreats, we have identified six major themes related to planning and growth in the West.
Why plan? How can we build public and political support for planning? Historically, planning was motivated by a concern to promote orderly development of the landscape, preserve some open spaces, and provide consistency among developments. These continue to be important objectives, but they are insufficient for building public and political support. Particularly during economic recession, planning takes a back seat—the public can focus on only so many problems at once. Today, the most compelling argument for planning is that it can be a vehicle to promote economic development and sustain the quality of life. People move to the West and create jobs because they like the quality of life in the region, and planners need to tap into this motivation.
In Utah, for example, quality of life is an economic imperative, so state planners tie their work to enhancing quality of life rather than to limiting or directing growth. It is used to integrate economic vitality and environmental protection. Several years ago, business leaders and others created Envision Utah, a private-public partnership. Participants use visualization techniques and aerial photos, mapping growth as it might occur without planning, and then again under planned cluster developments with greenbelts and community centers. These “alternative futures” scenarios help citizens picture the changes that are coming and the alternatives for guiding those changes in their communities. As Utah’s state planner says, “Growth will happen, and our job is to preserve quality. That way, when growth slows, we will still have a high quality of life.”
Kent Briggs, executive director for the Council of State Governments–WEST (a regional association for state legislators), and Jim Souby, executive director of the Western Governors’ Association, acknowledge the difficulty of nurturing public and political support for growth management in the West. They agree that political power shifts quickly from one party to the other, and yet is a lagging indicator of cultural, demographic and economic change. Governors and legislators might be more convinced to support land use planning, they say, by using visualization techniques to help them understand the costs of existing patterns of development, and to picture the desired future of our communities and landscapes.
How much planning is enough, and who should be in the driver’s seat? Arizona and Colorado have smart growth programs designed to help communities plan for growth and preserve open space. In the November 2000 elections, citizen initiatives in both states introduced some of the nation’s most stringent planning requirements, but both initiatives failed by a 70 to 30 percent vote, suggesting that citizens want to maintain flexibility and freedom—and local control—when it comes to planning and growth management. The story is similar in Hawaii, where business profitability—not zoning maps—directs land use. In May 2001, Hawaii’s governor vetoed a smart growth initiative because it was perceived as being too environmental and would limit developers’ ability to convert agricultural lands.
This emphasis on home rule or local control is supported by a recent survey of citizens in Montana, conducted by the Montana Association of Realtors. In the survey, 67 percent of respondents said that city or county governments should have the power to make land use decisions, while 60 percent opposed increasing state involvement in managing growth-related problems.
In Oregon, citizens narrowly passed Measure 7, an initiative requiring state and local governments to pay private property owners for any regulations that restrict the use or reduce the value of real property. While the impacts and constitutionality of this initiative are still being debated, it sends a strong message to planners in a state that has had one of the most progressive land use and growth management programs for 25 years. The message, according to Oregon’s state planner, is to not rest on your successes, and to keep citizens and communities engaged in an ongoing discussion about the effectiveness of land use planning. He also stressed the need to balance preservation with appropriate development, emphasizing that “good planning doesn’t just place limits on growth and development.”
What is the role of state government? Douglas Porter, keynote speaker at the first retreat and a nationally known consultant on land use and growth policy, says that one of the most important state roles is to offset the lack of will to plan at the local level. He says that state programs should support local planning efforts, and should try to engage the “big players,” such as transportation departments, to work with local jurisdictions. Porter also suggests that state governments can maintain their state’s economic competitiveness by encouraging local communities to improve their quality of life through infill, redevelopment, and preserving the natural environment.
Oregon’s state government attracted $20 million in federal funding to help communities overhaul zoning ordinances and remove obstacles to mixed uses. Colorado created an Office of Smart Growth to provide technical assistance on comprehensive planning; document best practices for planning and development; maintain a list of qualified mediators for land use disputes; and provide grants for regional efforts in high growth areas. In Arizona, Montana and New Mexico, state planning offices provide a range of technical services to assist communities, such as clarifying state laws, promoting public participation, and fostering intergovernmental coordination.
Jim Souby suggests that one of the most effective roles of state government is to promote market-based strategies and tax incentives. “Tax what you don’t like, subsidize what you do like,” Souby says. Other incentives might include cost sharing and state investment strategies—similar to Maryland and Oregon—to drive development in a positive direction.
How can regional approaches to land use planning complement state actions? Regionalism allows multiple jurisdictions to share common resources and manage joint services, such as water treatment facilities and roads. In Washington, citizens recently rejected the top-down smart growth model popularized in Florida due to concerns over home rule and private property rights. In response, the state legislature approved a system of regional planning boards that instill some statewide consistency while allowing for regional and local differences.
Nevada, despite double-digit growth in the Las Vegas and Reno areas, does not have a state planning office. However, the legislature mandated Washoe County (home of Reno and Sparks) to create a regional planning commission to address growth issues jointly rather than in a piecemeal manner. Key municipal and county officials in Clark County (Las Vegas) formed their planning coalition voluntarily—compelled to cooperate by the highest growth rate in the nation. This coalition recently presented the state legislature with a regional plan that emphasizes resolving growth issues locally rather than at the state level.
In New Mexico, the city and county of Santa Fe each recently updated their comprehensive land use plans. The plans were fine, except that they were stand-alones prepared with no coordination. Citizens demanded better integration of planning efforts and pushed for a new regional planning authority. Within 18 months, citizens and officials developed a joint land use plan for the five-mile zone around the city, and the regional authority is now developing zoning districts and an annexation plan. In Idaho, city and county officials in Boise voluntarily created the Treasure Valley Partnership as a forum to discuss policies for controlling sprawl, and to coordinate the delivery of services. They are also reviewing the possibility of light rail development.
Regional approaches are gaining momentum, but they also create new challenges. For example, the city of Reno has been reluctant to join the neighboring city of Sparks and Washoe County in revising their regional plan. With no enforcement or penalty at the state level, the other jurisdictions can do little to encourage Reno’s involvement. Likewise, New Mexico has no policy framework for regional planning and thus no guidelines on how to share taxing authority, land use decision making and enforcement responsibilities.
Foster effective planning and growth management through collaboration. Collaboration can be defined many ways, but most planners agree with the premise that if you bring together the right people with good information they will create effective, sustainable solutions to their shared problems. Collaborative forums allow local officials to weigh and balance competing viewpoints, and to learn more about the issues at hand. According to Jim Souby, local efforts should incorporate federal land managers because they play such a dominant role in the region’s political geography. Kent Briggs agrees that collaboration, when done correctly, allows the people most affected by land use decisions to drive the decisions. Collaborative processes, when they include all affected interests, can generate enormous political power, even when such efforts do not have any formal authority. While it may be appropriate in some cases to have national or state goals, it is ultimately up to the people who live in the communities and watersheds of the West to determine their future, according to Briggs.
How do we measure success? In 1998, the Arizona legislature passed the Growing Smarter Act, which was amended in 2000, and created a Growing Smarter Commission. The act reformed land use planning and zoning policies and required more public participation in local planning. The commission recommended that the state should monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of land use planning on an ongoing basis. The governor recently appointed an oversight council to continue this work, but council members say that clear benchmarks are needed against which to evaluate the effectiveness of land use planning—a percentage of open space preserved, for example, or a threshold on new development that triggers tighter growth restrictions. Arizona law, however, simply identifies the issues that must be addressed in comprehensive land use plans. It does not set specific standards or expectations, making meaningful evaluation impossible. This brings us full circle to our first theme—Why are we planning?
The Three Cs of Planning
Three recommendations emerge from the western state planners’ retreats that can be implemented throughout the country.
First, identify the most compelling reason to plan in your community. What are you trying to promote, or prevent? Be explicit about the values driving the planning process. Emphasize the link between quality of life, economic development and land use planning as a way to sustain the economy and the environment. Remember that people must have meaningful reasons to participate constructively in the planning process.
Second, rely on collaborative approaches. Engage the full range of stakeholders, and do it in a meaningful way. A good collaborative process generates a broader understanding of the issues—since more people are sharing information and ideas—and also leads to more durable, widely supported decisions. Collaboration may also be the most effective way to accommodate the needs and interests of local citizens within a regional approach and when the state’s role is limited.
Third, foster regional connections. Recognize that planning is an ongoing process, not a product to be produced and placed on a shelf. Link the present to the future using visualization and alternative futures techniques. Build monitoring and evaluation strategies into plan implementation. Encourage regional approaches that build on a common sense of place and address transboundary issues. Emphasize that regionalism can lead to greater efficiencies and economies of scale by coordinating efforts and sharing resources.
Matthew McKinney is executive director of the Western Consensus Council in Helena, Montana, a nonprofit organization that helps citizens and officials shape effective natural resource and other public policy through inclusive, informed and deliberative public processes. Will Harmon is the communications coordinator for the Western Consensus Council and a freelance writer based in Helena.
References
Center for Resource Management. 1999. The Western Charter: Initiating a Regional Conversation. Boulder, CO: Center for Resource Management.
Kwartler, Michael. 1998. Regulating the good you can’t think of. Urban Design International 3(1):13-21.
Steinitz, Carl and Susan McDowell. 2001. Alternative futures for Monroe County, Pennsylvania: A case study in applying ecological principles, in Applying Ecological Principles to Land Management, edited by Virginia H. Dale and Richard A. Haeuber. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag, 165-189.
Swanson, Larry. 1999. The emerging ‘new economy’ of the Rocky Mountain West: Recent change and future expectation. The Rocky Mountain West’s Changing Landscape 1(1):16-27.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000. Environmental Planning for Communities: A Guide to the Environmental Visioning Process Utilizing a Geographic Information System (GIS). (September).
SHARE
Like many fast-growing areas across the country, the Bluegrass region of central Kentucky is dealing with two complementary growth management issues:
Civic leadership for this critical planning process is provided by Bluegrass Tomorrow, a non-profit, community-based organization formed in 1989 to ensure that the region’s extraordinary resources-physical, natural and fiscal-are soundly managed for the future. Bluegrass Tomorrow works within the seven-county area for solutions that build a strong and efficient economy, a protected environment and livable communities. The organization accomplishes its goals by promoting regional dialogue and collaborative goal-setting among diverse interests, facilitating public, private and corporate sector cooperation, and developing innovative planning solutions to growth and conservation concerns.
The guiding framework for Bluegrass Tomorrow is the Bluegrass Regional Vision that was developed in 1993 through a broad-based regional planning process. In seeking to maintain a clear definition between town and country, this Vision reflects the region’s legacy of a large urban center (Lexington) surrounded by smaller, distinct cities and towns. These communities are separated and yet connected by a beautiful greenbelt of agricultural land and areas rich in environmental and historic resources.
Smart Growth Choices
Continuing a partnership established in the early 1990s, the Lincoln Institute and Bluegrass Tomorrow cosponsored a conference in October that focused on smart growth choices for the region. The conference was designed to bring together public officials, business interests and concerned citizens to revisit the Regional Vision, discuss why that Vision remains important for good business, good cities and a good environment, and to explore how it is being unraveled by current development pressures. Through a combination of keynote addresses, plenary sessions and interactive workshops, participants learned about smart growth principles and evaluated the appropriateness of various approaches and models to their region.
William Hudnut, senior resident fellow at the Urban Land Institute in Washington, D.C., discussed the characteristics of smart growth, which are also the goals of the Bluegrass Regional Vision:
The conference program highlighted three smart growth themes, offered illustrative case studies from other regions in the U.S., and provided opportunities for participant feedback on promising directions and possible obstacles.
Planning and Paying for Infrastructure
The Bluegrass region’s ability to create incentives to promote smart growth practices is often limited because local governments are always in the business of playing “catch up.” This creates a problem because of the need for local government to be able to use public infrastructure to promote development in areas appropriate for growth, away from rural conservation areas, and to help in the purchase of development rights to protect the Bluegrass farmland.
Paul Tischler, a fiscal, economic and planning consultant from Bethesda, Maryland, advocated that government use a capital improvement plan to address this problem. This planning tool allows governments to create a comprehensive approach to current and future needs in one integrated program. It establishes goals for what projects are needed and how and when to pay for them. Peter Pollock of the Boulder, Colorado, Planning Department presented a case study of how his city has implemented a capital improvement program that addresses capital facilities planning and budgeting, equity concerns and linkage of service availability to development approval.
Infill Development
Promotion of more intense development and redevelopment within established cities and towns in the Bluegrass is a critical smart growth issue. It encourages more efficient use of the region’s highly valued Bluegrass farmland and makes better use of existing infrastructure. Too often, however, developers are required to reduce the density of development to respond to neighborhood concerns about incompatibility with the existing community character. As a result, land within urban areas is being used less efficiently, which increases the pressure to convert farmland on the edge of developed areas into future home sites.
To address this problem, Nore Winter, an urban design review consultant in Boulder, Colorado, discussed how communities can make sure that infill and redevelopment enhance the community and the quality of life in the surrounding neighborhood. He explained how to avoid “generica” by defining community character and using design guidelines to improve new developments with visual examples that demonstrate the type of development that is preferred. David Rice, executive director of the Norfolk, Virginia, Redevelopment and Housing Authority, shared examples of infill development projects in that city, which has successfully created quality neighborhoods, encouraged community participation and addressed difficult zoning, design and permitting concerns.
Regional Cooperation
The seven central Bluegrass counties constitute a highly integrated region in terms of land use, economy, and natural and cultural resources. Decisions in one county can have a long-term impact on another county. Although Bluegrass Tomorrow has drawn the region together to work on these issues, the current rate of change requires more intensive planning and coordination.
Curtis Johnson, president and chairman of the Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities area in Minnesota, explored with conference participants many examples of additional steps that can be taken to promote regional cooperation. The good news for the Bluegrass, Johnson noted in his opening observations, is that unlike some regions of the U.S., the Bluegrass is still able to make important choices. He cautioned, though, that any region has only a few opportunities to get it right, and that there is no magic solution. He also offered several succinct ideas about regionalism: “setting a bigger table, including those who disagree,” “it’s never over,” and “no one is excused.”
Next Steps
Conference participants and local community and political leaders who held a follow-up meeting concluded that the region needs to explore seven action steps to build on the ideas generated by the conference speakers and discussion sessions.
1. Encourage communities to put in place a well-communicated and clearly explained capital improvement plan to help build community confidence that government can meet and pay for the needs of local communities and the region as a whole. The plan should match services to regional growth and build consensus among diverse interest groups about which areas are to be designated as urban and which will remain rural.
2. Promote infill development by using a redevelopment authority to build downtown housing, redevelop old strip centers and explore new projects in overlooked urbanized areas.
3. Develop design guidelines for infill and redevelopment projects that work as a friend, not a foe. The guidelines should be developed in partnership with the neighbors to build confidence in the process, remove fear of the unknown, and set a design framework rather than dictate a particular design style.
4. Use Bluegrass farmland as the niche or “brand identity” when marketing the Bluegrass as a location.
5. Educate the business community, especially the lending community, about the reasons for and benefits of smart growth.
6. Address concerns over economic winners and losers in the region, and undertake economic planning accordingly.
7. Build on collaborative regional efforts now in place and the common sense of place in the Bluegrass to strengthen regional planning efforts. This involves taking care to maximize alliances among groups and to balance strategic long-term planning with specific actions.
What will become of these ideas? If the past is any measure, over the next several months the leaders and citizens of the Bluegrass region will sort out which of these ideas will work best, and they will form the coalitions necessary to make them work. Bluegrass Tomorrow will continue to provide a unique model of private sector leadership on smart growth issues in collaboration with the region’s public officials and community residents.
Jean Scott is executive director of Bluegrass Tomorrow, based in Lexington, Kentucky, and Peter Pollock is director of community planning in Boulder, Colorado, and a former visiting fellow of the Lincoln Institute. Together they developed and organized the conference on Smart Growth for the Bluegrass.
SHARE
Decentralization of the state and growing business and community involvement in civic affairs are posing new challenges to the development of institutions focused on land policies and their implementation throughout Latin America. Mayors and local councils are assuming new responsibilities in the areas of environmental protection, urban transportation, basic infrastructure, local financing, social services and economic development. At the same time, business and civic organizations are finding new avenues to ensure public attention to their demands through participatory planning, budgeting, co-financing and control at the local level.
Thus, decentralization and democratic participation are gradually building an environment in which public-private alliances can develop joint projects of common interest to both government and individuals. However, many government institutions have a long way to go before they are fully adjusted to their new roles in planning, regulation and evaluation.
Long-entrenched cultures of apathy and citizen distrust of government have to be transformed into mutual confidence capable of mobilizing the best community traditions of the Latin American people. Political and economic patronage and state corruption need to be superseded by political and administrative accountability. Obsolete budget, contract and municipal laws still restrict the capacity of both local governments and civil society to interact creatively through contractual and co-financing arrangements.
The institutional challenges and policy dilemmas currently confronted by the Metropolitan Area of San Salvador (MASS) illustrate the transformations occurring throughout the region. After years of civil war, the Salvadorans signed a peace agreement in 1992 that provided the framework for real competition among political parties and stimulated more active participation by business, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and community organizations. MASS incorporates several municipalities, some of them led by mayors from opposition parties to the central government. The coordinating body of MASS is the Council of Mayors, which in turn is supported by a Metropolitan Planning Office.
With technical assistance from international NGOs, MASS has prepared a comprehensive development plan. Contemporary urban planning instruments such as macrozoning, multi-rate property tax, value capture for environmental protection, public-private consortiums and land use coefficients are being considered for the implementation of land, development and environmental policies. Indeed, the Salvadorans have the support of several research centers that are familiar with the use and impact of these and other instruments in other parts of the world. Their primary need now is to mobilize public and private metropolitan actors around common policies and to develop shared instruments for their application.
Toward that end, PRISMA, a prominent Salvadoran NGO and urban research center, invited the Lincoln Institute to develop a joint workshop on urban management tools, intergovernmental coordinating mechanisms for metropolitan areas and public-private initiatives for sustainable cities. The workshop, held in San Salvador in October, included high-ranking officers from the central government, mayors, planning officers and other authorities from MASS, and representatives from builders’ and developers’ associations and some cooperative housing institutions and community organizations.
Speakers from the Lincoln Institute presented experiences from Taiwan, The Philippines, Mexico and other Latin American countries that underlined policies and instruments capable of harmonizing the interests of different urban stakeholders and coordinating several layers of government for land use and urban development objectives. The Salvadorans explained their immediate concerns, such as the lack of intergovernmental coordination to protect the urban environment, discontinuities in policy measures, arbitrariness at all levels of government, and legal and administrative uncertainties.
The workshop participants concluded that to foster the new legal and institutional framework sought by MASS the Salvadorans need to expand discussions among other metropolitan actors. They also need to continue to work with institutions such as the Lincoln Institute that have the trust and credibility to present internationally recognized land management policies and can help build consensus among different public and private interests.
Mario Lungo is a researcher at PRISMA, the Salvadoran Program for Development and Environmental Research; Alejandra Mortarini is the Lincoln Institute’s Latin America and Caribbean programs manager; and Fernando Rojas, a lawyer from Colombia, is a visiting fellow of the Institute this year.
SHARE
My father John C. Lincoln (1866-1959) had a strong code of ethics that played a prominent role in both his practice of business and his ideas about land. In 1895 he founded the Lincoln Electric Company of Cleveland, Ohio, which became the world’s leading manufacturer of arc welding equipment. He drew his ideas about land from the 1879 book Progress and Poverty, by the American political economist and social philosopher Henry George.
My father’s core ethical principle was to treat people as you would like to be treated. This implied the following precepts:
1) Treat people with absolute fairness. This means all people. In business it includes all the constituents of a company—employees, customers, owners, and the community. In society it means government must treat individuals fairly, and vice versa.
2) Whoever creates something should be entitled to keep it. Receiving the fruits of someone else’s labor—a windfall—often occurs. But for each windfall there is a wipeout—someone doesn’t get all he or she produced. Both the windfall and the wipeout are unethical.
3) People are important. They should be treated with respect and dignity, not as machines or cogs in a wheel.
Ethics in Business
Largely as a result of following these principles, the Lincoln Electric Company has demonstrated superior performance for its entire 100-year history. Many things have to happen to run a business ethically. One of them is making an adequate profit, which benefits the shareholders. But in my opinion, any company and all its constituents are better served if the customer comes first.
At Lincoln Electric, most employees are on piece work. If they produce more, they get more. The company has an annual bonus program, and the kitty for this bonus is composed of the extra profit beyond the returns required to run the business. Running the business includes providing a fair but not excessive dividend to shareholders and investing in new products and production methods. Beyond these costs, employees at Lincoln Electric get to keep any extra profit they produce. Recently bonuses have been about 50 to 60 percent of annual salaries. There are no windfalls, and no wipeouts.
Nowadays, manufacturing is no longer as much the “thing” as it once was. Making Lincoln Electric a successful global company requires more emphasis on company-wide teams. Individual pay is more dependent upon cooperation across departmental lines. This can work just as well as more individual programs of the past, but it is more difficult to manage. Incentives must be tailored to each location where we operate.
Ethics in Land
The heritage of the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy stems from my father’s interest in the ideas of Henry George, especially the land value tax. The ethics of this tax concept are parallel to those used at Lincoln Electric.
Someone who works the land should be entitled to keep the fruits of his labor. If he produces more because of increased skill or effort, he should reap a higher reward. However, Henry George said that land is a natural monopoly. Its value is largely created by things unrelated to the actions of the land’s owner, such as population pressure or mineral deposits. The landowner or user has nothing to do with these factors, yet if they cause the land value to increase, the owner gets a windfall.
This ethical dilemma disturbed my father, as it disturbs me. He subscribed to the remedy proposed by Henry George, which is to take as a tax each year the full rental value of land produced by natural or social factors. This would eliminate the windfall. It would still leave for landowners and users the value created by their own investments and labor.
A hundred years ago land was considered one of the three factors of production, along with labor and capital. Land was essential as both a place to work and a source of raw materials. Things are more complex today. A great deal of the economy has to do with telecommunications and computer software, which allow businesses to locate anywhere and use few or inexpensive natural resources. These changes may not negate the basic economic theories of Henry George’s time, but they do make it a bit more difficult to analyze the role of land in the economy.
There are many positive illustrations that ethical business practices lead to economic success. Unfortunately, there are not clearcut illustrations showing that land value taxation produces broad economic benefits. Nevertheless, economic research suggests that land value taxation could encourage the productive and careful use of land. Individuals who used the land in ways that increased its production would be able to keep the full value they had created, and society would keep the value it created.
I believe ethical practices will benefit all sides in any transaction. Ethical land taxation should lead to an improved economy, just as ethical business practices lead to more successful companies. One should get to keep the fruits of one’s labor, but the fruits of speculation or monopolies should accrue to the community as a whole, not to individuals as windfalls. Both the private sector and the public sector would benefit. Good ethics is good business. Good ethics is good for society as well as the economy.
___________________
David C. Lincoln, president of the Lincoln Foundation and former chairman of the Lincoln Institute, presented the annual Founder’s Day lecture on August 1 at Lincoln House. He had served as chairman for the Institute’s first 22 years before stepping down in May 1996. His talk, excerpted here in part, commemorated the 130th anniversary of the birth of his father, John Cromwell Lincoln, the Cleveland, Ohio, industrialist who founded the Lincoln Foundation in 1947.
