SHARE
A New Yorker cartoon by Jack Ziegler captures the essential irony of buying into condominiums, cooperatives, and other homeowner associations. A car is entering a driveway that leads to a group of townhouses in the distance, and a sign by the entrance proclaims, “Welcome to Condoville and the Illusion of Owning Your Own Property” (Ziegler 1984).
Despite this ambiguity, about a quarter of the American population now lives in association housing situations, collectively known as common interest communities (CICs). Figure 1 shows the tremendous increase in CICs over the past several decades. From 1970 to 2013, the number of housing units in such communities spiked from about 700,000 to 26.3 million, while the number of residents multiplied more than 30-fold from 2.1 million to 65.7 million.
With their growing popularity, common interest communities have raised policy challenges and legal issues that require ongoing resolution. These conflicts generally reflect either external concerns that CICs segregate the wealthy from the rest of society or internal disagreements between individual owners and their associations’ governing bodies. This article examines some of the controversies associated with the CIC model and its governance, and suggests approaches for enhancing the benefits of common interest communities for both property owners and society at large.
The Rise of Common Interest Communities
With increasing industrialization during the 19th century, the intrusion of pollution, traffic, noise, and disease led many planners and citizens to favor the separation of residential, commercial, and industrial uses. (Zoning had not yet emerged as a planning tool and would not be validated by the Supreme Court of the United States until 1926.) Some residential developers thus imposed “servitudes”—covenants, restrictions, and easements—on their subdivision projects. Servitudes generally restricted the properties to residential uses and often created shared rights to communal facilities and services in exchange for fees. Lot purchasers agreed to the servitudes, and once the restrictions were recorded, subsequent purchasers were also legally bound. The common law proved to be an effective vehicle for creating high-end residential areas, including New York City’s Gramercy Park (1831) and Boston’s Louisburg Square (1844).
After a slowdown during the Great Depression and World War II, construction of CICs began to boom in the late 1960s, after the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) recognized the condominium as an insurable ownership vehicle, and state statutory authorization followed. FHA mortgage insurance encouraged developers to build middle-class condominiums, which gained market acceptance as a result of the “new town” movement—exemplified by early planned communities such as Reston, Virginia (1964), and Columbia, Maryland (1967). The passage of California’s Proposition 13, the initiative that limited property taxation in 1978, and similar measures in other states also spurred an increase in CICs, as cash-strapped local governments, under increased pressure to provide more services, were unwilling to absorb the infrastructure and service costs from new development. As a result, they tended to approve new developments only in CIC form, where the developer (and ultimately the owners) covered the costs.
Today, CIC owners are generally subject to a variety of constraints related to their private units, from limitations on the layout and design of buildings and the type of construction materials used, to restrictions on visible home decorations, ancillary structures, and landscaping. There are often controls on the owner’s behavior and use of the property, which is typically limited to residential occupancy. Noise, parking, and traffic rules may also be imposed, along with vehicle restrictions. In some cases, political signs, leafleting, and related activities are also prohibited.
In exchange for their association dues, owners have access to common facilities, such as roads and recreational areas, and to private services, such as security, trash collection, street cleaning, and snow plowing. The CIC is usually administered by a private residential government and various committees, elected by the owners and subject to the law of contract rather than public administrative and Constitutional law (see Box 1).
————————
Box 1: Common Interest Community Models
CICs typically create a private government elected by the owners to administer and enforce contracts, and to promulgate rules to advance community interests. While the exact form of the arrangement may vary, the basic concepts are similar.
Homeowner Associations
Unit owners hold fee title to their individual properties, which are usually single-family or townhouse homes. The association holds title to common areas and grants the owners easement rights for their use. These can be created by common law or under statutes in some states. Homeowner associations make up more than half of community associations nationally.
Condominiums
Unit owners receive fee title to their units plus a percentage ownership in the common areas. The association administers the common areas but does not hold title to them. Condominiums may be vertical (high-rise) or horizontal (single-family or townhouse homes), and they are created exclusively pursuant to state statute. Condominiums represent 45 to 48 percent of community associations.
Cooperatives
A cooperative corporation owns the building, and the owners receive shares in the corporation and automatically renewable, long-term leases on their individual units. Unlike condominium and homeowner associations, the corporation can control transfer of leases and shares by cooperative owners. Only 3 to 4 percent of community associations are organized as cooperatives.
————————
Economic Benefits of CICs
CICs bring substantial economic benefits to owners and to society at large. Residents who buy into these communities have determined that shared facilities, such as recreational areas, are a better value than, say, personal swimming pools and other private facilities. Similarly, those joining CICs have determined that certain restrictions—such as a prohibition on parking mobile homes in driveways—increase property values.
These communities help to achieve efficient use of land as well. The costs of organizing and administering a private residential community are lower than in a public system (Nelson 2009). Transaction costs and rent-seeking through the political system are also reduced. Finally, because it is free from statutory and constitutional restraints, a private community has greater flexibility in the substance of its rules and operations, freeing it from adherence to public guidelines when entering into contracts with service providers and suppliers.
American courts have recognized these efficiency benefits when enforcing CIC arrangements and the owners’ reliance on them. As one court noted, “It is a well-known fact that [covenants] enhance the value of the subdivision property and form an inducement for purchasers to buy lots within the subdivision” (Gunnels v. No. Woodland Community Ass’n, Tex. Ct. App, 17013 [1978]).
External Concerns: Secession from the General Community
Despite these benefits, various commentators have argued that the services and private facilities of CICs are available only to those who can afford them and facilitate the separation of the wealthy from the rest of society. The rest of a CIC’s municipality is forced to do without, creating a permanent, two-tier system of housing. Critics also claim that privatization of infrastructure and services isolates CIC residents and reduces their stake in broad communal issues.
By this logic, CIC dwellers are less willing to engage with public government on civic matters and more likely to resist tax increases, given that the CIC rather than the municipal government provides many services. Where community associations are part of suburban developments, isolation from the urban core may be acute. These concerns often center on a fear of class and economic segregation. As former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich wrote in a New York Times article called “Secession of the Successful”: In many cities and towns, the wealthy have in effect withdrawn their dollars from the support of public spaces and institutions shared by all and dedicated the savings to their own private services. . . . Condominiums and the omnipresent residential communities dun their members to undertake work that financially strapped local governments can no longer afford to do well (Reich 1991).
Freedom of Choice
This characterization of community associations, however, is at odds with the fundamental American values of freedom of contract and freedom of association. It is a shared value that people may spend their money for lawful purposes as they wish and enter into contracts as they please. The law intrudes on freedom of contract only in rare instances when major policy considerations are at stake. Courts have recognized freedom of contract as an important consideration for upholding private servitude arrangements: We start with the proposition that private persons, in the exercise of their constitutional right of freedom of contract, may impose whatever restrictions upon the use of land which they convey to another that they desire to impose (Grubel v. McLaughlin, D. Va. [1968]).
CICs also reflect the American belief in freedom of association, exemplified in a long tradition of utopian communities and other belief-centered networks. Residents in modern CICs might share common interests, such as the homeowners living in golf or equestrian communities. Other residents may simply share a desire for neighborhood tranquility or character. In Behind the Gates, Setha Low suggests that CICs allow “middle-class families [to] imprint their residential landscapes with ‘niceness,’ reflecting their own aesthetic of orderliness, consistency, and control” (Low 2004). Whatever the reason, community associations are consistent with de Tocqueville’s observation about American interactions: Americans of all ages, all conditions, and all dispositions, constantly form associations. They have not only commercial and manufacturing companies, in which all take part, but associations of a thousand other kinds—religious, moral, serious, futile, extensive or restricted, enormous or diminutive (de Tocqueville 1835).
Moreover, the available evidence indicates that CIC residents are generally happy with their choice. In a 2014 survey conducted by Public Opinion Strategies for the Community Associations Institute, 64 percent of owners were positive about their overall experience, and 26 percent were neutral. While 86 percent of respondents indicated that they wanted either less or no additional governmental regulation, 70 percent maintained that association rules and restrictions protect and enhance property values.
The Issue of Double Taxation
While the rise of CICs reflects a variety of factors, the constrained finances of municipalities following the property tax revolts in the 1970s were key. In fact, a different take on the “secession” narrative is that some owners in common interest communities believe that municipal government abandoned them.
CIC owners pay property taxes at the same rates as other citizens, even though they privately purchase services such as trash collection, street cleaning, and security with their community association dues. This amounts to double taxation, charging association owners for a service they are not receiving.
If a no-service policy were in effect before an owner purchased a unit in a CIC, theoretically the buyer could lower the offer price to reflect the lack of municipal services and the double-taxation-effect. The unit owner would be protected, and the developer would absorb the loss. But if a municipality reduces services but not taxes after the unit purchase, the owner suffers an uncompensated loss. This outcome would be bad policy in that it permits rent seeking, allowing the majority of citizens in the town to select one group of residents to bear an extra tax burden even though they do not create extra costs. This offends notions of both fairness and efficiency, and it’s antithetical to community building and civic trust.
It is especially important for legislatures to avoid the use of double taxation as a matter of policy, given that judicial challenges are unlikely to succeed. The few courts that have entertained attacks on double taxation have been unsympathetic to claims that it violates due process of law, offends the equal protection clause of the Constitution, or works a taking of property without compensation. While double taxation may be bad policy, it is not unconstitutional. The courts should not overturn such legislative decisions, because these are essentially political outcomes that the public should challenge at the ballot box.
The Question of Inequality
The “secession of the wealthy” argument appears to be based on the notion that only higher-income owners with higher-value homes live in common interest communities. The available data, however, do not clearly support this assumption. As Figure 2 indicates, prices for condominiums and cooperatives—half of the units in CICs nationally—are below those for all existing homes (including condominiums, cooperatives, and single-family homes inside and outside of community associations). While these estimates are not deeply segmented (for example, they do not break out single-family homes inside and outside CICs), they do show that the values of condominiums and cooperatives are consistent with those of homes generally.
Housing affordability and access are significant challenges in the United States, but community associations are not necessarily the cause of these deep-seated, complex problems. Employed before CICs became popular, exclusionary zoning imposed by local governments in the form of large lot requirements has prevented developers from building affordable housing. CICs have in fact been found to lower the costs of home purchases. Multi-unit housing, such as condominiums and townhouses, is more affordable than single-family homes because it cuts the cost of land, infrastructure, and building (Ellickson & Been 2005). Affordable housing cooperatives permit restrictions on resale prices and owner income, thus ensuring that housing opportunities remain available for lower-income families. For these purposes, developers operating under city requirements or incentives often designate condominium units within a project as affordable units.
It is therefore simplistic and counterproductive to see community associations as a battleground between rich and poor. Similarly, pejorative use of the term “gated” communities to describe those CICs with limited public access does not advance understanding. Indeed, a moderate-income cooperative with a front door locked for basic security reasons falls within the definition of a “gated” community.
Guiding Principles
In what ways should the “secession of the successful” critique affect our understanding, acceptance, and authorization of common interest communities? The issue is complex and does not lend itself to binary choices. Instead, it is a matter of accommodating competing interests according to the following principles:
Internal Conflicts: Individual Owners vs. the Community
In his groundbreaking book Privatopia: Homeowner Associations and the Rise of Private Residential Governments (1996), Evan McKenzie warned that: CICs feature a form of private government that takes an American preference for private home ownership and, too often, turns it into an ideology of hostile privatism. Preservation of property values is the highest social goal, to which other aspects of community life are subordinated. Rigid, intrusive, and often petty rule enforcement makes a caricature of . . . benign management, and the belief in rational planning is distorted into an emphasis on conformity for its own sake.
Conflicts between residents and CIC associations or boards often revolve around two general issues: the substance of the restrictions and the procedures for enforcement (see Box 2). As Figure 3 shows, disputes may focus on a range of topics, from landscaping restrictions to assessment collection. Indeed, 24 percent of CIC residents responding to the 2014 Public Opinion Strategies survey had experienced a significant personal issue or disagreement with their associations. Of this group, 52 percent were satisfied with the outcome and 36 percent were dissatisfied; in 12 percent of cases, the issue was still unresolved.
There are indeed certain risks that community associations can overstep with respect to the substance and enforcement of restrictions, but legislation and judicial supervision can address these substantive and procedural policy concerns.
————————
Box 2: Conflicts Make Good Copy
While the following headlines fail to represent the myriad positive interactions between individual owners and associations, they do suggest some of the difficult interactions that can occur.
————————
Freedom of Choice
As discussed earlier, individuals exercise their freedom of choice by purchasing homes in CICs and agreeing to be subject to their rules. Association living may not be for everyone, but the expectation of people who choose the CIC life should generally be respected and not be frustrated by someone who subsequently seeks to violate the compact. The courts generally reflect this view, as suggested by this 1981 ruling: [The original] restrictions are clothed with a very strong presumption of validity which arises from the fact that each individual unit owner purchases his unit knowing and accepting the restrictions to be imposed. . . . [A] use restriction in a declaration of condominium may have a certain degree of unreasonableness to it, and yet withstand attack in the courts. If it were otherwise, a unit owner could not rely on the restrictions found in the declaration . . . since such restrictions would be in a potential condition of continuous flux (Hidden Harbour Estates v. Basso, Fla. Ct. App. [1981]).
There are several scenarios, though, where homeowners may have no freedom of choice. First, it is possible that the only new housing available to buyers would be in CICs—i.e., developers are no longer building new homes outside of associations. Indeed, a recent report found that in 2003, 80 percent of all homes being built at that time were in associations (Foundation for Community Association Research 2014). In addition, municipal government may require developers to create associations as a condition for subdivision approval. (Recent legislation in Arizona prohibiting this practice indicates that it still occurs.) Finally, some courts have suggested that while rules in place at the time of purchase should be enforced, a rule subsequently enacted by the association or board under a reserved power should not be enforced if an owner can show that it is “unreasonable.” Other courts disagree: Homeowner should not be heard to complain when, as anticipated by the recorded declaration of covenants, the homeowners’ association amends the declaration. When a purchaser buys into such a community, the purchaser buys not only subject to the express covenants in the declaration, but also subject to the amendment provisions. . . . And, of course, a potential homeowner concerned about community association governance has the option to purchase a home not subject to association governance. . . . For this reason, we decline to subject the amendments . . . to the “reasonableness” test (Hughes v. New Life Development Corp., Tenn. Sup. Ct. [2012]).
Guidelines for Protecting Personal Autonomy
Association restrictions raise concerns when they threaten the personal autonomy and fundamental individual rights of owners. Constraints of this type might include prohibitions of political signs or messaging, and restriction of occupancy to “traditional” families.
Courts should enforce restrictions if they limit spillovers (also known as fallout or externalities) from one owner to the rest of the community. They should not, however, enforce restrictions that limit the nature or status of the occupants or the behavior within a unit that does not create externalities. This approach is based on the theory that the primary purpose of CIC regimes is to enhance economic value and encourage efficient exchanges. Thus, if the owner creates no externalities, the courts should not enforce bans on the particular behavior. Moreover, some values of personal autonomy are too important and trump the usual rules of contract. We do not, for example, permit contracts of indentured servitude or the sale of human organs.
By this standard, limiting noise and banning smoking (because of seepage of odors) in multi-family units would be legitimate, but restrictions based on the marital status of residents would not. Some situations are trickier—for example, restrictions on pets. Under the suggested guidelines, it would usually be legitimate to bar pets because of the potential noise and the reluctance of some residents to share common areas with them. In the case of service animals, however, the unit owner’s health needs may trump community concerns.
First Amendment–type issues present special challenges. Free expression—such as political or issue-related signage, leafleting, demonstrations, or other manifestations—can cause spillovers that may include noise, aesthetic interference, and disruption of the community’s general ambience. At the same time, however, free speech is fundamental to our republican form of government, arguably whether it is addressed to the larger public government or the private government. In expression cases, courts might apply the longstanding doctrine that prohibits covenants that violate public policy, rejecting total bans on speech in favor of reasonable restrictions on time, place, and manner. This would allow expression but limit, if not eliminate, spillover on the community.
Religious freedom is another fundamental American value. Restrictions on the placement of a mezuzah on doorposts and the display of crèches, statues of saints, and Christmas lights limit free exercise of religion. While it would open a Pandora’s box to engage in balancing the religious importance of colored versus white Christmas lights against CIC standards, it would nevertheless be appropriate for the courts to impose a general standard of reasonable accommodation on CIC regulations that affect religious practices.
Finally, in the development and enforcement of association rules, CIC property owners have a right to expect certain behavior from associations and boards. This expectation traces from the obligation of good faith and fair dealing that is incumbent on all parties to a contract. Thus, an owner should have a right to fair procedures, including notice and an opportunity to be heard; to be treated equally to other similarly situated owners; and to be free from bias, personal animus, and bad-faith decision making by the board and its members.
Conclusion
Common interest communities are a large part of the American residential landscape, currently providing homes for a quarter of the U.S. population. While CICs bring great economic advantages to residents and society in general, these types of housing arrangements do require nuanced interactions between the community association and the municipal government, and association rules can impinge on the personal autonomy of members. However, strategies are available to mitigate if not overcome these problems. Indeed, these approaches can make ownership of a home in a CIC less of an illusion and more of a reality.
About the Author
Gerald Korngold is Professor of Law at New York Law School and a visiting fellow at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. He teaches and writes in the fields of property and real estate law.
References
De Tocqueville, Alexis. 1835. Democracy in America. London: Saunders and Otley.
Ellickson, Robert C. & Vicki L. Been. 2005. Land Use Controls. New York, NY: Aspen Publishers, 3rd edition.
Foundation for Community Association Research. 2014. “Best Practices. Report #7: Transition.” www.cairf.org/research/bptransition.pdf.
Foundation for Community Association Research. 2013. “National and State Statistical Review for 2013.” www.cairf.org/research/factbook/2013_statistical_review.pdf.
Grubel v. McLaughlin Gunnels v. No. Woodland Community Ass’n, 17013, Texas Court of Appeals (1978).
Hidden Harbour Estates v. Basso, Florida Court of Appeals (1981).
Hughes v. New Life Development Corp., Tennessee Superior Court (2012).
Low, Setha. 2004. Behind the Gates: Life, Security, and the Pursuit of Happiness in Fortress America. London: Routledge.
McKenzie, E. 1996. Privatopia: Homeowner Associations and the Rise of Private Residential Governments. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press.
Nelson, R. H. 2009. “The Puzzle of Local Double Taxation: Why Do Private Communities Exist?” The Independent Review. 13 (3) (Winter) 345–365.
Public Opinion Strategies. 2014. “Verdict: Americans Grade Their Associations, Board Members and Community Managers.” Falls Church, Virginia: Community Associations Institute.
Reich, Robert. 1991. “Secession of the Successful.” The New York Times Magazine. January 20.
Treese, C. J. 2013. Association Information Services, Inc., compiled from National Association of Realtors data. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I_2LgTIYSqR4nLPRxN-HtCV-oOFK_QqN1AcO5JJTw-g/edit.
Ziegler, J. 1984. The New Yorker. September 3.
SHARE
Una versión más actualizada de este artículo está disponible como parte del capítulo 3 del libro Perspectivas urbanas: Temas críticos en políticas de suelo de América Latina.
El impuesto brasileño a la propiedad es un gravamen anual administrado por los gobiernos municipales a los propietarios de edificios y tierras urbanas. Si bien los procedimientos para establecer la base impositiva y las alícuotas varían considerablemente, la base impositiva se deriva del valor en el mercado y se estandariza a través de diferentes autoridades municipales.
En la ciudad de Porto Alegre, el método tradicional empleado para tasar bienes inmuebles para fines impositivos se basa en los costos. No existen requisitos legales referentes a lapsos transcurridos entre las valuaciones, y el último avalúo general se llevó a cabo en 1991. En los años en que no ha habido valuaciones, se ha hecho un reajuste uniforme de la base impositiva según las tasas de inflación imperantes. Las alícuotas del impuesto a la propiedad son progresivas, con tasas móviles para seis niveles de valuaciones catastrales a fin de introducir un elemento de “capacidad de pago” en el sistema. El impuesto se calcula sumando cada porción del valor catastral y multiplicando la suma por la tasa respectiva para dicha clase. La tasa máxima para inmuebles residenciales llega al 1,2 por ciento.
Análisis del sistema actual
Recientemente se realizó un estudio del sistema de tributación inmobiliaria en Porto Alegre con la finalidad de examinar la relación que existe entre los valores catastrales y los valores comerciales. A continuación se resumen algunos resultados del estudio.
Nivel de tasación y uniformidad
Se encontró que la valoración media de apartamentos residenciales en Porto Alegre fue de apenas un 34 % de su valor de venta, un porcentaje mucho menor que el nivel regulativo del 100 %. Al aplicar el coeficiente de dispersión (COD) a la mediana de la relación entre el valor catastral y el precio de venta como medida de la variabilidad, se obtienen resultados que reflejan una baja uniformidad de valuación (36 % aproximadamente). En Brasil no existen normativas municipales ni nacionales para evaluar el rendimiento de las valuaciones catastrales. A modo de comparación, un nivel aceptable de uniformidad para viviendas unifamiliares en los Estados Unidos es un coeficiente del 10 al 15 %. En la fig. 1 se ilustra el amplio margen de desviación de las relaciones de valuación identificadas en este estudio.
Factores determinantes de la falta de uniformidad en las valuaciones
Se creó un modelo multivariante para estudiar los efectos simultáneos de los factores determinantes de las faltas de equidad, tanto verticales como horizontales. De esta manera fue posible identificar un gran número de factores responsables por las diferencias sistemáticas de los niveles de valuación, a saber: características del lugar, calidad de la edificación, año de construcción, presencia de ascensores, y otras variables similares. También se halló regresividad de valuación vertical.
Método de valuación
Podemos aseverar que la causa principal de la falta de uniformidad en las valuaciones es el método de costo utilizado tradicionalmente para adjudicar valores a las propiedades inmobiliarias. Algunas debilidades teóricas del método están relacionadas con la gran cantidad de simplificaciones que las autoridades locales hacen para facilitar su aplicación, y es muy posible que las desigualdades se deban a tales ajustes. Entre algunos de los problemas del método del costo figuran la desvinculación que hay entre las tablas de costos y el rendimiento del mercado de bienes raíces, y la baja correlación que existe entre las tasas de depreciación adoptadas y la reducción del precio debido a la edad, caída en desuso o deterioro de las edificaciones. Otro factor que parece haber contribuido a la alta discrepancia en las valuaciones es la falta de un control sistemático en el rendimiento de las valuaciones.
Intervalos entre valuaciones
Claramente, la reducción de la base impositiva se debe al método utilizado para ajustar las valuaciones inmobiliarias, basado en las tasas inflacionarias existentes para los años en que no hubo valuaciones. Por ejemplo, en 1993 la valoración media de las propiedades fue de un 38 % de su valor comercial, pero sólo un 27 % en 1995.
Comparación entre las tasas de impuestos a la propiedad: efectivas y regulativas
Las tasas para propiedades residenciales son progresivas según seis niveles de valuaciones. El cálculo de la tasa efectiva se obtiene a partir del tributo inmobiliario real (sin considerar la evasión fiscal), dividido por el precio de venta. La tasa regulativa se obtiene a partir del tributo por propiedad que se obtendría si los impuestos fuesen establecidos según el precio de venta, dividido por el precio de venta. La tasa efectiva es mucho más baja que la regulativa, y su mediana representa apenas un 0,17 por ciento del precio de venta. La distribución de la carga de impuestos se ha visto afectada por los métodos impropios de valuación, no sólo por la falta de relación entre los valores catastrales y los comerciales, sino también por la clasificación incorrecta de las propiedades. Durante el período del estudio, el monto del tributo inmobiliario recaudado fue aproximadamente un 25 por ciento de los ingresos que podrían haberse adquirido si los valores catastrales hubiesen sido equivalentes a los comerciales.
Tabla 1: Comparación de las tasas de impuesto a la propiedad efectivas y regulativas
MEDIDA TASA (%)
Efectiva Regulativa
Mediana 0,17 0,75
Coeficiente de dispersión 56,87 18,26
Tasa mínima 0,02 0,29
Tasa máxima 1,18 1,15
Causas de las deficiencias del sistema fiscal sobre la propiedad inmobiliaria
La mala administración de los impuestos a la propiedad en Porto Alegre y su ineficacia como fuente de recursos podrían explicarse por factores históricos. Durante los años setenta, el gobierno central y fortunas privadas transfirieron grandes sumas de dinero a las municipalidades para complementar las recaudaciones al nivel del gobierno municipal. Como resultado, las autoridades no se preocuparon por recaudar sus propios impuestos y los contribuyentes se acostumbraron a pagar sumas insignificantes de impuestos a la propiedad. La tarea de procurar un buen rendimiento en términos de valuaciones y un nivel aceptable de equidad de las valuaciones fue relegada a un plano secundario.
Ahora bien, las crisis financieras en décadas recientes y la necesidad urgente de inversiones públicas en servicios y equipos de infraestructura han forzado a las autoridades locales a mejorar sus sistemas fiscales. Sin embargo, los esfuerzos para incrementar los recaudos y la equidad de las valuaciones provocan malestar general debido a la alta notoriedad de los impuestos a la propiedad y a la falta de aceptación por parte de los contribuyentes. Además, cualquier cambio de la base impositiva debe ser aprobado por los miembros de la Cámara de Concejales elegidos por el municipio. Siempre que se hagan planes para una nueva valuación, los miembros del concejo son responsables por apoyar sistemas que establezcan límites con el fin de proteger a los contribuyentes de bajos recursos o jubilados. No obstante, tales límites favorecen verdaderamente sólo a los sectores de altos recursos puesto que las personas de bajos ingresos o jubiladas pueden recibir descuentos según los ingresos que perciban.
Desde 1991, dos propuestas para alterar la base impositiva de Porto Alegre han sido rechazadas por la Cámara de Concejales debido a que la inflación del momento habría determinado los ajustes sobre los valores estimados de algunas de las propiedades. Sin embargo, la falta de equidad de valuación vertical conduce a que los inmuebles más costosos sean los beneficiados del deficiente sistema fiscal inmobiliario.
Recomendaciones
Para mejorar un sistema tributario es primordial conocer a fondo las fallas del mismo. El análisis llevado a cabo en Porto Alegre ofrece un mayor entendimiento del sistema, así como del grado de falta de equidad de las valuaciones y de sus causas principales. Por primera vez se midieron y cuantificaron las fallas y desventajas del sistema, se identificaron las propiedades beneficiadas del mismo y la cantidad de recaudos desperdiciados. Porto Alegre tiene ahora la oportunidad de mejorar su sistema de recaudación de impuestos inmobiliarios utilizando datos exactos y no por conveniencias políticas.
Varias medidas podrían contribuir a aumentar la equidad general del sistema de valuación, y al mismo tiempo mejorar la recaudación de recursos y el nivel de vida de la comunidad; entre ellas se tienen las siguientes:
Lograr la equidad de los tributos inmobiliarios y mejorar los niveles de rendimiento de los servicios públicos son metas comunes de políticos, miembros de la comunidad y administradores (entre otros). Se debe aprovechar las nuevas tecnologías para evaluar los impuestos a la propiedad y recolectar datos a fin de procurar el funcionamiento justo y eficiente de los sistemas fiscales. Sin embargo, las mejoras técnicas son sólo una parte del proceso; es también crítico ganar la aceptación del público, y para ello hay que concertar diálogos entre los habitantes de la comunidad y los políticos, donde se expliquen las desventajas del sistema actual y las consecuencias de mantenerlo. Al organizar discusiones serias dentro del dominio público, aumentará la confianza colectiva en el sistema fiscal.
Claudia M. De Cesare es consultora del Departamento de Tributación Local de la municipalidad de Porto Alegre. En 1999 obtuvo una beca de tesis del Instituto Lincoln para financiar la investigación comunicada en este informe y en su tesis de doctorado en la Universidad de Salford en Inglaterra. El Instituto Lincoln continúa desarrollando programas educacionales con administradores, políticos, expertos y miembros de la comunidad de Porto Alegre para ayudar a mejorar la equidad y eficacia del sistema de impuestos a la propiedad.
SHARE
William Fischel is professor of economics and the Patricia F. and William B. Hale ’44 Professor in Arts and Sciences at Dartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire. He was a member of the Hanover zoning board for 10 years, and has long served on the teaching and research faculty of the Lincoln Institute. He has written more than 50 articles and three books about the related topics of local government, land use controls, school finance and property taxation. Fischel’s most recent book pulls those themes together under the title The Homevoter Hypothesis (Harvard University Press 2001), and he will discuss them at a course at the Lincoln Institute on April 25.
Land Lines: The term homevoter doesn’t seem to be in any dictionary. What does it mean?
William Fischel: I coined the word to convey the theme of my book. My original title was Municipal Corporations and the Capitalization Principle, but when I tried it out on people their eyes glazed over. I had to think of something catchier, and homevoter popped into my head. In local government elections, residents tend to “vote their homes.” For example, if the school board proposes a tax increase to reduce class size, most homeowners will consider the impact of the taxes and the better school quality on the value of their homes as well as on their personal situations.
LL: What’s the difference between people voting their personal situations and voting their homes?
WF: If people voted only according to their immediate situation, almost every school referendum would be voted down. Since the last of the baby boomers graduated from high school in the late 1970s, only about a third of all American households have any children in public school. If people only cared about whether school expenditures benefited them directly, the two-thirds of voters without kids in school would vote down school referenda and save themselves some taxes. The reason they usually don’t is that they know that scuttling the local schools will drive their home values down. They may not like paying taxes, but most voters will not actively oppose a reasonable school budget.
LL: Why would home values override immediate concerns about taxes, since most homeowners plan to keep their houses for a long time?
WF: For the great majority of homeowners, the equity in their home is much larger than their holdings of stocks and bonds and savings accounts. An owner-occupied home is a huge asset, and it is nearly impossible to diversify the financial risk of holding on to it. People who own a lot of stocks can diversify their holdings by buying mutual funds. But you cannot diversify your homeownership portfolio by buying a tenth of a house in Cambridge, a tenth in Springfield, a tenth in Pittsburgh, and so forth. You are stuck with all your homeownership eggs in one local basket. If the schools are declining, so is much of your investment. You don’t have to plan to sell a home soon to be concerned about its value, just as you don’t have to be ready to retire to be concerned about your retirement investments.
LL: So even people who will never have kids are interested in the quality of public schools?
WF: They sure are, especially when they are buying a house. Many economic studies of housing values have found that the major determinant of house price differences among communities is the quality of public schools. Further, the difference in home values is not reflected in the cost of the structure but in the land value. If your home burned down and you decided to sell your lot instead of rebuilding, the price of the lot would reflect the value of the community’s public assets such as its schools. The structure itself would just reflect the cost of building it.
LL: What other community assets do homevoters pay attention to?
WF: Lots of things, including neighborhood traffic, local parks, good (or bad) views, local air quality, open space, crime rates and public libraries. Like school quality, all of these community characteristics are capitalized in home values if they are better or worse than average.
LL: Capitalized? As in the stock market?
WF: Yes, just as in the stock market. If Merck Pharmaceuticals develops an effective drug to treat cancer, the value of Merck stock will go up. That good news is quickly capitalized in (or reflected in) the price of the stock. If a particular city found a good way to control traffic noise and congestion, the value of homes there would rise. In both cases, the stockholders would be pleased.
LL: How is a city like Merck?
WF: They are both corporations. One is a municipality and the other is a business, but each has a corporate identity that is independent of its owners or residents. The main difference is that a city’s major stockholders, its homeowners, cannot diversify their assets. So unlike most business stockholders, residents pay close attention to what their corporation’s managers are doing. They make managers do their business in the open most of the time, and they make their board of directors—the city council—stand for election more frequently than business corporation boards.
LL: What about the role of other stakeholders, such as local business owners?
WF: Business people are usually behind development plans, and city councils pay attention to them. But in the municipalities where most people live—cities and towns of less than 120,000 population—homeowners have to be persuaded that the proposed development will do them some good. Just creating jobs and lowering taxes is not enough in most places. A job-creating, tax-paying factory whose traffic, noise and pollution devalue the homes of nearby residents will have a hard time getting permission to locate there. Homevoters may not be as active as developers, but they are usually more numerous and vocal, and few city councils can afford to ignore their concerns.
LL: And how do renters benefit from the system?
WF: Renters get the benefit of municipal services that are more consumer-oriented as a result of homevoters’ activism. But renters have a shorter time horizon because when they move they neither gain nor lose from the local improvements they leave behind. This may explain why renters tend to participate in local government less than homeowners. They don’t have the long-term financial stake that even the short-term homeowner has.
LL: What’s the downside of homevoters’ influence?
WF: The downside is exclusionary zoning. Zoning is a necessary tool for local governments to rationalize development. The problem is that homevoters can overuse this tool. Because homes are not a diversifiable asset, homeowners often become risk averse to any development that might reduce their home’s value. The NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) syndrome is most often seen in homeowners, and my theory says they are rational to behave this way. But what is rational for the homeowners in a single community might not be rational for the larger region. Siting low-income housing, power plants, half-way houses and the other necessary but sometimes unlovely developments is impeded by having people too worried about their home values.
LL: Is there a way to control the bad side of homevoting and still keep the good side?
WF: Understanding where the problem comes from is a start. People who oppose low-income housing projects are not necessarily opposing low-income people. They may be mainly worried about their home values. One way to deal with that would be to offer home-value insurance for neighborhoods that feel threatened by proposed land use changes. An innovative program in Chicago offered home-value insurance to help forestall “panic selling” and thus stabilize neighborhoods with respect to both home values and socioeconomic composition. It might be worth extending home equity insurance to other situations in which neighborhood change raises the anxieties of homeowners.
LL: But people have lots of reasons to oppose neighborhood changes besides loss of property value.
WF: It is rare for people to mention property values in public discussions. It sounds too selfish to talk about in a public forum. But economists know that most of the things that people do talk about, such as traffic, noise, open space and service costs, clearly affect people’s home values. Whether owners are consciously relating these characteristics to home values or simply intuitively aware of this connection is hard to say. If developers could take home values off the table in such debates, it might go a long way to overcoming the NIMBY problem.
LL: You mentioned earlier that the quality of community life was reflected in land values. Would this argue for a tax on land rather than improvements in order to finance local services?
WF: I think it does, and in fact that’s what most property taxes really do tax. Local development is a highly regulated activity because of zoning laws, planning reviews and environmental impact statements. I believe that local land use regulation is tight enough to make buildings essentially indistinguishable from land as a tax base. Take the example of the home that burns down. The buyer of the lot typically has to put up another home of the same type, and the tax payment on land and structure will be the same as before. For the most part, owners of homes and businesses in zoned communities have only one allowable use for their land, so that increasing or decreasing local taxes is not going to affect that use. That’s exactly the same virtue as a tax on land. Beyond that, taxing property value gives voters cooperative incentives on the zoning front. Homevoters won’t want to trash another side of town with an unfriendly land use, because devaluing other people’s property would cause property taxes to be shifted to the remaining homeowners.
LL: A land tax is what Henry George advocated more than 100 years ago. Are you saying that the local property tax already is a land tax?
WF: Yes, within certain contexts. It is quite a bit like a land tax in largely residential communities and for most new development. Zoning limits a developer’s alternatives, so the tax rate will not alter his behavior. A general property tax would not be like a land tax, however, if it were administered by a large jurisdiction such as a state or national government, unless those governments also had local zoning controls in place. It is the combination of local zoning plus the property tax that approximates a land tax. Henry George’s ideas came in through the back door of suburban zoning and property taxation rather than through the front door of state and national taxation.
SHARE
The core competence of the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy is the analysis of issues related to land, and ours is one of the few organizations in the world with this focus.
The Institute’s current work program, both in the United States and in selected countries around the world, encompasses the taxation of land, the operation of land markets, the regulation of land and land use, the impacts of property rights, and the distribution of benefits from land development. This focus on land derives from the Institute’s founding objective—to address the links between land policy and social and economic progress—as expressed by Henry George, the nineteenth-century political economist and social philosopher.
The Institute plays a leading role in the analysis of land and property taxation, land valuation and appraisal, the design of land information and cadastral systems, and the reform and establishment of property tax systems. Work on the operation of land markets includes the analysis of transit-oriented development and research on urban housing and the expansion of urban areas. The regulation of land encompasses work on smart growth and growth management, visualizing density and the physical impact of development, mediating land use disputes, land conservation, and the management of state trust lands in the West. Analysis of property rights includes research on diverse topics including informal markets and land titling in developing countries, the establishment of conservation easements, and the preservation of farmland. Much work is underway on the distribution of benefits from land development, including value capture taxation, tax increment financing, university-led development, and community land trusts that seek to promote affordable housing.
While the Institute’s work in recent years has emphasized urban land issues, it has also addressed problems beyond urban boundaries such as conservation, management of state trust lands, and farmland preservation. A balance of activities across urban and rural topics will persist as the Institute’s work program continues to focus on land issues of relevance to social and economic development. The Institute will not normally address topics that lack a strong link to land policy.
Communicating new findings through education programs, publications, and Web-based products is a core Institute activity. The overarching objective is to strengthen the capacity of public officials, professionals, and citizens to make better decisions by providing them with relevant information, ideas, methods, and analytic tools. The Institute offers traditional courses and seminars, and is moving aggressively to make many of its offerings available on the Web as either programmed instruction or as online courses with real-time interactions between students and instructors. The Institute also develops training materials and makes them available to others, for example through activities in several developing countries that involve the training of trainers in topics such as appraisal and tax administration.
Research strengthens the Institute’s training programs and contributes to knowledge about land policy generally. The Institute supports both mature scholars who conduct groundbreaking research and advanced students who are working on their dissertations or thesis research. The Institute offers several fellowship programs and other opportunities for researchers to propose work on important topics that can contribute to current debates on land policy. The results of this research are regularly posted on the Institute Web site as working papers and are published in books, conference proceedings, and policy focus reports.
Demonstration and evaluation activities constitute the third major component of the Institute’s agenda. Recently the Institute has begun to combine education, training, research, and dissemination in demonstration projects that apply knowledge, data collection, and analysis to the development and implementation of specific policies in the areas of property taxation, planning, and development. These projects are being expanded to include the analysis of policies as they are applied, and to assess and evaluate outcomes in terms of the intended objectives of the policies. The goal is to provide more rigorous evidence about how well and in what circumstances specific land and tax policies achieve their objectives so that information can be incorporated into future research and training programs.
SHARE
For many years, researchers have puzzled over the causes and consequences of voter-approved tax and expenditure limits (TELs), a fiscal rule that weakens the ability of elected officials to raise revenues or make expenditures.
SHARE
More than 50 years ago, a slowly unfolding but fundamental process began to transform property taxation in the United States. Because this process took place at the state and local, not federal, levels of government, and because the almost universal adoption of preferential assessment spanned several decades, most citizens are unaware that owners of rural parcels often enjoy such treatment of their properties. As a result, millions of acres of rural land are now assessed far below fair market value for purposes of local property taxation.
These modifications of the property tax began in Maryland in 1957, when the General Assembly enacted an agricultural use assessment law. This statute provides that farm fields and pastures can be assessed below market value as long as they are being “actively used” for agricultural purposes. As evidence of active agricultural use, an owner can document that the property had generated $2,500 or more of annual gross revenue from the sale of agricultural products during recent years.
Several factors prompted dozens of state governments to emulate Maryland and enact use value assessment (UVA) programs during the 1960s and 1970s. First was the massive expansion of U.S. metropolitan regions after World War II, which led to the conversion of tens of millions of acres of farm, ranch, forest, and other rural lands to residential and other nonagricultural uses. Alig et al. (2003) estimate that the nation’s developed area more than doubled between 1960 and 1997, from 25.5 to 65.5 million acres. Rapid urbanization of rural land had come earlier to Maryland than other states because its populations in Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties, near the fast-growing nation’s capital in Washington, DC, quadrupled from 1940 to 1960.
Second, agricultural land on the fringe of metropolitan regions escalated in price during the postwar decades because of its development potential, causing some farmers to face escalating property tax bills because of higher land value assessments. From 1950 to 1971, for example, there was a 330 percent increase in the ratio of farmland prices to net farm income in Maryland (Gloudemans 1974). A study of the two-state, seven-county Kansas City region in the early 1960s found that the proportion of gross farm income absorbed by the property tax in the most urbanized county was four times greater than in the metropolitan region as a whole (Blase and Staub 1971). Hence, adoption of preferential assessment of rural land was often justified as a policy measure to protect family farmers and ranchers from financial stress or even ruin.
A third and more subtle reason for the adoption of UVA programs reflects how the property tax had been administered in many states before 1957. Until that moment in U.S. history, county and municipal assessors had frequently given de facto tax preferences to farmers despite state constitutional provisions requiring uniformity and equality of taxation. These informal assessment practices were intended to provide property tax relief to “deserving citizens,” but often resulted in dramatic differences in assessment ratios among taxable properties within the same community.
The expansion of state aid programs for local governments after World War II exposed some of these discrepancies. Property wealth per resident or pupil often played a major role in determining the formulas used to allocate state grants. Thus, pressure mounted at the state level for uniform local assessment practices to ensure an equitable distribution of state grants. The elimination of de facto tax preferences that had been granted by tax assessors to farmers and ranchers within their communities fueled efforts to gain de jure tax preferences for rural land via state statutes or constitutional amendments.
California was one of the early adopters of use value assessment of rural land. In 1965, its legislature passed the California Land Conservation Act, commonly known as the Williamson Act. The goals of this statute are to preserve agricultural land in order to ensure adequate food supply, to discourage premature conversion of farmland to urban uses, and to preserve agricultural properties for their open-space amenity values.
The Williamson Act enables counties and cities to offer preferential assessment of agricultural land to an owner in return for a contract barring land development for a minimum of ten years. After the first decade of the contract, an automatic extension continues every year unless the owner files a notice of contract nonrenewal. If such a notice is filed, the property’s assessment rises annually until it reaches fair market value and the contract finally terminates after nine years.
Diversity and Extent of Use Value Assessment Programs
With little fanfare in the national media, preferential assessment of rural land has become a central feature of local property taxation across the United States. In California, for example, over 16.5 million acres of agricultural land were subject to Williamson Act contracts in 2008–2009. According to the California Department of Conservation, Williamson Act properties comprised nearly one-third of the state’s privately owned land at the beginning of 2009.
More than 16 million acres of Ohio farmland had been enrolled in that state’s current agricultural use value (CAUV) program by 2007. On average, those acres had been lightly assessed at only 14.2 percent of market value. In December 2011 the Ohio House of Representatives voted unanimously to expand the state’s CAUV program to include land used for biomass and biodiesel energy production.
In New Hampshire, 2.95 million acres were enrolled in the state’s current use assessment program in 2010. These preferentially assessed parcels comprised over 51 percent of the Granite State’s total land area. Since agriculture plays a minor role in the New Hampshire economy, over 90 percent of this undeveloped acreage consisted of forests and wetlands, not farm fields and pastures.
Because economic, political, and legal circumstances vary substantially among the 50 states, it is not surprising that state governments have adopted diverse UVA programs. By 1977, eleven states had implemented programs in which eligible parcels enjoyed automatic enrollment. In another 38 states these programs required owners to file applications for preferential assessment. Nearly all states offered assessments below market value to agricultural land, but only 21 states extended preferential assessment to timberlands and forests.
From a land conservation perspective, the most important difference among the states is that 15 do not collect a penalty if a landowner converts his property to an unqualified use (figure 1). Another seven states levy a percent payback penalty on development of enrolled land parcels. That is, the owner has to pay the state or town a percentage of the parcel’s market value during the year of property development.
Far more common is the rollback penalty, a development deterrent that requires the landowner to pay the difference between property taxes actually paid during recent years of use value assessment and the taxes that would have been paid during those years with market-value assessment (plus accrued interest on that difference in some cases). Twenty-six states utilize this form of development penalty. Economic research has demonstrated that failure to levy a development penalty severely weakens the capacity of a UVA program to delay development of rural land at the edge of metropolitan regions (England and Mohr 2006).
The practice of use value assessment sometimes creates political tension within a community and can even damage the legitimacy of property taxation as a local revenue source. In November 2011, a Wisconsin TV station reported that owners of vacant lots in an upscale residential subdivision had harvested weeds from their parcels and successfully applied for agricultural assessment of their house lots pending construction. This allegation led at least one state representative to call for legislative hearings about abuses of the state’s use value assessment program. According to Rep. Louis Molepske, “It should upset every Wisconsinite because they are being duped by those who… [want] to shift their property taxes to everybody else, unfairly” (Polcyn 2011).
Saving Family Farmers and Rural Landscapes
Have UVA programs “saved the family farmer” as some proponents had originally predicted? Not exactly. During the 1980s, the U.S. farm population fell dramatically by 31.2 percent. From 1991 to 2007, the number of small commercial farms continued its decline, from 1.08 million to 802,000. During that same time period, very large farms (with at least $1 million of gross cash income) increased their share of national farm production from nearly 28 percent to almost 47 percent (USDA Economic Research Service n.d.).
If preferential assessment of rural land has not prevented the decline of family farming, has it slowed the rate of land development in rural America? The evidence on this question is positive, but modestly so. A study of land use change in New Jersey from its adoption of use value assessment in 1964 to 1990 found that the program had a very modest impact on the rate of conversion of agricultural land to urban uses (Parks and Quimio 1996). After her 1998 study of nearly 3,000 counties across the U.S., Morris (1998) concluded that, on average, UVA programs resulted in roughly 10 percent more of the land in a county being retained in farming after 20 years of program operation. After their detailed study of land use changes in Louisiana, Polyakov and Zhang (2008) concluded that an additional 162,000 acres of farmland would have been developed during the five years after 1992 if there had been no UVA program in the state. It seems, then, that UVA programs have slowed down metropolitan sprawl somewhat during recent decades.
Shifting the Tax Burden to One’s Neighbors
Although slowing the rate of land development is an environmental and public benefit of UVA programs, it entails a social cost. When the properties of farmers, ranchers, and forest owners are assessed far below market value, local governments collect fewer property tax receipts unless they raise the tax rate that is levied on all taxable properties. If they raise their property tax rates to maintain public expenditure levels, rural towns and counties increase the tax bills of non-UVA owners, primarily homeowners.
This potentially regressive impact of UVA programs has been known for decades. In its 1976 report on preferential assessment of farms and open space, the President’s Council on Environmental Quality (1976, 6–8) stated clearly that these state programs result in tax expenditures of significant magnitude that redistribute income among taxpayers:
“All differential assessment laws . . . [entail] ‘tax expenditures,’ by means of which the tax bills of some taxpayers are reduced. . . . In most cases, the cost of this reduction is spread over all the other taxpayers. . . . The effect of a tax expenditure is precisely the same as if the taxpayers who receive the benefit were to pay taxes at the same rate as other, non-preferred taxpayers, and then were to receive a simultaneous grant . . . in the amount of the tax benefit.”
The magnitude of this tax shift among property owners can be quite substantial. Anderson and Griffing (2000) report estimates of the tax expenditures in two Nebraska counties associated with the state’s UVA program. The average tax expenditure is approximately 36 percent of revenue in Lancaster County and 75 percent of revenue in Sarpy County.
Dunford and Marousek (1981) have studied the impact of the 1970 Open Space Tax Act (OSTA) in Washington State on the distribution of the property tax burden in Spokane County. Eight years after enactment of the OSTA program, roughly 444,000 acres in Spokane County had been enrolled—about 40 percent of the county’s total land area.
The authors calculate that the revenue-neutral increase in property taxes paid by nonparticipating properties to offset the tax cuts enjoyed by owners of enrolled parcels would equal 1.3 percent. Hidden within this countywide average, however, are huge differences among communities. Although the tax shift to nonparticipating properties would be 1–2 percent in many localities, it would range as high as 21.9 percent in one community. The implication of this and other studies is that granting preferential assessment to rural landowners might help to delay development of their properties, but it might also impose a fiscal burden on homeowners as well as owners of commercial and industrial properties.
Reform of Use Value Assessment Programs
Because many states have had nearly half a century of experience with their UVA programs, this is a good time for state legislatures and tax departments to pause and ask whether this feature of their state and local tax system should be reformed or not. The shift in property tax burden caused by UVA programs in many communities can be justified only if this tax preference serves the broader public interest. The case for reform seems stronger when one realizes that 94 percent of farm households have a net worth greater than the median for all U.S. households.
After the severe downturn in residential and commercial real estate markets in 2008–2010, the rate of conversion of rural land to urban uses slowed in many states, at least for the moment. It might be easier for communities to consider and adopt reforms of UVA programs during this period when many owners of rural land do not expect to sell to real estate developers in the near future. After an extensive review of the research literature on state UVA programs, I recommend the following set of reforms (England 2011).
Those states that do not yet levy a penalty when land is removed from their UVA programs should do so. Unless the owner of rural land faces a penalty at the moment of development, he or she will simply collect the property tax saving offered by the UVA program until the market price of developed land is attractive enough. On the other hand, enactment of a high penalty per acre that declines with years of enrollment in the program could induce the owner of rural land to defer development for years. During those years, land trusts and state agencies have an opportunity to place conservation easements on those rural parcels that deserve permanent protection from development. In an era when few owners of rural land are poor working farmers, UVA programs should help to protect rural landscapes and conserve ecosystem services, not subsidize wealthy landowners.
States should also reconsider three categories of rural land that are eligible for use value assessment. (1) Farm and ranch land should not be enrolled automatically, as is the practice in some states. Rather, landowners should be required to document substantial net income from the sale of agricultural commodities during the previous tax year. This would prevent the owner of idle land that is about to be developed from receiving a property tax break. (2) Agricultural parcels should not be eligible for use value assessment if subdivision plans have already been filed or if the parcels have been rezoned for residential, commercial, or industrial use. If there is substantial evidence that a landowner will soon develop a parcel, there is no reason to continue the UVA tax preference. (3) Forest, wetland, and other nonagricultural parcels should be eligible for use value assessment if they generate public goods such as flood protection, wildlife habitats, and scenic views. On the other hand, barren land with great development potential on the fringe of a metropolitan region should be assessed at market value if it does not produce ecosystem services that benefit society at large.
States should carefully review the income capitalization methods they employ to estimate the agricultural use value of rural properties. The guidelines for estimating the net income of agricultural land and for selecting the discount rate that capitalizes that income stream should be based on sound economic principles and should be presented to taxpayers in a transparent fashion. Because income capitalization calculations are so sensitive to choice of discount rate, that choice needs to be justified and should not be ad hoc. In principle, the risk-free rate of discount needs to be adjusted for inflation, default risk, maturity risk, and liquidity constraints.
State governments should acknowledge that, although their UVA programs generate environmental benefits for the general public, they also impose fiscal burdens on those localities in which private owners of rural land enjoy preferential assessment. For example, California enacted its Open Space Subvention Act in 1972 to mitigate the impact of the Williamson Act on local government budgets by providing state grants to partially replace foregone local property tax revenues. From 1972 through 2008, those subvention payments from Sacramento to the cities and counties totaled $839 million. (Subvention payments were suspended during 2009, however, because of the state’s mammoth budget deficit.)
Since preferential assessment of rural land has become such a central feature of property taxation in the United States, governors and state legislatures need to pause and consider whether these types of reforms would improve the performance of and increase popular support for their UVA programs.
About the Author
Richard W. England is a professor of economics and natural resources at the University of New Hampshire. He is also a visiting fellow with the Department of Valuation and Taxation at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
References
Alig, Ralph J., Andrew J. Plantinga, SoEun Ahn, and Jeffrey D. Kline. 2003. Land use changes involving forestry in the United States: 1952 to 1997, with projections to 2050. Technical Report. Portland, OR: U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.
Anderson, John E., and Marlon F. Griffing. 2000. Measuring use-value assessment tax expenditures. Assessment Journal (January/February): 35–47.
Blase, Melvin G., and William J. Staub. 1971. Real property taxes in the rural-urban fringe. Land Economics (May): 168–174.
Council on Environmental Quality. 1976. Untaxing open space: An evaluation of the effectiveness of differential assessment of farms and open space. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Dunford, Richard W., and Douglas C. Marousek. 1981. Sub-county property tax shifts attributable to use-value assessments on farmland. Land Economics (May): 221–229.
England, Richard W. 2002. Current-use property assessment and land development: A theoretical and empirical review of development penalties. State Tax Notes, 16 December: 795.
———. 2011. Preferential assessment of rural land in the United States: A literature review and reform proposals. Working paper. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
England, Richard W., and Robert D. Mohr. 2006. Land development and current use assessment. In Economics and contemporary land use policy: Development and conservation at the rural-urban fringe, ed. S.K. Swallow and R.J. Johnston. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
Gloudemans, Robert J. 1974. Use-value farmland assessments: Theory, practice, and impact. Chicago: International Association of Assessing Officials.
Morris, Adele C. 1998. Property tax treatment of farmland: Does tax relief delay land development? In Local government tax and land use policies in the United States, ed. Helen F. Ladd, 144–167. Cheltenham, U.K.: Edward Elgar.
Parks, Peter J., and Wilma Rose H. Quimio. 1996. Preserving agricultural land with farmland assessment: New Jersey as a case study. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review (April): 22–27.
Polcyn, Bryan. Lawmaker calls for hearing after farmland tax loophole exposed. WITI–TV, Twin Lakes, Wisconsin, 22 November 2011.
Polyakov, Maksym, and Daowei Zhang. 2008. Property tax policy and land-use change. Land Economics (August): 396–408.
USDA Economic Research Service. n.d. Washington, DC. U.S. Department of Agriculture. http://www.ers.usda.gov
SHARE
Nueva colaboración editorial: El impuesto sobre la propiedad y el financiamiento de la educación primaria y secundaria—Un número especial de Education Finance and Policy (Finanzas y política educativa)
Daphne A. Kenyon y Andrew Reschovsky
Consecuencia de la gran recesión, el financiamiento del sistema de educación primaria y secundaria pública en los Estados Unidos ha sido particularmente problemática, dado la estrecha relación entre las finanzas escolares y el tributo sobre la propiedad. A lo largo del país, la caída abrupta de los precios de las viviendas que dieron lugar a la recesión también redujo la recaudación del impuesto sobre la propiedad. Más del 80 por ciento de los ingresos de las escuelas públicas provienen del impuesto local sobre la propiedad (McGuire, Papke y Reschovsky 2015) y casi la mitad del total recaudado por ese concepto en los Estados Unidos se usa para financiar la educación pública primaria y secundaria (Oficina del Censo de los EE.UU. 2014, Oficina del Censo de los EE.UU. 2013).
Para fomentar nuevas investigaciones sobre estos temas, el Instituto Lincoln de Políticas de Suelo organizó una conferencia sobre “Impuesto sobre la propiedad y el financiamiento de la educación primaria y secundaria” en Cambridge, MA, EE.UU., en octubre de 2013. El número de otoño de 2014 de Education Finance and Policy (Finanzas y política educativa) contiene cinco ponencias de la conferencia, junto con dos trabajos adicionales presentados como parte de la convocatoria para la publicación de este número especial, que fueron sometidos a un proceso de revisión por parte de los colegas de la revista. Nosotros cumplimos la función de editores invitados, trabajando en estrecha colaboración con los editores de la publicación, Thomas A. Downes y Dan Goldhaber. Gracias al financiamiento del Instituto Lincoln, este número especial se puede descargar gratis hasta enero de 2016 en el sitio web de la Asociación de Finanzas y Política Educativa (www.aefpweb.org/journal/free-fall-2014).
Desafíos para financiar la educación primaria y secundaria
Usando los datos de recaudación de fondos del Centro Nacional de Estadísticas Educativas (2014), determinamos que los ingresos totales dedicados a la educación pública, medidos en términos reales por alumno, cayeron un 6,2 por ciento desde septiembre de 2008 a junio de 2012. Aunque todavía no hay cifras totales disponibles para los años más recientes, los datos existentes apuntan a una disminución sostenida en el apoyo financiero a la educación pública. Los datos del Resumen trimestral de ingresos tributarios estatales y locales de la Oficina del Censo de los EE.UU. señalan que los ingresos reales per cápita por el impuesto sobre la propiedad de los gobiernos locales (tanto para fines escolares como no escolares) fueron 2,7 por ciento menores al finalizar el año fiscal 2014 que al final del año fiscal 2011. Y una encuesta realizada por el Centro de Prioridades Políticas y Presupuestarias concluyó que, por lo menos en 35 estados, la ayuda estudiantil estatal real por estudiante fue menor en el año fiscal 2014 que en el año fiscal 2008 (Leachman y Mai 2014).
Muchos distritos escolares del país respondieron a la reducción de ingresos despidiendo a empleados. De hecho, la Oficina de Estadísticas Laborales de los EE.UU. (2013) reporta que entre el pico de empleo en junio de 2009 y el valle en octubre de 2012, el empleo en educación por parte de los gobiernos locales se redujo en 357.400 puestos, lo cual corresponde a una disminución del 4,4 por ciento. En este mismo periodo, la inscripción en la escuela pública creció un 0,9 por ciento (Centro Nacional de Estadísticas Educativas, 2013).
Las proyecciones actuales pronostican un incremento significativo tanto en la inscripción de primaria y de secundaria como en el costo por alumno. El Centro Nacional de Estadísticas Educativas (NCES 2013) proyecta que los gastos por alumno aumentarán de un promedio de US$10.518 en el año escolar 2009–10 a US$12.530 en 2021–22. El NCES también proyecta aumentos sustanciales en la inscripción en la escuela pública, si bien las proyecciones de crecimiento en estados específicos varían, y en general son mucho mayores en los estados del sur y el oeste (8,9 por ciento y 12,7 por ciento respectivamente entre 2010 y 2021) que en el noreste y el medio oeste (2,2 por ciento y 2,4 por ciento). Si bien las políticas y prioridades públicas pueden cambiar dependiendo de las políticas actuales y las proyecciones de recaudación, es poco probable que la recaudación para el sostenimiento de la educación pública crezca con la suficiente rapidez como para ajustarse al crecimiento proyectado en la inscripción estudiantil y los costos.
Los datos nacionales indican que en 2011–12, el 10 por ciento de los ingresos totales de educación pública provinieron del gobierno federal, y el resto se repartió por igual entre fuentes de financiamiento estatal y local (Oficina del Censo de los EE.UU. 2014). Los programas del gobierno federal de apoyo a la educación se clasifican como gastos discrecionales domésticos. Si bien el Congreso ha hecho poco a la fecha para controlar el crecimiento de los gastos en programas de ayuda social, ha impuesto límites estrictos sobre el crecimiento de los gastos discrecionales internos por medio de la Ley de Control Presupuestario de 2011 y el acuerdo presupuestario del Congreso para el año fiscal 2014. La Oficina Presupuestaria del Congreso (2013) pronostica que los gastos discrecionales internos disminuirán, en proporción al PIB, por lo menos hasta 2023. Dados los límites impuestos a los gastos totales, junto con la competencia de otras necesidades internas urgentes, es probable que se produzcan reducciones en el apoyo educativo federal por alumno.
Los sistemas de financiamiento escolar varían mucho entre un estado y otro, y las tendencias futuras en el apoyo estatal para la educación pública también variarán mucho entre estados. No obstante, muchos gobiernos estatales tienen problemas estructurales que a la larga probablemente limiten el financiamiento estatal de la educación pública en el futuro. Por el lado de los ingresos, muchos estados tienen bases impositivas reducidas sobre las ventas, que excluyen muchos servicios y, en consecuencia, no crecen en forma proporcional a la economía. Los problemas de ingreso se ven agravados por la imposibilidad de los estados para cobrar impuestos sobre las ventas por Internet y por correo. En el último par de años, una serie de estados han adoptado recortes en los impuestos individuales sobre las ganancias. Estos recortes de impuestos en general han sido promulgados sin un aumento compensatorio en los ingresos, o se han financiado usando ingresos de superávits no recurrentes del presupuesto estatal.
Por el lado de los gastos, el financiamiento de la educación primaria y secundaria compite con otras prioridades. En muchos estados, los gastos de Medicaid (seguro de salud para las personas sin recursos) crecerán más rápido que los ingresos tributarios estatales, una tendencia agudizada en parte por el envejecimiento de la población. Muchos estados también están enfrentando un considerable y creciente pasivo de pensiones sin dotación financiera. Para liquidar estas obligaciones sin fondos hará falta sin duda aumentar las contribuciones para las pensiones del gobierno estatal. Aun cuando las encuestas indican que los votantes están a favor de un aumento del gasto en educación más que en otras áreas, las obligaciones crecientes en Medicaid y pensiones de los estados pueden reducir los gastos en educación primaria y secundaria, a menos que los gobiernos estatales tomen decisiones políticas difíciles para aumentar los impuestos (Pew Research 2011).
Con esta perspectiva de reducción en el financiamiento de los gobiernos federal y estatal, es probable que los distritos escolares locales jueguen un papel cada vez más importante en el financiamiento de la educación pública. El incremento del financiamiento del gobierno local para la educación pública exigirá que se tome el paso políticamente difícil de aumentar los impuestos sobre la propiedad o, si esto fuera imposible, el desarrollo y adopción amplia de fuentes alternativas de ingresos para el gobierno local. Ninguna de las estrategias será fácil de implementar.
Este sombrío panorama de las perspectivas de financiación de la educación pública da lugar a una serie de preguntas de investigación. Por ejemplo: ¿Pueden los gobiernos estatales adoptar políticas para que el impuesto sobre la propiedad sea más aceptable políticamente? ¿Qué papel pueden jugar las fuentes alternativas de ingreso local en el financiamiento de la educación pública? ¿Puede incrementarse este papel? ¿Es posible diseñar sistemas estatales de ayuda a la educación que se traduzcan en un flujo más estable de ayuda estatal durante los momentos de recesión económica? ¿Se puede aumentar la efectividad de las políticas estatales para proporcionar alivio tributario en el impuesto sobre la propiedad? ¿Se pueden reformar los sistemas de ayuda estatal para aumentar las oportunidades educativas de todos los estudiantes? El impuesto sobre la propiedad y el financiamiento de la educación primaria y secundaria considera esta y otras cuestiones.
Conclusión
En este número especial hay tres temas centrales que emergen. El primero es la posibilidad de que la legislación estatal tenga consecuencias imprevistas. Eom et al. concluyen que el programa de descuentos al impuesto sobre la propiedad (STAR, por su sigla en inglés) de Nueva York induce a los votantes a aumentar el gasto escolar y aumentar los impuestos sobre la propiedad, reduciendo así la efectividad de la reducción fiscal prevista. Jeffrey Zabel concluyó que las exenciones fiscales sobre la propiedad en Massachusetts han causado un aumento de la segregación racial. Y Phuong Nguyen-Hoang determinó que el uso de recuperación de plusvalías en Iowa condujo a reducciones modestas en los gastos de educación.
El segundo tema es la posibilidad de que el financiamiento escolar estatal y las políticas de impuestos sobre la propiedad proporcionen mayores ventajas para los distritos escolares ricos o con mayores ingresos que para los de bajos recursos o con menores ingresos. En algunos casos, el sesgo hacia la riqueza es una característica explícita del programa. Por ejemplo, el factor de ajuste del diferencial del precio de venta del programa STAR desvía una cantidad desproporcionada del descuento al impuesto sobre la propiedad a los distritos escolares más ricos. En forma similar, el sistema de ayuda estatal de Michigan envía alrededor del 7 por ciento más de ayuda estatal por alumno a los distritos más ricos. En otros casos, el sesgo hacia distritos más ricos se manifiesta de maneras más indirectas. Chakrabarti et al. determinaron que los distritos escolares ricos tenían mayor probabilidad de aumentar los ingresos por el impuesto sobre la propiedad como reacción a los recortes en la ayuda estatal. Zabel notó que las comunidades de ingresos más altos tenían una mayor probabilidad de aprobar exenciones a los límites de aumento del impuesto. Nguyen-Hoang estableció que las medidas de recuperación de plusvalías tienen un efecto negativo mayor sobre los gastos escolares en distritos de bajos ingresos o escasos recursos que en los distritos de altos ingresos o gran riqueza. Finalmente, Nelson y Gazley encuentran que los distritos acomodados tienen una mayor probabilidad de recibir ingresos de organizaciones sin fines de lucro que respaldan las escuelas, y que sus contribuciones por alumno tienden a ser mayores.
Un tercer tema es la importancia sostenida del impuesto sobre la propiedad como fuente de financiamiento de la educación pública en los Estados Unidos. Los artículos de Nelson y Gazley, y de Downes y Killeen, demuestran que los ingresos no tributarios juegan un papel relativamente pequeño en el financiamiento de las escuelas públicas. Y no hay ninguna evidencia que demuestre que la proporción de ingresos obtenidos de las tasas y cargos a los estudiantes, organizaciones sin fines de lucro que dan apoyo a escuelas, o de ingresos no tributarios varios haya aumentado durante o después de la Gran Recesión.
Estas conclusiones sugieren que para garantizar suficiente financiamiento para la educación pública en el futuro, se deben hacer esfuerzos para que el impuesto sobre la propiedad sea una fuente más atractiva de ingresos. Estas mejoras del impuesto sobre la propiedad podrían incluir la expansión de programas de descuentos tributarios bien dirigidos y diseñados, como por ejemplo la adopción de “fusibles”, programas de postergación del impuesto sobre la propiedad para contribuyentes que tienen una carga tributaria pesada o sufren un incremento muy rápido en sus facturas de cobro de impuestos sobre la propiedad, y mejoras en la administración tributaria que se concentren en una mayor transparencia.
Dada la gran diversidad en el financiamiento escolar y los sistemas de impuestos sobre la propiedad en los EE.UU. y los problemas fiscales que se avecinan, los artículos de este número especial no pueden cubrir la gama completa de políticas necesarias que aseguren un financiamiento adecuado y equitativo de la educación pública. No obstante, esperamos que estos artículos constituyan un motivo de reflexión tanto para los dirigentes políticos como los investigadores, y que también inspiren investigaciones adicionales sobre la tributación de la propiedad y el financiamiento escolar.
Índice
Introduction to Special Issue on the Property Tax and the Financing of K–12 Education
(Introducción al número especial sobre el impuesto a la propiedad y el financiamiento de la educación primaria y secundaria)
Daphne A. Kenyon y Andrew Reschovsky
Did Cuts in State Aid During the Great Recession Lead to Changes in Local Property Taxes?
(Los recortes en la ayuda estatal durante la Gran Recesión, ¿produjeron cambios en los impuestos locales sobre la propiedad?)
Rajashri Chakrabarti, Max Livingston y Joydeep Roy
Michigan and Ohio K–12 Educational Finance Systems: Equality and Efficiency
(Sistemas de financiamiento de la educación primaria y secundaria en Michigan y Ohio: Equidad y eficiencia)
Michael Conlin y Paul Thompson
The Unintended Consequences of Property Tax Relief: New York’s STAR Program
(Las consecuencias imprevistas de descuentos en el impuesto sobre la propiedad: El programa STAR de Nueva York)
Tae Ho Eom, William Duncombe, Phuong Nguyen-Hoang y John Yinger
Unintended Consequences: The Impact of Proposition 2½ Overrides on School Segregation in Massachusetts
(Consecuencias imprevistas: El impacto de las exenciones a la Propuesta 2½ sobre la segregación escolar en Massachusetts)
Jeffrey Zabel
Tax Increment Finance and Education Expenditures: The Case of Iowa
(Financiamiento por aumento de impuestos y gastos educativos: El caso de Iowa)
Phuong Nguyen-Hoang
The Rise of School-Supporting Nonprofits
(El ascenso de organizaciones sin fines de lucro que respaldan escuelas)
Ashlyn Aiko Nelson y Beth Gazley
So Slow to Change: The Limited Growth of Non-Tax Revenues in Public Education Finance, 1991–2010
(Un cambio muy lento: El crecimiento limitado de los ingresos no tributarios para el financiamiento de la educación pública, 1991–2010)
Thomas Downes y Kieran M. Killeen
Sobre los autores
Daphne A. Kenyon, Ph.D., es economista y fellow del Instituto Lincoln de Políticas de Suelo, y socio fundador de D. A. Kenyon & Associates.
Andrew Reschovsky, Ph.D., es fellow del Instituto Lincoln de Políticas de Suelo y profesor emérito de la Universidad de Wisconsin-Madison.
Referencias
Congressional Budget Office. 2013. Updated Budget Projections: Fiscal Years 2013 to 2023. Washington, DC (May). www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44172-Baseline2.pdf.
Leachman, Michael y Chris Mai. 2014. “Most States Funding Schools Less Than Before the Recession,” Washington, DC: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, actualizado 12 de septiembre. www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=4011.
McGuire, Therese J., Leslie E. Papke y Andrew Reschovsky. 2015. “Local Funding of Schools: The Property Tax and Its Alternatives,” chapter 22 in Handbook of Research on Education Finance and Policy, revised edition, edited by Helen F. Ladd y Margaret Goertz, Routledge, 376–391.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). 2014. “National Public Education Financial Survey Data,” School Year 2010–11. http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/stfis.asp.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). 2013. “Projections of Education Statistics to 2021.” http://nces.ed.gov/programs/projections/projections2021/index.asp.
Pew Research. 2011. “Fewer Want Spending to Grow, But Most Cuts Remain Unpopular.” Center for People and the Press. 10 de febrero. www.people-press.org/2011/02/10/fewer-want-spending-to-grow-but-most-cuts-remain-unpopular.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2013. Table B-1a: Employees on Non-Farm Payrolls by Industry Sector and Selected Industry Detail, Seasonally Adjusted. Current Employment Statistics, Establishment Data. www.bls.gov/web/empsit/ceseeb1a.htm.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2013. 2011 Annual Survey of State and Local Government Finance, State and Local Government Data. www.census.gov/govs/local/.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2014. 2012 Data, Public Elementary-Secondary Education Finance Data. www.census.gov/govs/school/.
SHARE
The property tax in Brazil is an annual tax on urban land and buildings administered at the local government level. The tax base is derived from market value and is standardized across different local authorities, although procedures for establishing the tax base and rates vary considerably.
In the city of Porto Alegre, the cost approach is the method traditionally employed for assessing real estate property for taxation purposes. No legal requirement exists concerning intervals between valuations, and the last general valuation took place in 1991. In years without valuations, the tax base has been readjusted uniformly according to prevailing inflation rates. The property tax rates are progressive, with sliding rates for six classes of assessed values to insert an element of “ability-to-pay” into the system. The tax is calculated by the sum of each portion of the assessed value multiplied by the respective rate for that class. The maximum rate for residential property reaches 1.2 percent.
Analysis of the Current System
A recent analysis of the property tax system in Porto Alegre sought to provide a full examination of the relationship between assessed values and sale prices. Some of the results are summarized below.
Assessment level and uniformity
Residential apartments in Porto Alegre were assessed on median at only 34 percent of their sale prices, much less than the statutory level of 100 percent. Using the coefficient of dispersion about the median [COD] of the assessed value to sale price ratio as a measure of variability, the results showed a low degree of assessment uniformity (approximately 36 percent). In Brazil, there are neither local nor national standards for evaluating assessment performance. By comparison, a commonly accepted degree of uniformity for single-family residential property in the United States is a coefficient between 10 and 15 percent. Figure 1 illustrates the ample spread of the assessment ratios in this study.
Factors determining assessment inequity
To examine the simultaneous effects of the factors determining assessment bias, a multivariate model was used to investigate both vertical and horizontal inequities. The model detected a large number of factors causing systematic differences in assessment levels, including location attributes, building quality, building year, presence of elevators and similar variables. Vertical assessment regressivity was also identified.
Assessment method
It is plausible to assert that the method traditionally employed for assessing real property, that is, the cost approach, is a major cause of the lack of assessment uniformity identified in this study. Some theoretical weaknesses of the approach are associated with the extensive number of simplifications implemented by the local authority to make its application easier, and these adjustments are likely to have determined assessment bias. Inconsistencies with the standard cost model include the lack of connection between cost tables and the performance of the real estate market, and low correlation between the ad hoc depreciation rates adopted and the reduction in price caused by age, obsolescence, or deterioration of building structures. Furthermore, lack of systematic control over valuation performance seems to have contributed to the high inaccuracy of assessed values.
Time lags between valuations
The method used to make an overall adjustment to assessed values based on prevailing inflation rates for years without valuation has clearly contributed to the reduction of the tax base. For instance, properties were assessed on median at 38 percent of their sale prices in 1993, but only 27 percent in 1995.
Effective versus statutory rates of property tax
Rates for residential property are progressive according to six classes of assessed value. The effective rate results from the actual amount raised from property taxation, without regard to tax evasion, divided by the sale price. The statutory rate results from the expected tax that could be raised per property, if the tax were established on the basis of sale price, divided by its sale price. The effective rate is much lower than the statutory rate and represents on median only 0.17 percent of sale price.
Improper assessment practices have affected the distribution of the tax burden, not only because assessed values do not bear a consistent relationship to sale prices but also because many properties are classified incorrectly. The actual property tax revenue collected in the period under study represented approximately 25 percent of the potential revenue to be raised if assessed values were equal to sale prices.
Causes of Poor Property Tax Administration
Historical factors may help to explain the current poor administration of the property tax in Porto Alegre and its inefficient use as a revenue source. During the 1970s, large transfers of revenue from the central government and private estates to municipalities complemented the revenue raised at the local government level. Consequently, local authorities were not interested in collecting their own taxes, and taxpayers were used to paying insignificant property tax bills. The achievement of good performance in terms of valuation and an acceptable degree of assessment equity were secondary issues.
Recent financial crises combined with the urgent need for public investment in infrastructure equipment and services have stimulated some local authorities to improve their tax systems. However, due to the high visibility of the property tax and taxpayer antipathy, efforts to recover revenue and achieve assessment equity often result in tax revolts. Furthermore, changes in the tax base must be approved by locally elected members of the Chamber of Councilors. Whenever general valuations are planned, the Council members are responsible for supporting capping systems in the name of protecting the poor and retired taxpayers. However, the capping systems actually favor high-income and wealthy taxpayers because low-income and retired taxpayers can receive relief based on their income.
Since 1991, two proposals for altering the property tax base in Porto Alegre have been rejected by the Chamber of Councilors because the estimated value of some properties would have been adjusted over the inflation rate at the time. However, the existing vertical assessment inequity means that high-valued properties are the ones benefiting from poor property tax administration.
Recommendations on Revising Practices and Attitudes
Knowledge about the weaknesses of a particular tax system is fundamental for its improvement, and the analysis undertaken in Porto Alegre provides greater understanding of the current system, the degree of assessment inequity and its main causes. For the first time, the drawbacks and weaknesses of the system are both quantified and measured, including which properties are benefiting from the system and the amount of revenue being lost. Now Porto Alegre has the opportunity to improve its property tax system on the basis of accurate data rather than political expediency.
Several measures would contribute to the overall equity of the tax system while also improving revenue collection to provide the community with higher standards of living:
§ Reassessment of properties based on current market values using the sales comparison approach to assessing residential property, such as multiple regression analysis (MRA), artificial neural networks (NN), or multilevel modeling (hierarchical linear models – HLMs).
§ Systematic control over assessed property values, including testing before the release of the valuation roll to recognize and adjust for eventual bias in the estimated tax base.
§ Assurance of regular assessment updates.
§ Establishment of market adjustments to assessed values based on ratio studies for years without valuation.
§ Transparency in the administration of the property tax, especially in graduating the size of the tax burden, instead of overriding estimates of market values arbitrarily for this purpose.
§ A definition of minimum standards for assessment performance at the local or national level.
The achievement of property tax equity and the provision of a high standard of public services are common goals for politicians, the community, administrators and others. Public officials need to take advantage of new technologies for property tax assessment and data gathering to make tax systems operate both efficiently and fairly. However, technical improvements are just a part of the process. It is also vital to work on public opinion. An important step is to encourage dialogue between community residents and politicians, showing the drawbacks of the current system and the consequences of keeping its structure. Confidence in the property tax system is likely to increase if revisions are discussed seriously in the public domain.
Claudia M. De Cesare is an assessor in the Department of Local Taxation for the Municipality of Porto Alegre. She received a Lincoln Institute Dissertation Fellowship in 1999 to support the research reported here and in her Ph.D. thesis, which she completed at the University of Salford in England. The Lincoln Institute is continuing to develop educational programs with administrators, politicians, scholars and the community in Porto Alegre to help improve the equity and efficiency of the property tax system.
SHARE
Proposition 13, adopted by a referendum in California in 1978, was the most notable in a series of relatively recent actions to limit the property tax in the United States, and many experts view it as a watershed in state and local public finance. The property tax in virtually every state is now limited to some degree by statutorily or constitutionally imposed base restrictions, rate limits or revenue limits. These limits have influenced the use of the property tax, and there is substantial evidence that the rate of growth of the property tax has declined. The mix of funding for local expenditures also has changed, as cities, towns, counties, school districts and special districts are relying more and more on user charges, special fees, franchise fees and local option sales and use taxes.
The limits on the property tax also have many policy and expenditure implications. There is evidence, significant in some cases and simply indicative in others, that the property tax restrictions have fostered a variety of policy outcomes in the delivery of services to citizens. Some of these tax limits have affected educational outcomes: reduced the number of teachers in classrooms, reduced the qualifications of individuals entering the teaching profession, and reduced student performance in math, reading and science.
The literature detailing the possible effects of property tax limits on local government also reports the following changes: reduced infrastructure investment by local governments, reduction in the rate of salary increases for public employees, and a shift to state-controlled revenue sources that has led to the centralization of power toward state governments (Sokolow 2000). In this context, property tax limits may reduce intergovernmental competition and the discipline on the growth in government that results. Few observers would disagree that Proposition 13 and its imitators in other states have resulted in substantial nonuniformity in the property tax system (O’Sullivan, Sexton and Sheffrin 1995).
These outcomes illustrate the competing tradeoffs that accompany property tax limits. Depending on individual perspectives these consequences could be considered a plus or a minus. Supporters of Prop 13 and its derivatives want lower property taxes and less government (at least for others), but it is unlikely they also want less government for themselves. David Sears and Jack Citrin (1982) have labeled this behavior the “something for nothing” syndrome.
Therese McGuire (1999) notes that among public finance economists the advantages of the property tax for funding local governments approach “dogma.” In an opinion survey of more than 1300 Canadian and U.S. members of the National Tax Association, 93 percent of the respondents with training in economics favored the property tax as a major source of revenue for local governments (Slemrod 1995). This result probably explains why the World Bank and other international advisory groups are spending significant sums of money and offering assistance to improve and implement the property tax in developing and transitional countries. However, it also presents an interesting dilemma: experts support the property tax but voters want to limit it. Why the conflict?
Advantages of the Property Tax
The property tax provides local governments with a revenue source that they can control and avoids the strings that normally accompany fiscal transfers from a regional, state or national government. The result is local autonomy that allows local governments to select the level and quality of services demanded by local citizens. The property tax is relatively stable over the normal business cycle and provides a dependable funding source to local governments that must balance their budgets. Stability is important for certainty in operating budgets and is critical in the financing of long-term debt obligations.
The importance of a stable revenue source has been painfully exposed during the recent economic downturn in the U.S. State governments that are funded by less stable revenue sources are scrambling to balance their current and future budgets by cutting services and increasing taxes and fees. The fact that the property tax is imposed on an immobile base and is difficult to evade also makes it an attractive source of revenue for smaller governments.
Political accountability is another important element of the property tax. A noted function of a responsive tax system is one that provides price signals, or political accountability, on the cost of government to citizens. Compared to almost all other taxes, the direct and visible nature of the property tax suggests that it scores relatively high in this regard. The case for political accountability becomes even stronger when zoning for land use is included in the discussion. Bruce Hamilton (1975) has demonstrated that the property tax, when coupled with local zoning, becomes a benefit tax that leads to efficient outcomes. The combination of property taxation and zoning is the way many public finance scholars describe the characteristics of local finance in the U.S.
Disadvantages of the Property Tax
On the other hand, the property tax is difficult to administer. It requires substantial administrative effort on the part of public officials to discover and maintain the property records of every land parcel. Even with effective methods to discover property, determining its taxable value has always been a challenge to public assessors. Unlike other sales taxes and income taxes, there is no annually occurring event to place a market value on unsold properties. Assessors must value property as if it had sold. Assessors also confront limited budgets and a finite number of trained experts.
Nevertheless, we want public assessors to value property, land and the improvements to land accurately, and to do so as inexpensively as possible. Fortunately, progress has been made in the technical area of property valuation. It is now common to find large and small taxing jurisdictions using statistically driven valuation processes to estimate property values based on carefully designed hedonic models. The technical advantages of statistically driven appraisal systems in terms of efficiency and effectiveness are substantial.
However, the advantage of accurate and timely property appraisals highlights what I believe is a fundamental problem with the property tax and why it receives such low marks from taxpayers and elected officials. When an assessor conducts a reappraisal, the outcome is likely to increase assessed property values. If there is no reduction in the tax rate that was applied to the old tax base, the local government that relies on the property tax receives a potential windfall. It is not surprising, then, that in such situations the assessor and the assessor’s office are quickly identified as the villains of the tax increase. More importantly, these circumstances are powerful incentives to not reassess property regularly and thus avoid the angry backlash of property owners and voters.
Public finance experts have an expectation that the assessor will follow the legal and professional requirements and value property according to state law and professional practice. But, because of the uncertain political outcome when property is revalued, the assessor may act in self-interest, understandably being more concerned about reelection or reappointment than in ensuring that property is revalued properly. A system has been created that requires a reappraisal process and penalizes any assessor foolish enough to ignore it, but over time such avoidance behavior can foster nonuniformity in the property tax.
Political Challenges and Full Disclosure
We have solved many of the technical problems of property appraisal but not the political problems. Nevertheless, I believe there is at least one viable response to the political challenges: states and assessors can adopt a process of truth-in-taxation or full disclosure. The logic of full disclosure design is simple. A chilling effect on property tax growth is posited to occur when the “real” causes of increased property taxes are exposed to property owners. Helen Ladd (1991) states that full disclosure laws “tighten the link between taxpayer voter demand and local budgetary decisions.”
The standard annual tax notice, common in thousands of local tax jurisdictions, does not create a similar chilling effect. A typical tax notice informs property owners about the assessed value of the property, often a modest percentage of market value, tax rates listed in mills, and the total taxes due. If any increases in the assessed value of properties are not offset by reduced tax rates, the new assessed values create additional revenue for the taxing authority. In fact, elected officials can honestly boast that property tax rates have not changed and thus avoid most of the responsibility for any tax increase. An analysis of the behavior of elected officials in Massachusetts found precisely this type of behavior following several cycles of increases in assessed value due to revaluations (Bloom and Ladd 1982).
A property tax full disclosure law generally proceeds in the following manner. Local taxing districts are required to calculate a rate that, when applied to the tax base, produces property tax revenue that is identical in amount to the property tax revenue generated during the previous year. The rate to accomplish this is often referred to as the certified rate; it is calculated by dividing the new assessed value into the property tax revenue from the previous year. The resulting rate is the rate that, when applied to the taxable value of the taxing jurisdiction, will generate the same amount of revenue as the previous year.
This process forces elected officials to reduce the property tax rate—or at least acknowledge that any increase is their choice. If the elected officials choose not to reduce the rate, a public notice must be given that a tax rate increase is anticipated. The public notice is generally carried in a newspaper with specific requirements about the size, placement and language of the notice. In some states a preliminary tax notice is also sent to the taxpayers before that actual budget is adopted, to announce when and where the particular budget hearings on the issue will be held.
Full disclosure laws are intended to create a system with opportunities for input on property tax rate changes and the subsequent size and mix of government, but not at the expense of informed outcomes (Council of State Governments 1977). Full disclosure laws have the aim of a process to inform citizens and limit the rate of growth in property taxes. Nevertheless, like the property tax, full disclosure laws have not enjoyed universal or even modest acclaim. Researchers hold full disclosure laws in such subdued regard that when studying the implications of property tax limitations they commonly classify states having full disclosure laws among the states having no property tax limits.
It is not surprising that many observers suspect that full disclosure laws have little influence on policy outcomes. In states with full disclosure laws, the property tax increases more rapidly than in states with legally binding limits. This suggests that, because full disclosure laws cannot prevent all growth in the property tax, the strongest antagonists of the property tax and the often single-minded opponents to any growth in government will never find the approach acceptable.
However, I believe that full disclosure laws, like property tax limits, have other positive unintended outcomes. They may facilitate improvements in the administration of the property tax because they create a climate that fosters more frequent property tax appraisals by elected county assessors and more thorough and rigorous intervention on property tax matters by state revenue departments. If I am correct, the result is improvement in property tax uniformity. If this posited outcome is validated, then full disclosure laws can and should be judged beyond their immediate role in controlling the rate of increase in the property tax.
Gary C. Cornia is a visiting senior fellow of the Lincoln Institute this year and a member of the Institute’s board of directors. He is also professor in the Romney Institute of Public Management at Brigham Young University and president of the National Tax Association.
References
Bloom, H.S. and Helen F. Ladd. 1982. Property tax revaluation and tax levy growth. Journal of Urban Economics 11: 73-84.
Council of State Governments. 1977. 1978 Suggested State Legislation 37. Lexington, KY: Council of State Governments, 125-28.
Hamilton, Bruce. 1975. Zoning and property taxation in a system of local governments. Urban Studies 12 (June): 205-211.
Ladd, Helen F. 1991. Property tax revaluation and the tax levy growth revisited. Journal of Urban Economics 30: 83-99.
McGuire, Therese J. 1999. Proposition 13 and its offspring: For good or evil. National Tax Journal 52 (March): 129-138.
O’Sullivan, Arthur, Terri A. Sexton, and Steven M. Sheffrin. 1995. Property taxes and tax revolts: The legacy of Proposition 13. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Sears, David O. and Jack Citrin. 1982. Tax revolt: Something for nothing in California. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Slemrod, Joel. 1995. Professional opinions about tax policy. National Tax Journal 48: 121-148.
Sokolow, Alvin D. 2000. The changing property tax in the West: State centralization of local finances. Public Budgeting and Finance 20 (Spring): 85-102.
Una versión más actualizada de este artículo está disponible como parte del capítulo 7 del CD-ROM Perspectivas urbanas: Temas críticos en políticas de suelo de América Latina.
Los proyectos de reurbanización a gran escala (denominados grandes proyectos urbanos o GPU) plantean muchas dudas sobre las consecuencias de la urbanización subsiguiente provocada por la intervención. Los GPU se caracterizan por el impacto que tienen en una parte significativa de la ciudad, a menudo con el uso de algunos nuevos instrumentos fiscales o reguladores y la participación de una amplia red de agentes e instituciones. Se espera que estos proyectos afecten los precios del suelo, reciclen la infraestructura y las instalaciones existentes o creen otras nuevas, y atraigan otras construcciones nuevas.
Los GPU como instrumento de política urbana han sido objeto de controversia y debate considerable en toda América Latina. Se argumenta a menudo que promueven la exclusión social y la renovación de edificios para aspiraciones de la clase media, tiene efectos limitados en la estimulación de actividades inmobiliarias y requieren grandes subsidios públicos (a veces ocultos) que a menudo quitan recursos fiscales de otras necesidades urbanas. A pesar de su creciente popularidad en América Latina, existe poca evidencia empírica para apoyar estas críticas.
Este artículo presenta el caso de un GPU introducido en São Paulo, Brasil, en 1996 como una “operación urbana” para reurbanizar un área de ingresos medios que constaba en su mayor parte de hogares unifamiliares que iba a ser atravesada por la prolongación de la Avenida Faria Lima. El proyecto es conocido como el Consorcio de Operaciones Urbanas de Faria Lima (OUCFL). Examinamos los principios económicos que afectan el rendimiento fiscal del proyecto y su oportunidad para recuperar plusvalías, evaluamos los cambios en densidad residencial y analizamos los cambios en la distribución de ingresos y la estructura de la propiedad. Por último, ofrecemos algunas sugerencias de políticas sobre cómo y cuándo usar esta clase de instrumento en función de estas evaluaciones.
¿Qué es una operación urbana?
Una operación urbana es un instrumento legal que trata de proporcionar a los gobiernos locales el poder de llevar a cabo intervenciones relacionadas con mejoras urbanísticas y de planificación municipal en asociación con el sector privado. Identifica un área particular dentro de la ciudad que tenga el potencial de atraer inversiones inmobiliarias privadas para beneficiar a la ciudad en su totalidad. Los índices de planificación municipal apropiados (es decir, zonificación y otros reglamentos sobre coeficientes de construcción, índices de ocupación y usos del suelo) se redefinen según un plan maestro, y las inversiones se hacen en infraestructura nueva o reciclada.
Una operación urbana permite a la municipalidad recuperar (a través de medios negociados u obligatorios) los incrementos del valor del suelo relacionados con los subsiguientes cambios de uso del suelo. En comparación con otros instrumentos de recuperación de plusvalías, estos fondos están destinados o justificados dentro del perímetro del proyecto y serán compartidos entre el gobierno y el sector privado para inversiones en infraestructura urbana y subsidios de las inversiones inmobiliarias privadas para apoyar el proyecto mismo.
Cada operación urbana en Brasil es propuesta por el poder ejecutivo y aprobada por el poder legislativo de la jurisdicción. En el caso de São Paulo, esta autoridad fue creada en la Ley Orgánica Municipal (Constitución de la Ciudad) en 1990, que se incluyó más adelante en la nueva ley de urbanización brasileña (Estatuto de la Ciudad de 2001). Los primeros proyectos propuestos fueron la Operación Anhangabaú (más tarde ampliada como parte de la Operación Centro de la Ciudad y denominada Operación del Centro) y Água Branca, seguida por las operaciones de Água Espraiada y Faria Lima. Después de aprobar el nuevo Plan Maestro de la ciudad en 2001, se generaron otras nueve operaciones urbanas. Se espera que estos trece proyectos afecten del 30 al 40 por ciento del área edificable de la ciudad de São Paulo.
Financiación de Faria Lima
La operación urbana de Faria Lima (OUCFL) fue propuesta y aprobada en 1995 con el objetivo de obtener recursos privados para financiar las inversiones públicas necesarias para comprar suelo e instalar infraestructura con el fin de ampliar la Avenida Faria Lima. Se estimó que estos costos ascendían a aproximadamente US$150 millones, dos tercios para adquisición de suelo y un tercio para la avenida en sí. Al proyecto se opusieron muchos interesados por motivos que iban desde el origen de los fondos (es decir, avanzados del presupuesto local a través de una deuda nueva) hasta preocupaciones del vecindario (una de las cuales pudo mantener sin cambios los coeficientes de edificabilidad [floor area ratio o FAR] y excluirlos legalmente de la zonificación de OUCFL) y problemas de diseño técnico.
Los estudios técnicos realizados en su momento indicaban que sería posible aprovechar 2.250.000 metros cuadrados potenciales más de los ya permitidos por la legislación de zonificación de la ciudad y consecuentemente se modificaron los FAR. Estos derechos de construcción adicionales fueron garantizados contra un pago mínimo del 50 por ciento de su valor de mercado usando el instrumento existente Solo-Criado (venta de derechos de construcción). La OUCFL despertó gran interés por parte de empresarios inmobiliarios. No obstante, este instrumento también fue cuestionado por su falta de transparencia, su enfoque de “proyecto a proyecto”, y la arbitrariedad en la forma en que se establecieron precios relevantes que después se usaron para calcular el valor de los derechos de construcción adicionales.
En agosto de 2003 ya se había autorizado un total de 939.592 metros cuadrados, o casi el 42 por ciento de los 2.250.000 metros cuadrados totales posibles. Se aprobaron más de 115 proyectos inmobiliarios, incluidos casi el 40 por ciento de edificios comerciales y el 60 por ciento de edificios residenciales de alta calidad. No obstante, los recursos (aproximadamente US$280 millones) obtenidos de estos proyectos aprobados no habían compensado completamente los gastos (US$350 millones, incluidos el capital más los intereses) relacionados con la ampliación de la avenida, teniendo en cuenta los elevados intereses reinantes en Brasil durante los casi ocho años desde la ejecución de los gastos. Así, aproximadamente el 80 por ciento del costo (aunque mayor que el anticipado) se ha recuperado mediante el proceso de Venta de Derechos de Construcción. Desde julio de 2004, la compensación de estos fondos de avance se obtuvo mediante el ingenioso y nuevo mecanismo de recuperación de plusvalías conocido como CEPAC, siglas que significan Certificado de Potencial Adicional de Construcción. Un CEPAC representa un metro cuadrado.
La introducción de CEPAC
Aunque los CEPAC se definieron en el Estatuto de la Ciudad de 2001 de Brasil, no fueron aprobados por el CVM (equivalente brasileño de la Comisión de Bolsa y Valores de EE. UU.) como libremente comerciables en la Bolsa de Valores Brasileña hasta diciembre de 2003. El reglamento establece que el precio de cada certificado sea definido por una subasta pública y que puedan ejecutarse en cualquier momento los metros cuadrados correspondientes de derechos de construcción (que también incluyen cambios de uso e índices de ocupación) expresados en cada certificado. El reglamento indica también que se pueden emitir nuevos lotes de certificados (y venderse en subastas) sólo después de confirmarse que los recursos capturados por la venta previa han sido destinados de forma efectiva al proyecto. Para asegurar este uso designado, los ingresos se depositan en una cuenta especial, no en el tesoro municipal. Desde el punto de vista de los inversores privados, esta designación asegura la aceptabilidad de este instrumento de recuperación de plusvalías a su propia valorización. Al emitir un número menor de certificados que el número de derechos de construcción potenciales —es decir, al gestionar su escasez— el sector público puede beneficiarse de la valorización y poder así recuperar la plusvalía “ex-ante” (Afonso 2004, 39).
La aprobación final de los CEPAC para la OUCFL y todos los pasos necesarios para lanzarlos al mercado financiero se produjo a mediados de 2004, y la primera subasta a finales de diciembre de 2004 generó casi 10 millones de reales (unos US$4 millones), correspondientes a la venta de unos 9.000 CEPAC de un grupo autorizado de 650.000 metros cuadrados. Los certificados de OUCFL se vendieron a un valor nominal de 1.100 reales (unos US$450) por metro cuadrado sin un precio adicional como resultado del proceso de licitación.
Esta situación contrasta con la operación urbana de Água Espraiada, que se esperaba que fuera completamente financiada por CEPAC desde su inicio. En su tercera subasta, los certificados ya estaban alcanzando los 370 reales por certificado en vez del valor nominal de 300 reales fijado para esta operación. Una subasta más reciente en Água Espraiada vendió 56.000 CEPAC y alcanzó 21 millones de reales (US$9,5 millones), reflejando un precio por certificado de 371 reales. Este contraste de precios refleja los distintos valores nominales originales en los dos proyectos. En el caso de OUCFL los urbanizadores de compraron (y acumularon) derechos de construcción por adelantado, para beneficiarse de las reglas más flexibles antes de las aprobaciones de la CVM. El precio de los certificados en Faria Lima empezó siendo de más de 1.100 reales porque es un área más valorada. En Água Espraiada los urbanizadores estaban dispuestos a pagar un precio mayor que el valor nominal original, ya que los certificados eran menos caros y había una mayor demanda.
Implicaciones de los precios del suelo
Los precios del suelo sin ocupar y de las áreas urbanizadas experimentaron un aumento considerable en algunos bloques dentro del perímetro de OUCFL durante los años 90, pero disminuyó en otros bloques. No obstante, el precio promedio del metro cuadrado de nueva urbanización descendió en toda la región metropolitana de San Paulo (RMSP) en todas las franjas de precios, cuando se comparan los precios promedio de 1991 a 1996 con los de 1996 a 2000.
Después de controlar una serie de atributos relacionados con el carácter variable de las urbanizaciones y su ubicación, las estimaciones de precios mostraron un aumento relativo inequívoco después de haber dado comienzo a la operación. El precio promedio por metro cuadrado dentro del perímetro de OUCFL aumentó de 1.680 reales en el período de 1991–1996 a 1.920 reales en el período de 1996–2001, lo que representa un aumento del 14 por ciento, mientras que los precios en la RMSP disminuyeron de 1.210 a 1.060 reales, lo que representa un descenso del 12 por ciento en el mismo período (1,95 reales/1,00 dólares estadounidenses en diciembre de 2000). Así pues, el precio por metro cuadrado en OUCFL era aproximadamente un 26 por ciento mayor que el de RMSP. El precio por metro cuadrado en OUCFL fue un 38 por ciento mayor que el precio promedio en la RMSP en 1991–1996, y aumentó a un 81 por ciento en 1996–2001.
¿Fue este aumento capturado por la municipalidad el previsto? Considerando que el costo de la construcción es en promedio aproximadamente igual a 1.000 reales por metro cuadrado, la subasta de 2004 (la única hasta ahora) capturó casi todo el valor añadido a los precios actuales. El sistema previo anterior a CEPAC capturó aproximadamente el 50 por ciento o más, dependiendo de la capacidad y del éxito de los negociadores municipales, y de la exactitud del precio de referencia. CEPAC ahora cambia este porcentaje y el valor nominal del instrumento puede recuperar todo el incremento del valor o incluso más, dependiendo de la relación de este valor nominal con los precios del mercado, y de los resultados de futuras subastas. Al comparar un proyecto de reurbanización financiado completamente por bonos de construcción (como CEPAC) y otro financiado totalmente por tributos inmobiliarios generales, no existe ninguna duda de que el anterior es menos regresivo que este último. Incluso con un tributo inmobiliario progresivo, con tasas que aumenten según los valores, parte de los costos serían pagados por hogares más pobres.
Esta evidencia de que aproximadamente el 80 por ciento del costo del proyecto ya se ha recuperado, en combinación con la subasta de los derechos de construcción restantes mediante CEPAC y el impacto de la apreciación de la propiedad en los ingresos de tributos inmobiliarios actuales, indica que el proyecto no sólo debe pagarse por sí mismo sino que realmente genera una plusvalía fiscal para la ciudad en general en los siguientes cinco o siete años.
En efecto, los cambios causados al sustituir casas unifamiliares más antiguas por nuevos edificios residenciales y comerciales produjeron un cambio sustancial en la recaudación de tributos inmobiliarios en el área de la OUCFL. Muchas parcelas e incluso bloques enteros habían sido ocupados por casas de uno o dos pisos construidas en los años 50. Muchas de estas estructuras tenían derecho a un coeficiente de descuentos por obsolescencia de hasta un 30 por ciento del tributo inmobiliario. Fueron reemplazadas por edificios nuevos, más altos y de mayor calidad para los que el descuento era nulo. Nuestras estimaciones indican que las diferencias en recaudación de tributos inmobiliarios por metros cuadrados construidos puede haber aumentado al menos 2,7 veces y hasta 4,4 veces más. Es decir, el tributo inmobiliario promedio por metro cuadrado aumentó a un mínimo de 588,50 reales hasta un máximo de 802,50 reales desde 220,95 reales si la casa tenía más de 25 años, o desde 179,70 reales si la casa tenía más de 30 años.
Implicaciones sociales
El caso de la OUCFL ofrece una oportunidad única para cuantificar cambios en las características de residentes antes y después de la intervención, ya que hay datos disponibles a nivel de seguimiento del censo para 1991 y 2000, y la intervención empezó en 1996. Nuestro análisis de renovación y desplazamiento de residentes más pobres confirma principalmente las conclusiones de Ramalho y Meyer (2004) de que los ingresos promedio han aumentado relativamente en la mayoría de los bloques dentro del perímetro de la OUCFL. En lo que se refiere a las normas brasileñas, la clase media-alta fue desplazada de la región por el 5 por ciento más rico de hogares en el área metropolitana. Los datos del censo también mostraron que la densidad residencial descendió entre 1991 y 2000, de 27 a 22 residencias por hectárea, aunque estas cifras pueden estar distorsionadas porque reflejan la razón de residencias totales en todo el área, no un promedio de las razones por parcela donde se convirtió el uso del suelo.
Los datos de 1991 indicaron que la población ya estaba abandonando el área de la OUCFL antes de la aprobación de la operación urbana, pero este éxodo se intensificó después de 1996, generando parcelas desocupadas en el proceso de configuración del sitio para acomodar a las nuevas urbanizaciones de edificios altos. Al mismo tiempo, aumentó la densidad de construcción. El número promedio de pisos por nuevo edificio en el área aumentó de 12,6 en el período de 1985–1995 a 16,7 en el período de 1996–2001. El número de viviendas por edificio aumentó de 37,1 a 79,6 en los mismos períodos.
Esta contradicción aparente entre la menor densidad residencial y el mayor número de viviendas se explica en parte por la construcción de edificios comerciales que reemplazaron muchas residencias unifamiliares en parcelas pequeñas o de tamaño promedio. La OUCFL provocó una concentración inmobiliaria considerable, ya que los nuevos edificios comerciales y residenciales reemplazaron las casas y requirieron áreas de suelo más grandes para proyectos arquitectónicos de clase alta. Los 115 proyectos aprobados entre 1995 y agosto de 2003 que solicitaron aumentos en los coeficientes de utilización requerían un total de 657 parcelas, o un promedio de 5,7 parcelas por proyecto.
La combinación del aumento en nivel de ingresos y la reducción en densidad de hogares indican que el proceso de renovación avanzó dentro y fuera de la región de la OUCFL durante los años 90. No obstante, éste no es un caso clásico de renovación para la aspiración de clases medias, donde las familias pobres son expulsadas de un área debido a diversas presiones socioeconómicas. En este caso fueron mayormente las clases medias-altas quienes fueron desplazadas. Excepto en lo que se refiere al pequeño núcleo de favelados restantes (Favela Coliseu), la región estaba ya ocupada por personas que pertenecen a los sectores más ricos de la sociedad.
Algunas observaciones de política
Este artículo contribuye al debate sobre la gestión social de valoración del suelo proporcionando evaluaciones de datos reales y elementos económicos. Estos elementos faltaban en la mayoría de los análisis, y creemos que este vacío en las publicaciones ha contribuido a una interpretación incompleta de las implicaciones de una operación urbana y a recomendaciones de política pública equivocadas.
Nuestra conclusión es que el mecanismo de financiación de CEPAC por sí mismo no aumenta la característica regresiva de las operaciones urbanas, ya que sin esos bonos de derechos de construcción toda la inversión en reurbanizaciones sería financiada por impuestos generales. Si el proyecto de la OUCFL fuera inadecuado en términos de distribución de ingresos, hubiera sido aún peor sin el mecanismo de recuperación de plusvalías. En vez de eso, CEPAC y el mecanismo de recuperación de plusvalías usado previamente ofrecieron dos características deseables en cualquier inversión pública: cobrar a los nuevos terratenientes es al menos neutro en términos de distribución de ingresos; y los beneficiarios principales terminan por pagar el proyecto.
Además, el mecanismo de operación urbana ofrece incentivos para la reurbanización. Dado que la mayoría de los proyectos aumentan los precios del suelo y echan a los pobres de la región, sería mejor invertir todo el presupuesto municipal en proyectos a pequeña escala. Esto es lo opuesto a lo que ocurrió con la reurbanización de la rica área adyacente de Berrini donde los urbanizadores decidieron la forma de concentrar su inversión, resultando en una concentración aún mayor de ingresos que en el área de la OUCFL. Debido a la falta de acción de los gestores de política en ese caso, la municipalidad no capturó ningún valor de Berrini, pero pagó el costo completo de la infraestructura.
El uso de bonos de derechos de construcción puede disminuir el aspecto regresivo de la urbanización, pero hacer que un proyecto sea verdaderamente progresivo requiere atención en el lado de los gastos, financiando toda la inversión a través de instrumentos como CEPAC. La limitación principal sobre la distribución de beneficios a los pobres es que la ley establece que todos los fondos recogidos mediante la recuperación de plusvalías (CEPAC u otros instrumentos) deben invertirse dentro del perímetro de la intervención. Una forma de que estas intervenciones sean más progresivas es invertir en actividades que suministren extras a los pobres, como transporte público, educación y salud. Además, la legislación importante permite que la administración seleccione un área dentro del perímetro de una operación urbana y la declare zona especial de interés social (ZEIS) donde las parcelas se pueden usar exclusivamente para vivienda social de bajos ingresos.
Otra alternativa es establecer áreas de vivienda social dentro del perímetro de la operación urbana. Al subsidiar viviendas de bajos ingresos con dinero de urbanizadores y nuevos terratenientes, no habría una distorsión de precios fuera de la industria de la vivienda. El subsidio resulta de la segmentación del mercado y de la transferencia de la renta adicional a hogares pobres. Se trata de una gestión social real de valoración del suelo.
Ciro Biderman está afiliado al Centro de Estudios de Política y Economía del Sector Público (Cepesp) en la Escuela de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales de la Fundación Getúlio Vargas de São Paulo, Brasil. Es profesor visitante de desarrollo internacional y planificación regional en el Departamento de Estudios y Planificación Urbanos del Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.
Paulo Sandroni es economista y profesor en la Escuela de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales de la Fundación Getúlio Vargas.
Martim O. Smolka es Senior Fellow y director del Programa sobre América Latina y el Caribe del Lincoln Institute.
Referencias
(Estas publicaciones sólo se encuentran en portugués).
Afonso, Luis Carlos Fernandes. 2004. Financiamento é desafio para governantes (La financiación es un desafío para los gobernantes). Teoria e Debate Nº 58, Mayo-Junio: 36–39.
Ramalho, T., e R.M.P. Meyer. 2004. O impacto da Operação Urbana Faria Lima no uso residencial: Dinâmicas de transformação (El impacto de la Operación Urbana Faria Lima en el uso residencial: dinámicas de transformación). Mimeo. São Paulo: Lume/FAUUSP.
Biderman, Ciro y Paulo Sandroni. 2005. Avaliação do impacto das grandes intervenções urbanas nos precos dos imoveis do entorno: O caso da Operação Urbana Consorciada Faria Lima (Evaluación del impacto de los precios en la propiedad cerca de intervenciones urbanas a gran escala: El caso del Consorcio de la Operación Urbana Faria Lima). Lincoln Institute of Land Policy Research Report (Abril).
