The case of Mexicali, the capital city of the border state of Baja California, Mexico, stands out as a good example of successful property tax reform in the 1990s. In only a few years the local government was able to raise revenues associated with the property tax, as well as strengthen its municipal finances and modernize its cadastral and collection systems. Furthermore, Mexicali carried out this reform by adopting a land value taxation system, the first of its kind in Mexico, and gained the public’s acceptance for these changes. Without ignoring its problems and flaws, this case provides interesting lessons on future property tax reform endeavors in Mexico and other countries.

Economic, Political and Technical Considerations

Accomplishing property tax reform did not always seem to be an easy task in Mexicali or anywhere in Mexico. Since 1983, the local level of government has been responsible for setting up and collecting property taxes, although state authorities kept certain responsibilities. Throughout the 1980s, property tax revenues, and local revenues in general, experienced a severe drop caused by a combination of high inflation rates, economic recession, lack of political interest, and reduced administrative competence of local governments, which preferred to rely on revenue-sharing sources.

In the early 1990s, a clear improvement in the nation’s macro-economic performance made conditions more favorable for change, although political and technical factors reduced the incentives for many state and local governments to embark on fiscal reform. Nevertheless, the federal administration of Carlos Salinas de Gortari (1989-1994) launched an initiative to improve local finances through a cadastre modernization program lead by BANOBRAS (Banco Nacional de Obras y Servicios), a public development bank.

Even before this program and other national policies began to exert an influence on local and state administrations, Mexicali took the lead in property tax reform. Starting in 1989, the newly elected mayor, Milton Castellanos Gout, saw the importance of having strong local finances and wanted to raise revenues at the beginning of his term. He hired a private consulting firm to update cadastral values. The main consultant, Sergio Flores Peña, a graduate in city and regional planning from the University of California at Berkeley, convinced the mayor to change from a mixed-value tax base on land and buildings to a land value system, and to design a mathematical model to calculate land values.

Rather than being attracted by theoretical or ideological beliefs about the advantages of a land value tax, Castellanos was convinced that it would be the easiest and fastest way to raise revenues. He took the political risk of proposing a Municipal Cadastral Committee, including real estate owners’ organizations, professional organizations and citizen representatives.

The results were spectacular in two ways: first, the new tax raised revenues quickly (see Table 1); and second, there was not a single legal or political objection from taxpayers. The increase in revenues from real estate property taxes and property sales, by far the most important source of local revenues, allowed the mayor to launch an important public works program. In the next fiscal year, however, he wanted to loosen his fiscal grip, so he did not pursue land valuation updates and abandoned the mathematical model that was originally created for that purpose.

Opposition to updating land values came from both the Municipal Cadastral Committee and the government officials in charge of the cadastre and valuation office who lacked the technical capability to manipulate the model and feared that their power and control might be weakened by the participation of the private consulting firm. As a result, the mathematical model was abandoned and land values where subsequently defined by a process of negotiation and bargaining between local authorities, elected representatives and the committee. However, the land value taxation system remained as the base to establish land values.

At the same time, the Castellanos administration embarked on a cadastre modernization program with financial resources from the federal government. However, since the mayor saw that his main objective of raising revenues had been achieved, the efforts to modernize the cadastral system became a secondary priority that was not as successful.

In subsequent administrations, the policy towards tax revenues and cadastre modernization varied. The next mayor, Francisco Pérez Tejeda (1992-1995), was a member of the same political party (Partido Revolucionario Institucional, PRI). He experienced a drop in property tax revenue during his first year in office, and taxes only increased at the end of his administration. He abandoned the cadastre modernization program, but maintained the land value taxation system.

The next administration was led by Eugenio Elourdy (1995-1998), a member of the Partido de Acción Nacional (PAN). He was the first opposition party leader in Mexicali, although a member of PAN had governed at the state level from 1989 to 1994. During Elourdy’s term, land values were updated, property tax revenues grew steadily and cadastre modernization was vigorously resumed. The current administration led by Victor Hermosillo (1999-2001) is continuing with cadastre reform.

Assessing the Mexicali Experience

There is no question that the process of fiscal reform has stimulated property tax revenues as the fastest and most important financial source for the city government. Currently, property tax revenues account for more than 50 percent of local municipal revenues. Mexicali is well above the state and national averages for the relative share of property tax revenues to total revenues (15.3 percent in 1995, compared to 8.4 percent at the state level and 10.3 percent at the national level). Local government officials in charge of the cadastre and valuation systems are well prepared with technical expertise and an awareness of the need to conduct permanent reform within the system. Mexicali’s example has already been replicated in the rest of the state of Baja California and in the neighboring state of Baja California Sur.

The Mexicali case offers some important lessons. First, the property tax plays a central role in strengthening local governments, not only for raising sufficient revenues for urban development but also for providing government officials with the skills to organize the tax system in a way that can be sound, legitimate and transparent.

Second, property tax reform requires vision, leadership and, most of all, political will and commitment from the executive. However, successful reform to raise taxes also depends on a sound technical base and acceptance by the general public.

Third, the land value tax proved to be extremely helpful in achieving successful reform at an early stage. It is clear that the rationale for adopting land value taxation had more to do with a pragmatic approach than with theoretical positions or debates over different schools of thought. However, this should not prevent government officials, consultants, scholars and the general public from thoroughly analyzing the diverse consequences of this approach in terms of economic efficiency, equity and administrative management.

Although a land value tax has proven to be successful in the case of Mexicali, it should not be viewed as a panacea for all situations. It is important to recognize that the tax can be of little help without other measures that have to be considered as part of property tax reform, such as cadastre modernization, clear policies on tax rates and public participation.

Finally, cases of property tax reform around the world cannot be viewed as black-and-white, success-or-failure experiences, but rather, like Mexicali, as stories that combine success, flaws and steps backward. Far from being a perfect example of property tax reform, Mexicali is a good learning experience. It shows that changes can take place in a field where very often one thinks that little can be accomplished.

Manuel Perlo Cohen is a researcher at the Instituto de Investigaciones Sociales, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. He received support for this case study from the Lincoln Institute and he has participated in numerous Institute-sponsored courses and seminars throughout Latin America.

Colombia’s cadastral administration is a meeting point for authorities from the various levels of the country’s political-administrative system. At the national level, cadastral activities are determined by the technical norms established by Law 14 of 1983 and modeled on guidelines of the International Federation of Surveyors (FIG). The national government agency Agustin Codazzi Geographic Institute (IGAC) is responsible for all cadastral administration and oversight of more than 7 million parcels. In addition, there are municipal-level cadastres in the cities of Cali and Medellín, a department-level system in the Department of Antioquia, and a district-level cadastre for Bogotá’s Capital District.

Each of these entities represents the cadastral authority in its assigned territory. As such, each is in charge of the processes of establishing protocols and updating and maintaining the cadastres, which record the proper physical, legal, fiscal and economic identification of all real estate properties. These authorities update the cadastres every five years in order to check their physical and legal elements and to eliminate eventual disparities in cadastral valuation due to physical mutations, use or productivity changes, public works or local real estate market conditions. The authorities also reset the cadastral valuations every year, which enables them to determine the base payment level of the property tax.

Bogotá’s Administrative Department for the District Cadastre (DACD) was established in 1981 but was not fully operational until 1991. The process for updating the cadastre database was provided in Article 5 of Law 14 of 1983, but was started in 1997. The Bogotá cadastre relied on the national cadastre program guidelines before formulating a program that reflected local interests and concerns. Mayor Antanas Mockus set a goal for his administration in 2000–2003 to undertake a complete updating of Bogotá’s real properties. In spite of the unpopularity of this task, the mayor’s political will, his commitment of the necessary budget and resources, and the persistence of the District Cadastre’s staff ensured that the goal was met.

This endeavor updated 1,734,622 properties, 102,531 of which belong to the incorporated-as-new category. At the same time, the cadastral base value was increased from $66.61 billion to $88.25 billion Colombian pesos, thus increasing $21.64 billion pesos (approximately US$8 million; US$1=2,700 Colombian pesos). A quick calculation of the revenue impact suggested the District would receive an additional income of $65 billion pesos (US$24 million) in property taxes per year. The city spent only about $11 billion pesos (US$4 million) on the updating process, so it obtained a very positive cost-benefit result, especially because this investment is done only once and the resulting additional resources are permanent.

Having an updated cadastre is important not only from a public finance perspective but also for other benefits, such as addressing taxation inequity, purging cadastral archives, improving the urban nomenclature and incorporating cartography. All of these effects may be used as valuable tools for administrating the city’s future development. Thus, keeping the cadastre updated becomes imperative to preserve the District’s solid fiscal status, ensure the just distribution of the tax burden among the different social groups, and provide financial resources for planning and development processes.

The positive outcome of this experience led DACD to examine other countries’ experiences with cadastres, in search of new strategies and ideas that could help improve future performance. This led to the First Cadastral Updating Methodologies Forum, which took place in November 2003 with experts from Spain, France and the U.S. sharing information on different issues. Spain’s cadastre most resembles Colombia’s and offered valuable information on the legitimacy and simplification of the process. The National Geographic Institute of France shared experiences in linking registered cadastre data and technological developments in updating graphic databases. The Lincoln Institute, which has long worked in Bogotá on various aspects of land management and taxation, contributed information regarding mass valuation processes. Finally, the IGAC manifested its desire to integrate its cadastre data with the international cadastre through an agreement with similar systems worldwide.

Liliana Bustamante is adviser to the director of the cadastre and Nestor Gaviria is project manager for updating the cadastre in the Administrative Department for the District Cadastre in Bogotá, Colombia.

The property tax has been subject to much popular criticism and political pressure in recent decades. Several states have implemented, or are considering, a variety of caps and limits on property assessments, property tax rates, or total revenue raised from the property tax. Perhaps the best-known example is California’s Proposition 13, which ties property assessments to the purchase price of a dwelling (rather than its current market value) and limits the tax rate that can be levied on homes. It is worth taking another look at the property tax and considering its strengths and weaknesses as a source of funding for local government services.

La recuperación de la plusvalía del suelo es ahora un tema popular entre los profesionales de finanzas públicas a nivel local, en parte debido a que la disminución en los ingresos de los gobiernos locales causada por la recesión ha despertado el interés en nuevas fuentes de ingresos, y en parte debido a la necesidad de encontrar nuevas maneras de financiar la infraestructura local, que se ha deteriorado a causa de la falta de inversión. La sexta Conferencia Anual sobre Políticas de Suelos del Instituto Lincoln, celebrada en mayo de 2011, analizó varios aspectos de la recuperación de plusvalías, utilizando experiencias a nivel nacional e internacional.

Principios básicos de la recuperación de plusvalías

Los cambios en el valor del suelo se deben con frecuencia a factores que no están relacionados con el esfuerzo del propietario: acciones tomadas por la comunidad relativas a las inversiones en infraestructura; crecimiento cercano de actividades industriales, comerciales, residenciales o recreativas; normas de edificación que permiten al dueño desarrollar el suelo; o el crecimiento gradual de la comunidad. La recuperación de plusvalías consiste en aplicar un impuesto o arancel diseñado para devolver a la comunidad algo o todo el valor agregado al suelo por las acciones de la comunidad. Su aplicación es particularmente atractiva cuando las inversiones públicas —en caminos, suministro de agua, saneamiento o servicios locales, como el alumbrado público— aumentan los valores de la propiedad.

Experiencia internacional

Arriendo de suelos. Quizás la aplicación más amplia y comprensiva del principio de recuperación de plusvalías tiene lugar en China, donde las municipalidades compran suelos agrícolas a los granjeros a precios de uso agrícola, les agregan servicios públicos de infraestructura, y se los venden a los emprendedores como suelos urbanos, con permisos para realizar emprendimientos urbanos. La municipalidad se queda con la diferencia de precio entre el valor urbano y agrícola del suelo, generando una proporción importante de sus ingresos locales con los cuales paga, entre otras cosas, la instalación de la infraestructura.

Co-desarrollo. Las compañías de transporte público de Hong Kong y Tokio han usado los ingresos de co-desarrollo de comunidades residenciales y áreas comerciales cercanas a las nuevas estaciones de transporte público para ayudar a financiar sus costosos proyectos. En Tokio, los ingresos de las líneas de transporte que no se deben a la venta de pasajes suman del 30 al 50 por ciento del total. En ambas ciudades, los ingresos operativos por la gestión de propiedades están cobrando más importancia que las ganancias obtenidas de los emprendimientos en sí, y proporcionan una fuente de ingresos sustentable.

Tributación del desarrollo inmobiliario. Los intentos de tributar la valorización de las propiedades en el Reino Unido comenzaron en 1909, pero su implementación se vio obstruida por problemas de valuación y otros desafíos. Las contribuciones directas de valorización fueron reemplazadas por contratos con las autoridades locales, donde los emprendedores contribuyen al suministro de infraestructura y servicios, viviendas de interés social y otras obligaciones de planeamiento. Estos contratos se están convirtiendo poco a poco en contribuciones de infraestructura comunitaria, que es una contribución de valorización obtenida por otros medios. Siguiendo una trayectoria histórica distinta, Francia también ha establecido un impuesto de infraestructura local a los nuevos emprendimientos.

Consorcios de suelos. India ha experimentado con los consorcios de suelos para implementar sus nuevos planes de urbanización que reemplazan a los viejos planes de ordenamiento territorial. Esta práctica alienta a los dueños de suelos sin desarrollar, o desarrollados en forma precaria, a que agrupen sus predios y luego reciban una parcela con servicios de infraestructura o un espacio construido cuando el emprendimiento se haya completado. La estrategia adoptada en Ahmedabad usa el 15 por ciento de los suelos para caminos, el 10 por ciento para parques, el 15 por ciento para subastar a terceras partes y el 60 por ciento para los miembros del consorcio.

La experiencia de los Estados Unidos

Algunas de las políticas específicas de recuperación de plusvalías en los Estados Unidos incluyen áreas de tributación especial con cargos por valorización. Por ejemplo, los Distritos de Establecimientos Comunitarios (Community Facilities Districts, o distritos Mello-Roos) destinan aranceles pagados por los residentes al pago de bonos vendidos para financiar el desarrollo de infraestructura. Los Distritos de Mejoras Comerciales (Business Improvement Districts) y el Financiamiento por Incremento de Impuestos (Tax Increment Finance) usan ingresos tributarios o arancelarios separados para financiar mejoras urbanas en áreas designadas al efecto. Los Acuerdos de Beneficios Comunitarios (Community Benefit Agreements), que se negocian en forma privada, obligan a los emprendedores a proporcionar instalaciones comunitarias o beneficios económicos a los residentes locales. Los aranceles municipales de desarrollo e impacto inmobiliario, que se utilizan para financiar obras de infraestructura y otras inversiones relacionadas con los emprendimientos, se basan en general en los costos de dichas inversiones, pero sólo generan ingresos cuando la plusvalía excede el costo.

Lo más notable de la experiencia norteamericana es que los términos en sí —contribuciones de valorización o recuperación de plusvalías— raramente se mencionan, si bien los principios se aplican con regularidad. Sin embargo, este país puede aprender lecciones de las nuevas estrategias de recuperación de plusvalías adoptadas internacionalmente.

Las actas de la conferencia, con artículos y comentarios de más de 25 contribuyentes, serán publicadas en mayo de 2012.