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 caso de Mexicali, capital del estado fronterizo de Baja California (México), es ejemplo destacado de una reforma exitosa hecha al sistema fiscal inmobiliario en la década de 1990. En apenas unos cuantos años, el gobierno municipal pudo aumentar las entradas provenientes del gravamen inmobiliario, así como también fortalecer sus finanzas y modernizar sus sistemas catastrales y de recaudación. Más aún, Mexicali llevó a cabo esta reforma adoptando un sistema de tributación sobre el valor de la tierra nunca antes aplicado en México, y los cambios contaron con la aceptación de la ciudadanía. A pesar de los problemas y errores surgidos a lo largo del proceso, esta experiencia ofrece lecciones provechosas a entidades interesadas en emprender reformas futuras del sistema fiscal inmobiliario, en México u otros países.

Consideraciones económicas, políticas y técnicas

Emprender una reforma del sistema fiscal sobre la propiedad inmobiliaria no parecía ser tarea fácil ni en Mexicali ni en ninguna parte de México. Desde 1983, el gobierno local ha tenido la responsabilidad de fijar y recaudar los gravámenes a la propiedad inmobiliaria, aunque ciertas responsabilidades aún recaen sobre las autoridades estatales. A lo largo de la década de 1980, tanto la recaudación del gravamen inmobiliario como los ingresos municipales en general sufrieron una caída estrepitosa causada por la combinación de una fuerte espiral inflacionaria, la recesión económica, la falta de interés político , y la insuficiente experiencia y capacidad administrativa de los gobiernos municipales, quienes preferían depender de fuentes de participación en los ingresos fiscales.

Como resultado de las mejoras en el rendimiento macroeconómico de la nación, a inicios de los noventa se dieron las condiciones para un cambio en la situación, aunque ciertos factores políticos y técnicos redujeron los incentivos para que muchos gobiernos estatales y municipales iniciaran una reforma fiscal. No obstante, el gobierno federal de Carlos Salinas de Gortari (1989-1994) se lanzó a mejorar las finanzas municipales mediante un programa de modernización catastral impulsado por el Banco Nacional de Obras y Servicios (BANOBRAS), un banco de desarrollo público.

Incluso antes de que este programa y otras políticas nacionales comenzaran a influir sobre los gobiernos municipales y estatales, Mexicali tomó la delantera en la reforma al sistema fiscal. En 1989 el presidente municipal electo, Milton Castellanos Gout, entendió la importancia de fortalecer las finanzas municipales y comenzó a trabajar para elevar los ingresos tributarios al comienzo de su mandato. Para actualizar los valores catastrales, contrató los servicios de una empresa privada dirigida por Sergio Flores Peña, graduado en planificación regional y urbana en la Universidad de California en Berkeley. Flores propuso al nuevo presidente abandonar el sistema impositivo de base mixta (construcciones y suelo) y adoptar uno basado exclusivamente en el valor del suelo, y diseñar un modelo matemático para calcular los precios del suelo.

Más que atracción por las creencias teóricas o ideológicas asociadas con un impuesto sobre el valor de la tierra, Castellanos sentía que dicho gravamen era una manera fácil y rápida de aumentar la recaudación de ingresos, y asumió el riesgo político de proponer un Comité Municipal de Catastro integrado por organizaciones de bienes raíces, organizaciones profesionales y representantes de la ciudadanía.

Los resultados fueron espectaculares desde dos puntos de vista: primero que todo, el nuevo impuesto elevó los ingresos rápidamente (ver fig.1); y segundo, no hubo oposición ni política ni legal en contra de las medidas fiscales por parte de los contribuyentes. El aumento de ingresos por concepto de mayores gravámenes a la propiedad inmobiliaria y ventas de bienes raíces ¾la mayor fuente de ingresos municipales¾ permitió al presidente poner en marcha un importante programa de servicios públicos. No obstante, al año siguiente Castellanos decidió disminuir el control fiscal y no actualizar los valores del suelo, lo cual llevó al abandono del modelo matemático que había sido creado originalmente para ese propósito.

Tanto el Comité Municipal de Catastro como los funcionarios gubernamentales que estaban a cargo de la oficina de valuaciones y de catastro se opusieron a fijar los nuevos valores catastrales. Estas personas carecían de la capacidad técnica para manipular el modelo y temían disminuir su poder y control si dejaban el asunto en manos de la empresa consultora privada. Como resultado, se abandonó el modelo matemático y en lo sucesivo se definieron los valores del suelo mediante un proceso de negociación y convenios entre las autoridades locales, los representantes electos y el comité.No obstante, no se modificó el sistema de cálculo del valor catastral de base suelo.

Al mismo tiempo, el gobierno de Castellanos lanzó un programa de modernización catastral con recursos financieros del gobierno federal. Sin embargo, dado que el presidente consideraba que ya se había logrado el objetivo principal de aumentar los ingresos, relegó a un segundo plano la modernización del sistema catastral y no se pudo lograr el mismo éxito.

En las administraciones subsiguientes varió la política de recaudaciones tributarias y modernización catastral. El próximo presidente, Francisco Pérez Tejeda (1992-1995), era miembro del mismo partido político (Partido Revolucionario Institucional, PRI). Durante su primer año de gobierno hubo un descenso en los ingresos por gravámenes a la propiedad inmobiliaria, y los impuestos aumentaron sólo al final de su mandato. Pérez abandonó el programa de modernización catastral, pero mantuvo el sistema de tributación sobre el valor de la tierra.

La siguiente administración estuvo presidida por Eugenio Elourdy (1995-1998), miembro del Partido de Acción Nacional (PAN) quien fue el primer líder de un partido de oposición en Mexicali, aun cuando un miembro del PAN había gobernado en el ámbito estatal de 1989 a 1994. En la administración de Elourdy se actualizaron los valores catastrales, hubo un crecimiento continuo de la recaudación del gravamen inmobiliario y se volvió a implementar la modernización catastral. La actual administración de Víctor Hermosillo (1999-2001) está continuando con la reforma catastral.

Evaluación de la experiencia de Mexicali

Sin duda alguna, el proceso de reforma fiscal ha convertido la recaudación del gravamen inmobiliario en la más rápida e importante fuente financiera de los gobiernos municipales. Esta recaudación representa actualmente más del 50 % de los ingresos municipales locales. El rendimiento relativo del gravamen inmobiliario respecto a los ingresos totales de Mexicali está muy por encima de los promedios estatales y nacionales (15,3 % en 1995, comparado con 8,4 % para el estado y 10,3 % para todo el país). Los funcionarios del gobierno municipal que están a cargo de los sistemas catastrales y de valuación están bien preparados, poseen el conocimiento técnico y están conscientes de la necesidad de conducir reformas permanentes dentro del sistema. El ejemplo de Mexicali ha sido ya imitado en el resto del estado de Baja California y en el estado vecino de Baja California Sur.

El caso de Mexicali ofrece lecciones importantes. La primera de todas es que los gravámenes a la propiedad inmobiliaria son fundamentales para fortalecer los gobiernos municipales, no sólo para recaudar ingresos suficientes para el desarrollo urbano, sino también para proporcionar a los funcionarios gubernamentales las destrezas necesarias que les permitan organizar el sistema fiscal de una forma exitosa, legítima y transparente ante los ojos de la ciudadanía.

En segundo lugar, una reforma al sistema fiscal sobre la propiedad inmobiliaria es algo que requiere visión, liderazgo, y sobretodo, voluntad política y compromiso por parte de los dirigentes. Asimismo, el éxito de una reforma que vaya acompañada por un aumento de impuestos, requiere también contar con una base técnica sólida y con aceptación por parte del público.

En tercer lugar, se demostró la enorme utilidad del impuesto sobre el valor de la tierra para lograr una reforma exitosa en una etapa temprana. Claramente, la razón fundamental para adoptar dicho sistema tuvo que ver más con un abordaje pragmático que con bases o posiciones teóricas sobre diferentes filosofías. Sin embargo, ello no debe impedir que los funcionarios gubernamentales, asesores, expertos y el público en general emprendan un análisis cuidadoso de las diversas consecuencias de tal abordaje en términos de eficiencia económica, justicia y equidad fiscal.

Aunque el sistema de impuesto sobre el valor de la tierra tuvo éxito en el caso de Mexicali, no debe ser visto como una panacea aplicable en todas las situaciones. Es importante reconocer que el impuesto sería muy poco útil sin otras medidas que deben ser consideradas como parte de la reforma al sistema fiscal sobre la propiedad inmobiliaria, tales como modernización catastral, transparencia en la fijación de tasas impositivas y participación del público. Por último, es importante ver las reformas al sistema fiscal sobre la propiedad inmobiliaria en otras ciudades del mundo como procesos integrales, y no como “éxitos” o “fracasos”. Tal como el caso de Mexicali, son experiencias que combinan aciertos y desaciertos. Lejos de ser ejemplo de una reforma perfecta, Mexicali es una buena experiencia de aprendizaje porque demuestra que los cambios sí son posibles incluso cuando no lo parecen.

Manuel Perló Cohen es investigador del Instituto de Investigaciones Sociales, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Para este estudio recibió apoyo del Instituto Lincoln. Perló Cohen ha participado en numerosos cursos y seminarios patrocinados por el instituto en varias ciudades de América Latina.

Figura 1. Recaudación del gravamen inmobiliario en Mexicali, 1984-1998

Fuente: Secretaría de Hacienda y Crédito Público. Tesorería del XVI Ayuntamiento de Mexicali. Instituto Nacional de Estadistica, Geografia e Informatica.

Government-owned property is exempt from local taxes almost everywhere in the United States, but this situation is based less on logic than on now-outdated historical considerations. Remarkably, there are no comprehensive estimates of the value of these exemptions. For comparison, the value of property tax exemptions for nonprofit institutions (excluding houses of worship) was about $900 billion in 1997, and charitable properties (including hospitals and universities) accounted for about $500 billion of this figure (Cordes, Gantz and Pollak 2002, 89). Even without comprehensive data, it is clear that the amount of government-owned land is vastly greater than nonprofit holdings. However, the exempt status of government land barely provokes complaint (except in the western states where federal landholdings are enormous) whereas exemptions for nonprofit organizations are frequently challenged.

Historical Background and Federalism Today

Government-owned property traditionally has been exempt from taxation in order to avoid an empty ritual whereby the sovereign taxed itself. The implicit assumption of a single sovereign was quite reasonable in Elizabethan England, where the property tax first took root, but not so in the U.S. today. The myriad school districts and special districts that now compete with counties and municipalities for property tax revenues were virtually nonexistent in the nineteenth century. Today there is no economic reason to exclude all government property from the tax base.

Exemptions for private, nonprofit entities grew out of the government exemption. In the seventeenth century, private parties did not always wait for the Crown to repair their bridges, causeways, seawalls or highways. They assumed this responsibility whenever self-interest required and the purse permitted. The capital-intensive nature of such activities that relieved government of a burden made a property tax exemption a logical tool for encouraging private initiative. Thus the first charitable exemptions were a type of quasi-government exemption, subsidizing private parties who discharged public responsibilities.

Charitable exemptions for the alleviation of poverty began as a separate category, because reducing poverty was not originally considered a government responsibility. The change in this attitude over time had the effect of diminishing the distinction between alleviating poverty and relieving government of a burden, but these remain two separate bases for the charitable exemption. Before the New Deal of the 1930s, U.S. counties had the primary governmental responsibility for poor relief, through maintaining almshouses and work farms. The principal public expenditure required for them was for land and construction, since the residents did the day-to-day work of running these facilities. In this situation, a property tax exemption made sense. If a charitable organization did not build such a facility, the responsibility would fall to county government and would be funded through property taxes. It was easy to see a clear and convincing connection between the alleviation of poverty, relief of a government burden and a property tax exemption.

Modern U.S. federalism has undermined these connections. There is no single sovereign now, but rather 87,000 units of government, including 19,000 municipalities, 16,600 townships and towns, 3,000 counties, 13,700 school districts and 34,700 special districts, which often overlap in complex ways. The property tax is virtually the sole source of internally generated revenues for school districts and special districts. A government exemption can be administered so that no unit of government need pay taxes to itself, while taxpayers outside the taxing jurisdiction who benefit from the property would pay the tax.

Valuation of unique government property and infrastructure is a problem, but it is not insurmountable. A new addition to generally accepted accounting principles requires local governments to carry on their balance sheets the depreciated value of their physical assets, including infrastructure, which can be a starting point for valuing such property. Already local government property is taxable in 11 states, provided it lies outside the owner’s boundary. For example, a reservoir owned by a water district can be taxed by the town or county where the reservoir is located, and the tax can be collected through increased water rates charged to the utility’s customers.

The strong consensus in favor of exempting government property is due to inertia, power and precaution. The federal government has vast landholdings, collects no property taxes, and therefore would oppose any tax on government property. Besides, the Constitution shields it. State governments also have extensive holdings and do not benefit from property taxes to any significant degree, so they too would oppose taxing government property. Local governments, special districts and school districts would be the net beneficiaries if government property were taxed, since their own property holdings are small in comparison to federal and state governments, yet the property tax provides almost 40 percent of their revenue (U.S. Census Bureau 1998).

Charitable Exemptions as Sovereign Exemptions

As long as government property is exempt, the case for charities is strengthened. Evelyn Brody (1998; 2002) argues that the states, by conferring benefits of sovereignty on nonprofit institutions, are acknowledging the underlying independent, self-governing nature of those institutions. “Tax exemption carries with it a sense of leaving the nonprofit sector inviolate, and the very concept of sovereignty embodies the independent power to govern” (Brody 1998, 588). Under federal tax law, neither charitable institutions nor local governments are taxed on net income, contributions or interest income from bonds, but both are taxed for payments made for services rendered. Considering charitable nonprofit institutions as quasi-sovereign allows us to make sense of “the rules in the tax scheme that operate to curtail rather than enhance the economic strength of the charitable sector. After all, rival sovereigns rarely feel comfortable letting the other grow too powerful” (Brody 1998, 586).

The U.S. Supreme Court, in Walz v Tax Commissioners, 397 U.S. 664 (1969), supports the position taken by Brody: “[Exemption] restricts the fiscal relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other (emphasis added).” Churches, and by extension other nonprofit institutions, are sovereigns in their own domain, which is circumscribed by a higher sovereign—state government.

Conversely, arguments used to attack certain charitable exemptions can also be applied to the governmental exemption. Critics of nonprofit tax exemption focus on large, property-rich and financially strong organizations, calling them commercial enterprises (Balk 1971; Hyman 1990; Gaul and Borowski 1993). This category includes colleges, universities, hospitals and nursing homes. No state prohibits charities from engaging in commercial activities, but 8 states out of 43 responding to the survey described below prohibit charities from earning a profit, even for institutional purposes. All states prohibit the charitable owner of exempt property from distributing profit to private parties. “It is a well-established principle of law that a charitable institution does not lose its charitable character and its consequent exemption from taxation merely because recipients of its benefits who are able to pay are required to do so, as long as funds derived in this manner are devoted to the charitable purposes of the institution” (American Jurisprudence 1944).

Commercial enterprises of local government are generally tax exempt, including air and marine ports, electric power generating facilities, water treatment and distribution plants, golf courses, package liquor stores and parking garages, to name a few. If commercial activity is to be the test for taxation, this should be applied evenhandedly and extend to government property as well.

A Survey of State Charitable Exemptions

Every state exempts charitable property, but the meaning of “charitable” varies quite a lot because its legal antecedents are traceable to the English Statute of Charitable Uses of 1601. Policy makers have shown considerable ingenuity in adapting an ancient law to modern needs, and ingenuity breeds variety. A Lincoln Institute-sponsored survey explored the laws in each of the 50 states to clarify the definition and application of “charitable” property tax exemptions.

As befitting a sovereign, private nonprofit institutions enjoy a constitutionally protected tax exemption in almost as many states as do local governments. The constitutions of 38 states make reference to exemption of local government or private institutions, or both. States have probably been reluctant to define charity statutorily because the judicial branch is the final arbiter of constitutional matters. Four states authorize legislatures to grant exemptions without giving specific direction; only 9 (including all 6 New England states) are silent. Specific exemptions are mandated in 27 states, and are discretionary in 16. Arizona, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina and Virginia are in both categories because they mandate some exemptions (usually governmental) but give their legislatures discretion with respect to other classes of institutional property.

Only 10 states have statutory definitions, and they show very little similarity (see Figure 1). Four of them define charity in terms of a public benefit, two in terms of relieving government of a burden, and one (Florida) could be placed in either category. Other individual states define charity in terms of relief of poverty or deriving income in the form of donations, or simply by listing exemption-eligible activities, with a slight overlap with relief of poverty. Five state definitions (Florida, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina and Pennsylvania) are extremely broad, which essentially punts the issue to the judicial branch.

The lack of a discernable pattern in judicial opinions arouses suspicion that courts must work backwards from a desired result to develop standards and tests. The situation today parallels the first half of the twentieth century, when bureaucrats and judges were gatekeepers to the nonprofit sector, approving or denying a petition for a nonprofit corporate charter, and they “used their control to promote the causes they believed in” (Silber 2001, 6). Awarding a nonprofit charter is now a ministerial act, but property tax exemption for charitable purposes remains subject to a variety of state laws with idiosyncratic judicial interpretations in every state. Confusion in the public debate over the charitable property tax exemption is the sure result. In devising tests, courts sometimes conflate public benefit with relief of poverty, and the result is unenforceable. Either one or the other must take precedence. Unless statutes are clear, courts are free to choose and to switch back and forth.

The case of hospitals is illustrative. Although one will find exempt hospitals in every state, the law is ambivalent. Hospitals have constitutional protection in only 3 states, while in 17 they are exempt only because the court regards them as “institutions of purely public charity.” The famous 1985 decisions in the supreme courts of Utah and Pennsylvania that undermined hospital tax exemption were health care cases. The courts concluded that the hospital (Utah) and the consortium of hospitals (Pennsylvania) were not in fact charities. Without putting too fine a point on it, the judicial remedies were based on the principle of relieving poverty.

Much angst and legal conflict could be averted if relief of poverty could be treated as separate and distinct from public benefit and relieving government of a burden, and fortunately it can be quantified. If a legislature wants a particular type of institution (e.g., hospitals) to relieve poverty, then the state should tax the hospitals, but award each property owner in the group a tax credit equal to the amount of service they give away up to their tax liability. This proposal raises the thorny question of how to measure the value of services priced below market, but the problems are surmountable (see Bowman [1999] for a method for hospital services). Solutions to these complexities are not likely to introduce the element of arbitrariness that pervades judicial decisions today.

H. Woods Bowman is associate professor in the Public Services Program at DePaul University in Chicago, Illinois. He was a visiting fellow at the Lincoln Institute in 2001 and he contributed to the Urban Institute book, Property Tax Exemption for Charities, edited by Evelyn Brody (2002).

References

American Jurisprudence. 1944. Taxation 51 § 602.

Balk, Alfred. 1971. The Free List: Property Without Taxes. New York: The Russell Sage Foundation.

Bowman, Woods. 1999. Buying charity care with property tax exemptions. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management vol. 18, no. 1 (winter): 120–125.

Brody, Evelyn. 1998. Of sovereignty and subsidy: Conceptualizing the charity tax exemption. Journal of Corporation Law vol. 23, no. 4 (summer): 585–629.

_____. 2002. Legal theories of tax exemption, quasi and real. In The Property Tax Exemption: Mapping the Battlefield, Evelyn Brody, ed., 145–172. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

Cordes, Joseph J., Marie Gantz, and Thomas Pollak. 2002. What is the property-tax exemption worth? In The Property Tax Exemption: Mapping the Battlefield, Evelyn Brody, ed., 81–112. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

Gaul, Gilbert and Neill A. Borowski. 1993. Free Ride: The Tax-Exempt Economy. Kansas City: Andrews McMeel.

Hyman, David A. 1990. The conundrum of charitability: Reassessing tax exemption for hospitals. American Journal of Law and Medicine vol. 6, no. 3: 327–380.

Silber, Norman I. 2001. A corporate form of freedom: The emergence of the nonprofit sector. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce. 1998. Statistical Abstract of the United States 1998, table 500 (reporting 1995 data).

Figure 1: Statutory Criteria for Charitable Organizations

Arizona requires “qualifying charitable organizations” to spend at least 50 percent of their budgets on services to state residents who receive “temporary assistance to needy families benefits or low income residents…and their households” [A.R.S. § 43-1088 G(2)].

In Florida, “Charitable purpose means a function or service which, if discontinued, could legally result in the allocation of public funds for the continuance of the function or service. It is not necessary that public funds [actually] be allocated, but only that such allocation is legal” [F.S. §196.012]. Houses of worship are exempt under a separate statute.

Hawaii defines charitable purposes as “community, character building, social service, or educational nature, including museums, libraries, art academies, and senior citizens housing facilities qualifying for a loan under the laws of the United States” [H.C.A. § 246-32(c)(2)].

In Montana charities must accomplish their activities “through absolute gratuity or grants” [M.C.A. § 15-6-201(2)(a)(i)].

In Nebraska charities must operate “exclusively for the purposes of the mental, social, or physical benefit of the public or an indefinite number of persons” [R.S.N.A. § 77-202(1)(d)].

A New Hampshire charity is one that performs “some service of public good or welfare advancing the spiritual, physical, intellectual, social or economic well-being of the general public or a substantial and indefinite segment of the general public that includes residents of the state of New Hampshire…” [R.A. § 72:23-1].

In North Carolina, “A charitable purpose is one that has humane and philanthropic objectives; it is an activity that benefits humanity or a significant rather than a limited segment of the community without the expectation of pecuniary profit or reward. The humane treatment of animals is also a charitable purpose” [N.C. Gen. Stat. § 105-278.3(d)(2)].

Pennsylvania requires: (1) relief of poverty; (2) advancement and provision of education, including secondary education; (3) advancement of religion; (4) prevention of treatment of disease or injury, including mental retardation and mental disorders; (5) government or municipal purposes; or (6) accomplishment of a purpose that is recognized as important and beneficial to the public and that advances social, moral, or physical objectives” [10 Penn. Stats. § 372].

A South Dakota public charity “must receive a majority of its revenue from donations, public funds, membership fees, or program fees generated solely to cover operating expenses; it must lessen a government burden by providing its services to people who would otherwise use government services; it must offer its services to people regardless of their ability to pay for such services…” [S.D.C.L. § 10-4-9.1].

Texas defines charity by reference to the type of activity such an organization undertakes. T.T.C. § 11(d) lists 19 activities, including: (d)(1) “providing medical care without regard to the beneficiaries’ ability to pay…”

Large-scale urban redevelopment projects (termed grandes projectos urbanos or GPUs in Spanish) raise many questions about the impacts of subsequent urban development induced by the intervention. GPUs are characterized by an impact in a significant part of the city, often with the use of some new fiscal or regulatory instruments and the involvement of a large network of agents and institutions. These projects are expected to affect land prices, recycle existing or create new infrastructure and facilities, and attract other new buildings.

GPUs as an urban policy instrument have been the object of considerable controversy and debate throughout Latin America. It is often argued that they promote social exclusion and gentrification, have limited effects in stimulating real estate activities, and require large (sometimes hidden) public subsidies that often draw fiscal resources from other urban needs. In spite of their increasing popularity in Latin America, there is little empirical evidence to support these criticisms.

This article presents the case of a GPU introduced in São Paulo, Brazil, in 1996 as an “urban operation” to redevelop a middle-income area of mostly single-family homes that was to be traversed by the extension of the Faria Lima Avenue. The project is known as the Faria Lima Urban Operation Consortium (OUCFL). We examine economic principles that affect the fiscal performance of the project and its opportunity for value capture, evaluate changes in residential density, and analyze changes in income distribution and ownership structure. Finally, we offer some policy suggestions on how and when to use this kind of instrument based on these assessments.

What is an Urban Operation?

An urban operation is a legal instrument that seeks to provide local governments with the power to undertake interventions related to urbanistic and city planning improvements in association with the private sector. It identifies a particular area within the city that has the potential to attract private real estate investments to benefit the city as a whole. The proper city planning indexes (i.e., zoning and other regulations on construction coefficients, rates of occupation, and land uses) are redefined in accordance with a master plan, and investments are made in new or recycled infrastructure.

An urban operation allows the municipality to capture (through negotiated or mandatory means) the land value increments associated with the subsequent land use changes. In contrast to other value capture instruments, these funds are earmarked or internalized within the perimeter of the project to be shared between government and the private sector for both investments in urban infrastructure and subsidies to private real estate investments to support the project itself.

Each urban operation in Brazil is proposed by the executive and approved by the legislative branch of the jurisdiction. In the case of São Paulo, this authority was created in the Lei Organica Municipal (Constitution of the City) in 1990, which was later inserted in the new Brazilian urban development law (Statute of the City of 2001). The first proposed projects were the Operation Anhangabaú (subsequently expanded as a part of the Downtown Operation and renamed Center Operation) and Água Branca, followed by the Água Espraiada and Faria Lima operations. After the approval of the city’s new Master Plan in 2001, nine other urban operations were generated. These thirteen projects are expected to affect 30 to 40 percent of the buildable area of the City of São Paulo.

Financing Faria Lima

The Faria Lima urban operation (OUCFL) was proposed and approved in 1995 with the aim of obtaining private resources to fund the public investments necessary to purchase land and install infrastructure in order to extend Faria Lima Avenue. These costs were deemed at the time to be approximately US$150 million, two-thirds for land acquisitions and one-third for the avenue itself. The project was heavily contested by many stakeholders on grounds ranging from the source of the funds (i.e., advanced out of the local budget through new debt) to neighborhood concerns (one of which managed to keep the floor-area-ratios [FARs] unchanged and legally excluded from the OUCFL zoning) and technical design issues.

Technical studies carried out at the time indicated that it would be possible to take advantage of an additional potential 2,250,000 square meters beyond what was already permitted by the city’s zoning legislation, and the FARs were changed accordingly. These additional building rights were granted against a payment of a minimum of 50 percent of their market value using the existing “Solo-Criado” (Selling of Building Rights) instrument. OUCFL aroused great interest on the part of real estate entrepreneurs. This instrument nevertheless was also questioned for its lack of transparency, its project by project approach, and the arbitrariness in the way relevant prices were established and then used to calculate the value of the additional building rights.

By August 2003 a total of 939,592 square meters, or nearly 42 percent of the available total of these 2,250,000 square meters, had already been licensed. More than 115 real estate projects were approved, including nearly 40 percent commercial buildings and 60 percent high-quality residential buildings. Nevertheless, the resources (approximately US$280 million) obtained from these approved projects had not fully compensated for the expenditures (US$350 million, including principal plus interest) associated with the expansion of the avenue, considering the high interest rates prevailing in Brazil for the nearly eight years since the realization of expenditures. Thus, about 80 percent of the cost (albeit more than anticipated) has been recovered through the Selling of Building Rights process. Since July 2004 the compensation for these advance funds was obtained through an ingenious new value capture mechanism known as CEPAC, an acronym for a Certificate of Additional Potential of Construction. One CEPAC represents one square meter.

The Introduction of CEPACs

Although CEPACs were defined in Brazil’s Statute of the City of 2001, they were not approved by the CVM (Brazilian equivalent to the U.S. Security and Exchange Commission) as freely tradable in the Brazilian Stock Exchange until December 2003. The regulation establishes that the price of each certificate is defined by public auction and that the corresponding square meters of building rights (which also include use changes and occupation rates) expressed in each certificate may be executed at any time. The regulation also states that new batches of certificates can be issued (and sold through auction) only upon confirmation that the resources captured by the previous sale have been effectively earmarked to the project. To ensure this designated use, the revenues are deposited in a special account, not in the municipal treasury. From the perspective of the private investors this designation ensures the acceptability of this value capture instrument at its own valorization. By issuing a lower number of certificates than potential building rights—that is by managing their scarcity—the public sector may benefit from the valorization and thus be able to capture value “ex-ante” (Afonso 2004, 39).

The final approval of CEPACs for OUCFL and all the necessary steps for launching them in the financial market occurred in mid-2004, and the first auction at the end of December 2004 generated nearly R$10 million (about US$4 million), corresponding to the sale of approximately 9,000 CEPACs out of an authorized stock of 650,000 square meters. The OUCFL certificates were sold at a face value of R$1,100 (about US$450) per square meter with no observed premium pricing as a result of the bidding process.

This situation contrasts with that of the Água Espraiada urban operation, which was expected to be fully funded by CEPACs from its start. In its third auction, the certificates were already capturing R$370 per certificate against a face value of R$300 set for this operation. A more recent auction in Água Espraiada sold 56,000 CEPACs and captured R$21 million ($US9.5 million), reflecting a certificate price of R$371. This pricing contrast reflects the different original face values in the two projects. In the case of OUCFL developers bought (and stocked) building rights in advance, to benefit from the more flexible rules prior to the CVM approvals. The certificate price in Faria Lima started at more than R$1,100 because it is a more valued area. In Água Espraiada developers were willing to pay more than the original face value because the certificates were less expensive and thus in greater demand.

Land Price Implications

The prices of vacant land and developed areas experienced a considerable increase in some blocks within the perimeter of OUCFL during the 1990s, but decreased in other blocks. Yet, the average square meter price of new real estate development fell throughout the Metropolitan Region of São Paulo (RMSP) in all price bands, when comparing the average price from 1991 to 1996 with those of 1996 to 2000.

After controlling for a number of attributes associated with the changing character of the developments and their location, the price estimations showed an unequivocal relative increase after the operation was launched. The average price per square meter within the OUCFL perimeter increased from R$1.68 thousand in the 1991–1996 period to R$1.92 thousand in the 1996–2001 period, a 14 percent increase, while prices in RMSP decreased from R$1.21 thousand to R$1.06 thousand, a 12 percent decrease in the same period (R$1.95/US$1.00 in December 2000). Thus, the price per square meter in OUCFL was higher than that of RMSP by around 26 percent. The price per square meter in OUCFL was 38 percent higher than the average price in the RMSP in 1991–1996, and it increased to 81 percent higher in 1996–2001.

Was this increase captured by the municipality as anticipated? Considering that the cost of construction in average is around R$1,000 per square meter, the 2004 auction (the only one so far) captured almost all of the value added at current prices. The previous pre-CEPAC system captured about 50 percent or more, depending on the capacity and success of municipal negotiators, and the correctness of the reference price. CEPAC now changes this percentage and the face value of the instrument may capture all the value increment or even more, depending on the relation of this face value to market prices, and on the results of future auctions. Comparing a redevelopment project financed totally by construction bonds (like CEPACs) and one financed totally with general property taxes, there is no doubt that the former is less regressive than the latter. Even with a progressive property tax, with rates increasing according to values, part of the costs would be paid by poorer households.

This evidence that about 80 percent of the total cost of the project has already been recovered, combined with the auctioning of the remaining building rights through CEPACs and the impact of the property appreciation on the current property tax revenues, indicates that the project should not only pay its own way but actually generate a fiscal surplus for the city as a whole over the next five or seven years.

In effect, the changes caused by substituting older single-family houses with new residential and commercial buildings resulted in a substantial change in property tax collection in the OUCFL area. Many lots and even entire blocks had been occupied by single- and two-story houses constructed since the 1950s. Many of these structures were eligible for a discount coefficient for obsolescence of up to 30 percent of the property tax. They were replaced with new, taller and higher-quality buildings for which the discount was null. Our estimates indicate that the differences in property tax collection by square meters constructed may have increased by at least 2.7 times and up to 4.4 times. That is, the average property tax per square meter increased to a minimum of R$588.50 up to R$802.50 from R$220.95 if the house was 25 years old, or from R$179.70 if the house was 30 years old.

Social Implications

The OUCFL case offers a unique opportunity to quantify changes in resident characteristics before and after the intervention, since data at the census track level is available for 1991 and 2000, and the intervention began in 1996. Our analysis of gentrification and displacement of poorer residents mainly confirms the findings of Ramalho and Meyer (2004) that the average income has increased relatively in most of the blocks inside the OUCFL perimeter. By Brazilian standards, the upper-middle class was displaced from the region by the richest 5 percent of households in the metropolitan area. The census data also showed that residential density fell between 1991 and 2000, from 27 to 22 residences per hectare, although these figures may be distorted because they reflect the ratio of total residences in the entire area, not an average of the ratios per plot where land use was converted.

The data from 1991 indicated that the population was already leaving the OUCFL area before the approval of the urban operation, but this exodus intensified after 1996, generating vacant plots in the process of site-assembly to accommodate the new high-rise developments. At the same time, building density increased. The average number of floors per new building in the area increased from 12.6 in the 1985–1995 period to 16.7 in the 1996–2001 period. The number of housing units per building increased from 37.1 to 79.6 over the same periods.

This apparent contradiction between decreased residential density and increased numbers of housing units is explained in part by the construction of commercial buildings that replaced many single-family residencies on small and average-sized lots. OUCFL induced considerable real estate concentration as the new commercial and residential buildings replaced the houses and required greater land areas for high-class architectural projects. The 115 projects approved between 1995 and August 2003 that requested increases in the utilization coefficients required a total of 657 lots, or an average of 5.7 lots per project.

The combination of the increase in income level and the reduction in household density indicates that the gentrification process advanced in and around the OUCFL region during the 1990s. Nevertheless, this is not a classic case of gentrification, where poor families are driven out of an area due to various socioeconomic pressures. In this case mostly upper-middle classes were displaced. Except for the small nucleus of remaining favelados (Favela Coliseu), the region was already occupied by people belonging to the richest segments of society.

Some Policy Observations

This article contributes to the debate about the social management of land valuation by furnishing real data assessments and economic elements. These elements have been missing from most analysis, and we believe that this gap in the literature has contributed to an incomplete interpretation of the implications of an urban operation and to mistaken public policy recommendations.

Our conclusion is that the CEPAC funding mechanism itself does not increase the regressive characteristic of urban operations, since without those building rights bonds all the investment in redevelopment would be financed by general taxes. If the OUCFL project were inadequate in terms of income distribution, it would have been even worse without the value capture mechanism. Instead, CEPAC and the value capture mechanism used previously offered two desirable characteristics of any public investment: charging the new landowners is at least neutral in terms of income distribution; and the primary beneficiaries end up paying for the project.

Furthermore, the urban operation mechanism offers incentives for redevelopment. Given that most projects increase land prices and drive out the poor from the region, it would be better to invest the entire municipal budget in small-scale projects. This is the opposite of what happened with the redevelopment of the adjacent high-end Berrini area where developers decided how to concentrate their investment, resulting in even more income concentration than in the OUCFL area. Because of inaction by policy makers in that case, the municipality did not capture any value from Berrini, yet paid the entire cost of infrastructure.

The use of building rights bonds may diminish the regressive aspect of land development, but to make a project truly progressive requires attention on the expense side, by funding all the investment through instruments like CEPACs. The main limitation on distributing benefits to the poor is that the law establishes that all funds collected through value capture (CEPACs or other instruments) must be invested within the perimeter of the intervention. One way to make these interventions more progressive is to invest in activities that will furnish spillovers to the poor, such as public transit, education, and health. Moreover the relevant legislation allows the administration to select an area inside the perimeter of an urban operation and declare it a zone of special social interest (ZEIS) where lots can be used only for low-income social housing.

Another alternative is to establish social housing areas within the perimeter of the urban operation. By subsidizing low-income housing with money from developers and new landowners, there would be no distortion in prices outside of the housing industry. The subsidy results from segmenting the market and transferring the extra rent to poor households. This is real social management of land valuation.

Ciro Biderman is affiliated with the Center for Studies of Politics and Economics of the Public Sector (Cepesp) at the Economic and Business School at the Getúlio Vargas Foundation in São Paulo, Brazil. He is a visiting fellow in international development and regional planning in the Department of Urban Studies and Planning at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.

Paulo Sandroni is an economist and professor at the Economic and Business School at the Getúlio Vargas Foundation.

Martim O. Smolka is senior fellow and director of the Lincoln Institute’s Program on Latin America and the Caribbean.

Photograph Credit: wsfurlan via iStock / Getty Images Plus.

References

(These publications are available only in Portuguese.)

Afonso, Luis Carlos Fernandes. 2004. Financiamento eh desafio para governantes (Financing is a challenge to government). Teoria ane Debate No. 58, Maio-Junho: 36–39.

Ramalho, T., e R.M.P. Meyer. 2004. O impacto da Operação Urbana Faria Lima no uso residencial: Dinâmicas de transformação (The impact of the Faria Lima Urban Operation on residential use: Transformation dynamics). Mimeo. São Paulo: Lume/FAUUSP.

Biderman, Ciro, e Paulo Sandroni. 2005. Avaliação do impacto das grandes intervenções urbanas nos precos dos imoveis do entorno: O caso da Operação Urbana Consorciada Faria Lima (Evaluation of property price impacts near large-scale urban interventions: The case of Faria Lima Urban Operation Consortium). Lincoln Institute of Land Policy Research Report (April).