C. Lowell Harriss is Professor Emeritus at Columbia University, where he taught economics from 1938 until his retirement in 1981. He then served as executive director of the Academy of Political Science until 1987. He has been a consultant to and a member of numerous government commissions and boards of professional organizations. He has written and edited many books and hundreds of articles, and is the recipient of countless honors and awards. Dr. Harriss has been a valued associate of the Lincoln Institute since its founding in 1974, as a faculty member, research scholar, and board member. Joan Youngman, senior fellow and chairman of the Institute’s Department of Valuation and Taxation, spoke with him about his lifelong commitment to education, public service, and property taxation.

Joan Youngman: How does land value differ from improvement value as a property tax base?

Lowell Harriss: The significant factor with land is location, the unimproved condition of nature in the most fundamental economic sense. Whatever results from private or public investment and labor, such as streets, buildings, and so forth, is not part of land in this definition. Land differs from other productive resources because it is immobile and its quantity is fixed.

Land exists not because people produce it, but because it’s there by nature. The price one pays for land, as contrasted with other resources, has no role in creating supply. Land is also unique in that no two pieces are the same, so the kind of analysis appropriate for labor and capital with fungible aspects is not applicable to land.

Another important element is the ability to control land use–for example, to receive rent as payment for access, rather than because the owner created anything. The person who controls land use can serve a constructive function by directing it into better instead of poorer uses, and I think there should be the prospect of rewards for doing so. Market forces will indicate demand, and one interested in public policy hopes that the land will be used in the best possible ways. The owner of desirable land will get higher returns, but not because of anything he or she did to create it.

Almost any urban use illustrates this. Some thirty or forty years ago, I was walking down Park Avenue and I saw a very fine building in a key location, 64th Street, I think, housing some offices of the New York City Board of Education—much too valuable a location to be used for administrative purposes. I raised this point with someone in the school system, and he said that they were moving out. They had come to the same economic realization.

Any use of land prevents another use. Holding land idle or partially idle affects not only the owner but neighbors and society at large. Others will have to travel further to get to work or to the grocery store or to school. Land is so crucial, so important to life, that society will be better off if there are forces, market forces or governmental forces, inducing better rather than poorer uses.

JY: How can the tax system encourage better land use?

LH: A tax system that imposes higher taxes on land creates pressure on owners to make more productive use of their land. I don’t like the term “land value tax,” because it emphasizes the tax aspect. My focus over the years has been on reducing the tax rates on structures to induce more investment in improvements. I have not emphasized increasing the tax rates on land to increase pressure for better land use, but these can go together. If the tax system can create a built-in inducement, year in and year out, for better use of land, that will be a plus. I don’t want to be unduly skeptical about more direct land use regulation, but government is politics and the political pressures that affect government regulation do not always represent mankind at its best.

JY: How would you deal with past improvements to land, before the implementation of a land-based tax?

LH: I would just establish the tax on the current condition of the land. The past is past. We’re not talking about a tax on capital gains but a recurring tax on an immobile resource. Some of its current value does reflect prior capital investment, the same as for structures, but I don’t see how to make any differentiation for an annual tax on land value. As a practical matter we have no market for land the way it was hundreds of years ago.

Going forward, it would be desirable to distinguish the value of unimproved land from the value of capital improvements to the land, such as infrastructure and grading, that aren’t viewed commonly as “buildings” but that represent investment and effort. The tax system should not create obstacles to investment. I would certainly be open to learning more about what might be administratively feasible in that regard.

JY: What about the taxation of farms, forests, and open space?

LH: Well, this raises complicated concerns. On one hand, I think it would be good to have additional pressure on some owners of agricultural land to speed up nonagricultural development, especially in the urban fringe. On the other hand, decisions about land use are often irreversible. Covering more acres in Westchester County, where I live, with asphalt and buildings will affect drainage for years to come. I think if anything there should be bias against decisions that are costly in the long run and difficult to reverse if conditions change. But it’s also pretty clear that interests vary, and what is in the interest of farmers is not always in the interest of the public as a whole.

Land is a large part of farm investment, and anticipated future income is reflected in land prices. The market value of land does not necessarily reflect current cash flow, so if taxes are high they may constitute a substantial portion of farm income. I’m sometimes considered not very sympathetic to farmers, because I think they have undue political influence.

The effect of many state and federal programs to benefit farms will be capitalized into higher land values. The consumer will pay forever, and the benefits will go to the person who owned the land when the policy was established. This is not a new conclusion. It’s been in the literature since farm programs began in the 1930s, but it has not affected the political decision-making process. Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts asked why the family farm deserves more consideration than the family shoe store, and I agree with the implication of his question.

JY: What about two people who own identical parcels of land, side by side, but one has a small, older house and the other has a new commercial building or shopping center? Many people think it’s unfair to impose the same tax on both.

LH: There are real problems here, too, partly because of imperfections in the capital markets. The person with unimproved land, let’s say it’s a widow, might ideally get a reverse mortgage to realize cash income from her property. The logical thing at that stage of life is to consume capital, for example, by drawing down retirement accounts. We have a systematic market that enables us to live off of our capital when it’s in the form of financial investments, but it’s not that well developed for the real estate market.

I always want to be sympathetic with the person who is having trouble, but wise public policy cannot be made well by concentrating on the extreme cases. Society needs to deal both with the cases of human need and with other problems such as the pressures on land use. Those whose land has become valuable, not because of what they did, but because of their neighborhood, are lucky, even though they may not recognize it. We need separate instruments to deal with separate problems, such as the person whose tax bill goes up even when his cash income does not.

Another aspect of the question is that the property tax is not a personal tax and cannot be evaluated on the same grounds as, say, an income tax. To attempt to do so can mislead. A rich person may own no land and a person with very little cash may own a good deal of land. There are ways to deal with the cash-flow problem, such as circuit breakers that limit property taxes to a certain percentage of income or deferral of tax payments until the property is sold.

JY: Is speculation a special concern? Is everyone who holds property with the hope that it will rise in value a speculator?

LH: I’ve always been reluctant to use the term “speculation,” and I certainly would not say that public policy should penalize the speculator. But, to the extent that government plays a role, I would say its bias should be toward use rather than idleness, and tax policy also supports this view. There is a whole range of speculation, from an owner deciding not to sell a house this week because of hopes for a better price next week, to holding a plot of ground idle in downtown Manhattan, knowing that someone is going to offer a very high price for it eventually.

The developer is presumably a constructive element in the total process. I don’t think anyone really wants equilibrium, but something better than what would be equilibrium. More people live better by reasonable standards now than was the case 20 or 100 years ago, and the real estate developer has played a part in that process. Sometimes it’s fashionable to be disparaging of developers, but we owe a lot to them. Maybe we’ve overpaid some of them, but plenty of them have lost their shirts. It can be a very risky business.

JY: How should the tax system treat government-financed improvements to land?

LH: In New York City, for example, I don’t know how much of the cost of building and extending subways could be borne by taxing the increments of the land value in the neighborhood, but probably a good deal. It’s not going to slow down progress to use those land value increases to help finance the expansion of the subway system.

We need to distinguish, however, between year-in, year-out financing of government by taxes on land and more or less one-time charges. That is, if the subway system is extended, there will be immediate capital gains as well as a long-term increase in the property tax base. Each of these effects deserves consideration in public policy.

JY: What is the difference between someone who invests in a piece of land and then watches as the price of land rises and someone who invests in a stock and then watches the stock market rise?

LH: Well, as far as income taxation is concerned I would think they are the same, but for financing local government they’re very different. The land stays in place, yet the stockholder can move. The ability of the landowner and stockholder to pay may be the same, but that isn’t the only relevant consideration. In thinking about how to tax gains you need to take into account whether the taxpayer can move from the jurisdiction.

I think that taxing people annually to finance local government, based on their ownership of land, is good public policy. The effort to apply that same principle to intangibles was a complete failure in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, because you can’t tax people locally on the basis of resources that are so mobile.

The distinction here is not between earned and unearned income. For income tax purposes the tax is applied after a sale when the owners have realized their gain. But, to finance schools and other services you don’t want to rely on residents’ decisions about whether or not to sell their land. You want a permanent and steady source of tax revenue.

This is quite different from the question of unearned income, that is, whether or not the owner grew rich in his sleep. If the Astors became rich from owning land in Manhattan, but paid their property taxes year in and year out, well, so be it. I think that the property tax can take only a very limited account of differences in wealth. The administrative difficulties of a net wealth tax could be enormous. And the identification of a property tax with a tax on wealth or net worth is, I think, diverting and dangerous. It shifts attention from the goal of financing government to issues of personal status and relative position.

JY: Could you say more about the problem of jurisdictions competing for business by offering tax reductions?

LH: It seems to me there is no need for property tax exemptions on land. Special concessions may be appropriate for buildings, as an acceptable means of competition, but I’m dubious and favor broad reduction of taxes on structures. In any case, the land is not going to move. If you give concessions for land, they will tend to be capitalized into capital gains for the present owners. Under a two-rate land and buildings tax system, any concessions should be made on the basis of the variable resource, which is the building value. Inducements are not going to create more land, but they might create more structures. In this way, economic development incentives might be more effective under a land tax.

Land Lines April 2009 Report from the President

Hace más de 50 años, un proceso lento pero fundamental comenzó a transformar el impuesto sobre la propiedad en los Estados Unidos. Como este proceso se desarrolló a nivel estatal y local, y no a nivel federal, y dado que la adopción casi universal del avalúo preferencial tomó varias décadas, la mayoría de los ciudadanos no son conscientes de que los dueños de parcelas rurales a menudo reciben un tratamiento preferencial. En consecuencia, hoy millones de hectáreas de suelo rural se avalúan muy por debajo de su valor justo de mercado a efectos del impuesto local sobre la propiedad.

Estas modificaciones del impuesto sobre la propiedad comenzaron en Maryland en 1957, cuando la Asamblea General promulgó una ley de avalúo de suelos de uso agrícola. Esta ley estableció que los campos y pastizales se podían avaluar por debajo del precio del mercado, siempre y cuando se “utilizaran activamente” con fines agrícolas. Como prueba de uso agrícola activo, un dueño sólo tiene que demostrar que la propiedad generó US$2.500 o más de ingresos brutos anuales por la venta de productos agrícolas en los últimos años.

Varios factores impulsaron a docenas de gobiernos estatales a emular a Maryland y crear programas de avalúo por valor de uso (use value programs, o UVA) en las décadas de 1960 y 1970. El primero fue la expansión masiva de las regiones metropolitanas de los EE.UU. después de la Segunda Guerra Mundial, que provocó la conversión de decenas de millones de hectáreas de suelos agrícolas, ganaderos, forestales y otros suelos rurales a uso residencial y a otros usos no agrícolas. Alig et al. (2003) estima que el área desarrollada del país aumentó más del doble entre 1960 y 1997, de 10,3 a 26,5 millones de hectáreas. La rápida urbanización del suelo rural había llegado antes a Maryland que a otros estados debido a que la población de los condados de Montgomery y Prince George, cerca de la rápidamente creciente capital del país, Washington, DC, se cuadruplicó entre 1940 y 1960.

El segundo factor fue que el suelo agrícola que se encontraba al borde de las áreas metropolitanas aumentó significativamente de precio en las décadas posteriores a la guerra debido a su potencial de desarrollo inmobiliario, por lo que algunos productores rurales se vieron obligados a pagar facturas de impuestos mucho mayores debido al mayor valor de sus suelos. Entre 1950 y 1971, por ejemplo, se produjo un incremento del 330 por ciento en la relación de precios de suelos agrícolas con ingresos agrícolas netos en Maryland (Gloudemans 1974). Un estudio en dos estados y siete condados de la región de Kansas City a comienzos de la década de 1960 encontró que la proporción de ingresos brutos agrícolas absorbida por el impuesto sobre la propiedad en el condado más urbanizado era cuatro veces mayor que en la región metropolitana en su totalidad (Blase y Staub 1971). Por lo tanto, la adopción de un avalúo preferencial para el suelo rural se justificó frecuentemente como una medida política para proteger a las familias de agricultores y ganaderos de penurias económicas o, incluso, la ruina.

Una tercera razón, más sutil, de la adopción de programas UVA, tiene que ver con la manera en que el impuesto sobre la propiedad había sido administrado en muchos estados antes de 1957. Hasta ese momento en la historia de los EE.UU., los valuadores municipales y de condado habían otorgado preferencias tributarias de facto a los agricultores, a pesar de que las cláusulas constitucionales estatales exigían uniformidad y equidad en la tributación. Estas prácticas informales de avalúo tenían como objetivo proporcionar alivio tributario a “ciudadanos que se lo merecían”, pero producían como efecto secundario diferencias considerables en los avalúos de propiedades dentro de la misma comunidad.

La expansión de los programas de ayuda estatal a los gobiernos locales después de la Segunda Guerra Mundial puso al descubierto algunas de estas discrepancias. La cantidad de propiedades por residente o estudiante era frecuentemente un factor importante para determinar las fórmulas utilizadas para la asignación de subsidios estatales. Por lo tanto, creció la presión a nivel estatal para adoptar prácticas locales uniformes de avalúo, con el fin de asegurar una distribución equitativa de subsidios estatales. La eliminación de las preferencias tributarias de facto otorgadas por los valuadores a los agricultores y ganaderos dentro de sus comunidades aceleró los esfuerzos para obtener preferencias tributarias de jure para los suelos rurales, por medio de leyes estatales o enmiendas constitucionales.

California fue uno de los estados que adoptó inicialmente el avalúo por valor de uso para los suelos rurales. En 1965, el poder legislativo aprobó la Ley de Conservación de Suelos de California, comúnmente llamada la Ley Williamson. El objetivo de esta ley era la preservación del suelo rural para poder asegurar un suministro adecuado de alimentos, desalentar la conversión prematura de suelos rurales a uso urbano, y preservar las propiedades agrícolas debido a su valor como espacio abierto.

La Ley Williamson permite a condados y ciudades ofrecer un avalúo preferencial al dueño de un suelo agrícola, condicionado a un contrato que prohíbe el desarrollo del suelo por un mínimo de diez años. Después de la primera década del contrato, este se prolonga automáticamente cada año a menos que el dueño presente una notificación de no renovación de contrato. Una vez presentada esa notificación, el avalúo de la propiedad aumenta anualmente hasta que alcance su valor justo de mercado, y el contrato vence finalmente después de nueve años.

Diversidad y alcance de los programas de avalúo por valor de uso

Con poca repercusión en los medios de comunicación nacionales, el avalúo preferencial de los suelos rurales se ha convertido en una característica fundamental de los impuestos locales sobre la propiedad en los Estados Unidos. En California, por ejemplo, más de 6,7 millones de hectáreas de suelo agrícola se acogieron a los contratos de la Ley Williamson en 2008-2009. Según el Departamento de Conservación de California, las propiedades sujetas a la Ley Williamson constituían casi un tercio de todos los suelos privados a comienzos de 2009.

Más de 6,5 millones de hectáreas de suelos agrícolas en Ohio estaban inscritas en el programa de Valor de Uso Agrícola Actual (CAUV, por sus siglas en inglés) para 2007. En promedio, estos suelos se habían valuado en sólo un 14,2 por ciento de su valor de mercado. En diciembre de 2011, la Sala de Representantes de Ohio votó por unanimidad a favor de ampliar el programa CAUV del estado para incluir suelos utilizados para la producción de energía por biomasa y biodiésel.

En Nueva Hampshire, se inscribieron 1,2 millones de hectáreas en el programa estatal de avalúo por uso vigente en 2010. Estas parcelas valuadas en forma preferencial constituían más del 51 por ciento del área total de suelos del estado. Como la agricultura desempeña un papel menor en la economía de Nueva Hampshire, más del 90 por ciento de estos suelos sin desarrollar son bosques y humedales, no campos agrícolas ni pasturas.

Dado que las circunstancias económicas, políticas y legales varían sustancialmente entre los 50 estados, no es sorprendente que los gobiernos estatales hayan adoptado programas UVA diversos. En 1977, once estados ya habían creado programas en los cuales las parcelas elegibles quedaban inscritas automáticamente. En otros 38 estados, los programas requerían que los propietarios presentaran solicitudes de avalúo preferencial. Casi todos los estados ofrecían avalúos por debajo del valor de mercado para suelos agrícolas, pero sólo 21 estados extendían avalúos preferenciales para suelos madereros y bosques.

Desde el punto de vista de la conservación de suelos, la diferencia más importante entre los estados es que 15 de ellos no imponen penalizaciones si un dueño convierte su propiedad a un uso no calificado (ver figura 1). Otros siete estados exigen la devolución de un porcentaje del desarrollo inmobiliario efectuado en parcelas inscritas en el programa. Es decir, el propietario tiene que pagar al estado o al municipio un porcentaje del valor de mercado de la parcela en el año en que se desarrolla la propiedad.

Mucho más común es la penalización de reversión, un disuasión del desarrollo que exige al dueño que pague la diferencia entre el impuesto sobre la propiedad efectivamente pagado en los últimos años gracias al avalúo por valor de uso, y el impuesto que hubiera pagado en esos años si el avalúo hubiera sido efectuado al valor de mercado (más los intereses acumulados por dicha diferencia, en algunos casos). Veintiséis estados utilizan esta forma de penalización al desarrollo inmobiliario. Las investigaciones económicas han demostrado que la falta de penalizaciones al desarrollo inmobiliario debilita significativamente la capacidad de un programa UVA para demorar el desarrollo de suelos rurales que se encuentran en el borde de las regiones metropolitanas (England y Mohr 2006).

La práctica de avalúo por valor de uso a veces crea tensiones políticas en la comunidad e incluso puede dañar la legitimidad de la tributación sobre la propiedad como fuente de ingresos locales. En noviembre de 2011, una estación de televisión de Wisconsin reportó que los dueños de lotes vacantes en una subdivisión residencial de lujo habían cosechado malas hierbas en sus parcelas y solicitado con éxito un avalúo agrícola para sus lotes, mientras la construcción estaba pendiente. Este alegato hizo que por lo menos un representante estatal solicitara la realización de audiencias legislativas por abuso del programa de avalúo por valor de uso del estado. Según el representante Louis Molepske, “Esto debería molestar a todos los habitantes de Wisconsin porque han sido engañados por aquellos que… [quieren] transferir injustamente la carga de los impuestos sobre la propiedad a todos los demás” (Polcyn 2011).

Cómo salvar a los agricultores familiares y los paisajes rurales

Los programas UVA, ¿han “salvado al agricultor familiar”, como predijeron originalmente algunos de sus defensores? En realidad, no. Durante la década de 1980, la población agrícola de los Estados Unidos descendió drásticamente un 31,2 por ciento. Desde 1991 a 2007, la cantidad de granjas comerciales pequeñas continuó disminuyendo, de 1,08 millones a 802.000. En ese mismo período de tiempo, las granjas muy grandes (con 1 millón de dólares en ingresos brutos por lo menos) aumentaron su participación en la producción agrícola nacional desde casi el 28 por ciento hasta casi el 47 por ciento (Servicio de Investigación Económica del Departamento de Agricultura de los Estados Unidos, sin fecha).

Si el avalúo preferencial de los suelos rurales no ha prevenido la disminución de las actividades agrícolas familiares, ¿ha reducido la tasa de desarrollo del suelo rural en los Estados Unidos? Existen pruebas positivas al respecto, pero son modestas. Un estudio sobre el cambio en el uso del suelo desde que Nueva Jersey adoptó el avalúo por uso del suelo en 1964, hasta 1990, encontró que el programa tuvo un impacto muy modesto en la tasa de conversión de suelos agrícolas a usos urbanos (Parks y Quimio, 1996). Después de su estudio en 1998 de casi 3.000 condados de los Estados Unidos, Morris (1998) concluyó que, en promedio, los programas UVA tuvieron como resultado el mantenimiento de aproximadamente un 10 por ciento más de suelos agrícolas en un condado después de 20 años de funcionamiento del programa. Después de su estudio detallado sobre el cambio de uso del suelo en Luisiana, Polyakov y Zhang (2008) concluyeron que se hubieran desarrollado 65.000 hectáreas más de suelos agrícolas durante los cinco años posteriores a 1992 si no hubiera existido un programa UVA en el estado. Parece, entonces, que los programas UVA han ralentizado algo la expansión metropolitana durante las últimas décadas.

Transfiriendo la carga tributaria a nuestros vecinos

Si bien la reducción en la tasa de desarrollo del suelo constituye un beneficio medioambiental y público de los programas UVA, viene acompañado de un costo social. Cuando las propiedades de agricultores, ganaderos y dueños forestales reciben un avalúo muy por debajo del valor de mercado, los gobiernos locales recaudan menos impuestos, a no ser que suban la tasa de impuestos de todas las demás propiedades gravables. Al elevar las tasas tributarias para mantener los niveles de gasto público, los pueblos y condados aumentan las facturas de los impuestos sobre la propiedad de los propietarios no sujetos al UVA, que principalmente son los dueños de viviendas.

Este impacto potencialmente regresivo de los programas UVA se conocía desde hacía décadas. En su informe de 1976 sobre el avalúo preferencial de suelos agrícolas y espacios abiertos, el Consejo sobre Calidad Medioambiental del Presidente (1976, 6-8) expresó claramente que estos programas estatales tienen un costo tributario de magnitud significativa, afectando la redistribución de ingresos entre los contribuyentes:

Todas las leyes de avalúo diferencial… [generan] ‘gastos tributarios’, porque las facturas de cobro de algunos contribuyentes se reducen…. En lamayoría de los casos, el costo de esta reducción se distribuye entre todos los demás contribuyentes… El efecto de un gasto tributario es precisamente el mismo que si los contribuyentes que reciben el beneficio debieran pagar sus impuestos a la misma tasa que los contribuyentes no preferenciales, y al mismo tiempo recibieran un subsidio… por el valor del beneficio tributario.

La magnitud de esta transferencia de impuestos entre los dueños de propiedades puede ser considerable. El informe de Anderson y Griffing (2000) estima los gastos tributarios de dos condados de Nebraska asociados con el programa UVA del estado. El gasto tributario promedio es aproximadamente el 36 por ciento de los ingresos del condado de Lancaster y el 75 por ciento de los ingresos del condado de Sarpy.

Dunford y Marousek (1981) han estudiado el impacto de la Ley de Impuestos sobre Espacios Abiertos (OSTA, por sus siglas en inglés) del estado de Washington sobre la distribución de la carga tributaria en el condado de Spokane. Ocho años después de la creación del programa OSTA, se han inscrito aproximadamente 180.000 hectáreas del condado de Spokane, es decir, alrededor del 40 por ciento del área total de suelos del condado.

Los autores calculan que el aumento de impuestos de las propiedades no participantes para compensar la reducción de impuestos a los dueños de las parcelas inscritas ascendería al 1,3 por ciento, si se deseara mantener los ingresos constantes. No obstante, oculto en este cálculo promedio para el condado, se encuentran enormes diferencias entre las distintas comunidades. Aun cuando la transferencia tributaria a las propiedades no participantes sería sólo del 1-2 por ciento en muchas localidades, esta alcanzaría hasta el 21,9 por ciento en una comunidad. La conclusión de este y otros estudios es que el otorgamiento de avalúos preferenciales a los terratenientes rurales podría ayudar a retrasar el desarrollo inmobiliario de sus propiedades, pero también podría imponer una carga fiscal sobre los propietarios de viviendas así como también sobre los dueños de propiedades comerciales e industriales.

Reforma de los programas de avalúo por valor de uso

Como muchos estados han tenido casi medio siglo de experiencia con sus programas UVA, este es un buen momento para que los legisladores estatales y los departamentos tributarios hagan una pausa y se pregunten si esta característica de su sistema tributario estatal y local debería ser reformada o no. La transferencia de la carga del impuesto sobre la propiedad causada por los programas UVA en muchas comunidades sólo se puede justificar si dicha tasa tributaria preferencial sirve al más amplio interés público. El argumento a favor de la reforma cobra más impulso si se considera que el 94 por ciento de las unidades familiares agrarias tienen un patrimonio neto mayor a la mediana de todos los hogares de los Estados Unidos.

Después de la brusca caída de los mercados inmobiliarios residenciales y comerciales en 2008–2010, la tasa de conversión de suelos rurales a uso urbano disminuyó en muchos estados, al menos por el momento. Para las comunidades, puede ser más fácil considerar la adopción de reformas a los programas UVA durante este período, cuando muchos dueños de suelos rurales no tienen expectativas de vender sus propiedades a emprendedores inmobiliarios en un futuro cercano. Después de una amplia revisión de la literatura de investigación sobre los programas UVA estatales, recomiendo las siguientes reformas (England, 2011).

Aquellos estados que no imponen todavía una penalización cuando un suelo se retira del programa UVA deben comenzar a hacerlo. A menos que el propietario de suelos rurales tenga que pagar una multa en el momento en que su parcela se desarrolle, solamente se aprovechará del ahorro en el impuesto sobre la propiedad ofrecido por el programa UVA hasta que el precio de mercado del suelo desarrollado sea suficientemente atractivo. Por otro lado, la imposición de una penalización alta por hectárea, que disminuya con la cantidad de años de inscripción en el programa, podría inducir al propietario de suelos rurales a retrasar su desarrollo inmobiliario por años. Durante estos años, los fideicomisos de suelos y agencias estatales tendrían la oportunidad de imponer servidumbres de conservación sobre las parcelas rurales que merecen protección permanente contra el desarrollo inmobiliario. En una era en que pocos propietarios de suelos rurales son agricultores pobres, los programas UVA deberían ayudar a proteger los paisajes rurales y preservar los servicios de ecosistemas, en vez de subsidiar a los terratenientes ricos.

Los estados también deberían reconsiderar tres categorías de suelos rurales que son elegibles para el avalúo por valor de uso. (1) Los suelos agrícolas y ganaderos no deberían inscribirse automáticamente, como es la práctica en algunos estados. En lugar de ello, se debería obligar a los propietarios rurales a documentar los ingresos netos considerables recibidos por la venta de productos agrícolaganaderos durante el año fiscal precedente. Esto evitaría que el propietario de suelos ociosos a punto de ser desarrollados recibiera un descuento en su impuesto sobre la propiedad. (2) Las parcelas agrícolas no deberían ser elegibles para el avalúo por valor de uso si ya se presentaron planes de subdivisión o si las parcelas han sido reasignadas para uso residencial, comercial o industrial. Si existen pruebas consistentes de que un terrateniente va a comenzar pronto a desarrollar una parcela, no hay ninguna razón para continuar dándole el tratamiento tributario preferencial del programa UVA. (3) Los bosques, humedales y otras parcelas de uso no agrícola deberían ser elegibles para el avalúo por valor de uso si generan beneficios públicos tales como protección contra inundaciones, hábitat silvestre y vistas panorámicas. Por otro lado, los suelos áridos con gran potencial de desarrollo que se encuentran en el borde de las áreas metropolitanas se deberían avaluar al valor del mercado si no producen servicios de ecosistemas que beneficien a la sociedad en su conjunto.

Los estados deberían revisar cuidadosamente los métodos de capitalización de ingresos empleados para estimar el valor de uso agrícola de las propiedades rurales. Las pautas para estimar los ingresos netos de suelos agrícolas y para seleccionar la tasa de descuento que capitaliza el flujo de ingresos se debe basar en principios económicos sólidos, y se debería presentar a los contribuyentes de manera transparente. Debido a que los cálculos de capitalización de ingresos son muy sensibles a la elección de la tasa de descuento, dicha elección se debe justificar apropiadamente, y no puede tomarse arbitrariamente. En principio, la tasa de descuento libre de riesgo se tiene que ajustar según la inflación, el riesgo de incumplimiento, el riesgo de vencimiento y las restricciones de liquidez.

Los gobiernos estatales deberían reconocer que, si bien sus programas UVA generan beneficios medioambientales para el público en general, también imponen cargas fiscales sobre las localidades en que los dueños privados de suelos rurales se benefician de un avalúo preferencial. Por ejemplo, California promulgó su Ley de Subvención de Espacios Vacíos en 1972 para mitigar el impacto de la Ley Williamson sobre los presupuestos de los gobiernos locales, proporcionando subsidios estatales para reemplazar en parte los ingresos tributarios perdidos del impuesto a la propiedad. Entre 1972 y 2008, estos subsidios de Sacramento a las ciudades y condados ascendieron a 839 millones de dólares. (Estos subsidios fueron suspendidos en 2009, sin embargo, debido al enorme déficit presupuestario del estado.)

Como el avalúo preferencial del suelo rural se ha convertido en una característica fundamental del impuesto sobre la propiedad en los Estados Unidos, los gobernadores y los legisladores estatales deberían hacer una pausa y reconsiderar si estos tipos de reformas podrían mejorar tanto el desempeño de sus programas UVA como el apoyo popular a los mismos.

Sobre el autor

Richard W. England es profesor de Economía y Recursos Naturales de la Universidad de Nueva Hampshire. También es visiting fellow del Departamento de Valuación y Tributación del Instituto Lincoln.

Referencias

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

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:

• Acceptance of the CIC model has increased over time. These types of housing arrangements represent the free choice of many people, and the law enforces their contracts in most instances.
• CIC owners should relate to the municipal government and the CIC structure under what might be termed “augmented federalism.” Under this notion, residents have additional contractual duties to the CIC, but these obligations do not excuse them from duties to and participation in federal, state, and local governments. In return, legislators should base policy decisions affecting CIC owners on considerations of fairness, efficiency, and community building.
• Housing access and affordability require comprehensive solutions. These issues should be discussed and debated directly, and the political process should determine the course of action. Viewing these issues only as a CIC problem is unwarranted and will not bring effective results.

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.

• “Marine’s Parents Sued Over Sign of Support in Their Bossier City [La.] Front Yard.” The 3 ft. x 6 ft. sign displayed a picture of their son in uniform, before deployment to Afghanistan, with text that read, “Our son defends our freedom” (Associated Press, July 25, 2011).
• “Bucks County Woman Fined by Homeowners’ Association For Colored Christmas Lights.” Association members had previously voted in favor of permitting white lights only (CBS Philly, December 2, 2011).
• “Dallas Man Suing Rabbi Neighbor Who Uses House as a Synagogue.” The plaintiff claimed that the use of the home for a 25-person congregation violated the residential restriction (KDFW Fox4 Online, February 4, 2014).
• “A Grandfather Is Doing Time For Ignoring A Judge’s Order in a Dispute Over Resodding His Yard.” The association won a judgment of $795 against the owner who claimed that he could not afford to resod his browning lawn. When the owner failed to pay, the court jailed him for contempt (St. Petersburg Times, October 10, 2008).
• “Hilton Head Plantation Resident Disputes Gate Toll for Unpaid Fees.” An owner brought suit after an association imposed a $10 entrance gate fee on homeowners delinquent on their annual association dues (Island Packet, August 29, 2014).

————————

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.

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:

• Revaluar las propiedades según los valores comerciales actuales. Se pueden emplear métodos de comparación de ventas a fin de avaluar inmuebles residenciales (métodos tales como valor de regresión múltiple, redes neurales artificiales o modelos de niveles múltiples [modelos de jerarquía lineal]).
• Efectuar un control sistemático de los valores de las propiedades avaluadas, incluyendo el pase de pruebas antes de la divulgación de las listas de valores, a fin de identificar y ajustar las desviaciones de la base impositiva estimada.
• Fijar valuaciones periódicas.
• Hacer ajustes de mercado a las valuaciones, basados en estudios de relación para los años en que no haya avalúos.
• Procurar una transparencia total en la administración de los impuestos a la propiedad, especialmente en lo que se refiere a la graduación de la carga impositiva, en vez de anular arbitrariamente los estimados de los valores comerciales.
• Definir niveles mínimos de rendimiento de las valuaciones, tanto en el ámbito nacional como en el local.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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/.