Before joining the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, I covered the Detroit beat for almost a decade for the Ford Foundation. There I was able to witness firsthand the unprecedented challenges involved in reversing the fortunes of the most powerful and important U.S. city of the mid-20th century. The enormity of these challenges called forth a coalition of some of the best and brightest community rebuilders with whom I’ve had the privilege to work. The quality and commitment of this strident group of public servants, civic and community leaders, and private-sector visionaries helped Detroit reclaim a bright future.

Signature efforts of this unique public-private-philanthropic partnership (a P4!) included the planning, construction, and funding of Detroit’s first public transit investment in more than five decades—the M1 Rail, which broke ground in July 2014 using a pooled private investment of more than $100 million. Leadership for the effort did not simply build a symbolic 3.3-mile light rail line along Woodward Avenue, the spine of the city, it also leveraged the private investment to secure a commitment from state and national governments to launch the region’s first transit authority.

Local and national philanthropic leaders also assembled more than $125 million to launch the New Economy Initiative—a decade-long effort to rekindle an entrepreneurial ecosystem in the region through strategic incubation of hundreds of new businesses, thousands of new jobs, and enduring long-term collaboration among employers and workforce developers. And, in what might be their most controversial and heroic collective effort, these philanthropies worked with the State of Michigan to assemble more than $800 million for “the Grand Bargain,” which saved both the legendary collection of the Detroit Institute of the Arts from the auction block and the future pensions of Detroit’s public servants.

Stunningly, while social entrepreneurs did gymnastics to bring hundreds of millions of dollars in support to Detroit, the city reportedly returned similar amounts in unspent formula funds to the federal government. A city with more than 100,000 vacant and abandoned properties and unemployment rates hovering close to 30 percent could not find a way to use funds that were freely available; the city needed only to ask for them and monitor their use. Beleaguered Detroit public servants, whose ranks were decimated by population loss and the city’s fiscal insolvency, did not have the capacity or the systems to responsibly manage or comply with federal funding rules. And, in this regard, Detroit is not unique among legacy cities or other fiscally challenged places.

A March 2015 report from the Government Accountability Office, Municipalities in Fiscal Crisis (GAO-15-222), looked at four cities that filed for bankruptcy (Camden, NJ; Detroit, MI; Flint, MI; and Stockton, CA) and concluded that the cities’ inability to use and manage federal grants was attributable to inadequate human capital capacity, staffing shortages, diminished financial capacity, and outdated information technology systems. The report lamented that not only were the cities unable to use formula funds—like Community Development Block Grants that are distributed according to objective criteria such as population size and need—but they routinely forwent applying for competitive funding, as well. A separate 2012 analysis by Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK), Money for Nothing, identified some $70 billion in federal funds that were unspent “due to poorly drafted laws, bureaucratic obstacles and mismanagement, and a general lack of interest or demand from the communities to which this money was allocated.”

How can it be that the neediest places are unable to use the assistance that is available? It’s unsurprising that a city like Detroit, which lost almost two-thirds of its population over six decades, would see diminished staffing and staff capacity in city offices. It is also unsurprising that Detroit did not have state-of-the-art IT systems. When a municipality faces fiscal challenges, infrastructure always gets short shrift. The inability to make use of allocated funding probably isn’t a sin of commission, but a regrettable omission that runs deeper, and needs fixing. But where to start? Let’s see what the data tells us. Which formula programs have the weakest throughput? Where are the places with the worst uptake? By all accounts, we don’t know. If federal agencies know which programs and places might make the best and worst lists, they are not reporting it. Moreover, most citizens in Detroit, who bear one of the highest property tax rates in the country, don’t know that their city is leaving tens of millions of dollars of federal money on the table each and every year.

Last summer, with little fanfare but great ambition, the Lincoln Institute launched a global campaign to promote municipal fiscal health. The campaign focuses attention on several drivers of municipal fiscal health, including the role of land and property taxation to provide a stable and secure revenue base. In this issue of Land Lines, we consider ways that cities and regions are building new capacities—reliable fiscal monitoring and transparent stewardship of public resources, effective communication and coordination among local, county, state, and federal governments—to overcome major economic and environmental barriers. We focus on how places are looking inside and outside their borders to enlist the assistance of others. Hopefully, these stories will inspire us to work toward broader, deeper, and more creative ways to thrive together rather than struggling alone.

Two technology-based tools featured in this issue are changing the way municipal finance information is organized and shared. They empower citizens and voters to hold their community leaders accountable and ensure that once we throw the assistance switch, the circuit is completed. PolicyMap (p. 18) was founded with the goal of supporting data-driven public decisions. Researchers there have organized dozens of public data sets and developed a powerful interface where users can view the data on maps. It includes thousands of indicators that track the use of public funds and their impact. The city of Arlington, Massachusetts, has demystified its city finances through the Visual Budget (p. 5), an open-source software tool that helps citizens understand where their tax dollars are spent. PolicyMap and the Visual Budget have the potential to follow all revenue sources and expenditures for a city and make them transparent to taxpayers. For cities or federal agencies willing to disclose this information, these social enterprises stand ready to track and report on the use, or non-use, of public funds.

Vertical alignment of multiple levels of government toward the goal of municipal fiscal health is not only a domestic remedy. Our interview with Zhi Liu (p. 30) reports on the efforts of the central government of the People’s Republic of China to build a stable revenue base under local governments through enactment of a property tax law, an action to help municipal governments survive the shifting sands of land reform.

In our report on the Working Cities Challenge (p. 25), researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston identify what is possibly the most important capacity needed to promote not only municipal fiscal health, but thriving, sustainable, and resilient places: leadership. Leadership—which might come in the form of visionary public officials, bold civic entrepreneurs, or gritty peripatetic academics—is at the core of other inspiring cases reported in this issue. Leaders in Chattanooga (p. 8) made a big bet on infrastructure—low-cost, ultra-high-speed Internet, provided through a municipal fiber-optic network—to help the city complete its transition from polluted industrial throwback to clean, modern tech hub. And it’s working.

The Super Ditch (p. 10) is another example of multiple governments working with private parties to forge creative solutions to joint challenges. The Super Ditch is innovating urban-agricultural water management through new public-private agreements that interrupt the old “buy and dry” strategies practiced by water-starved cities—continuing to meet municipal water demand without despoiling prime farmland.

Before we endure endless partisan bickering about whether national governments should rescue bankrupt cities, perhaps we should find a way to ensure that they don’t go bankrupt in the first place, by using the help that we’ve already promised. Only a sadist or a cynic would intentionally dangle resources out of the reach of needy people or places. If we invest only a fraction of unspent funds to build the right local capacities, communities will be able to solve their own problems. Whether it is a P4, an innovative technology tool, or a new way of working among governments and the private sector, social entrepreneurs are amplifying human ingenuity to help us overcome the biggest challenge we face: finding new ways to work together so that we do not perish alone.

An informed citizenry is an empowered one, but educating taxpayers and voters can be difficult. While most people care deeply about various community issues—such as whether to build a new library branch or provide curbside recycling—very few of us spend our limited free time paging through spreadsheets to understand the specifics of a municipal budget and the likely implications of a funding decision. This disconnect is unfortunate, because buried in those reams of data is the story of our individual communities—a map of the ways in which a single decision impacts the quality and availability of the public services we rely on in our daily lives, such as road maintenance, public education, and emergency services.

“To be fiscally strong, local governments have to be in a dialogue with residents,” says Lourdes Germán, an expert on municipal fiscal health and a fellow at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. “Residents have to know what key decisions are facing town officials, what those decisions mean financially, and how tax dollars are being used. All sorts of important things are up for a vote by the residents at town meetings, and often that meeting is the first time people hear about the issues, which is too late.”

Annie LaCourt agrees. A former selectman for the Town of Arlington, Massachusetts, LaCourt came up with the idea to convert the piles of spreadsheets that constitute Arlington’s municipal budget into a simple visual that could be understood by all community members, including those lacking any previous knowledge of the budgeting process.

“For Arlington, we do a five-year projection of our budget and have lots of discussions with the public around what those projections mean and how they relate to our taxes,” explains LaCourt. “I wanted to make that conversation more public, more open, and more transparent for people who want to know what’s going on.”

Specifically, she envisioned an interactive website where residents could input their individual tax bill and receive a straightforward, graphical breakdown of how the town spent the funds. She hoped that providing taxpayers with more accessible, digestible information would encourage them to engage more fully in the critical, if seemingly esoteric, decisions that go into crafting a municipal budget. LaCourt enlisted Alan Jones, Arlington’s finance committee vice-chair, and Involution Studios, a design firm that donated its services to the project. And in September 2013 the Arlington Visual Budget (arlingtonvisualbudget.org) was born.

“The Arlington Visual Budget enables taxpayers to think about the budget on a scale that is more helpful to them,” says LaCourt. “Instead of trying to understand millions of dollars’ worth of budget items, a taxpayer can look at the costs to her, individually, for specific, itemized public services. In Arlington, for example, we spent $2 million on snow removal last year, which is the most we’ve ever paid. Using the website, the resident with a $6,000 tax bill will see that he personally paid $90 for those services, which is a bargain. When you see your tax bill broken down by services, and you see that your share of the total cost for all these services is relatively low, it starts to look pretty reasonable.”

Adds Jones, “It also shows people that their taxes are going to things they don’t necessarily think about—things that people don’t see driving down the street every day but are important parts of the budget—like debt service on school buildings built 10 years ago, pension and insurance payments for retirees, or health insurance for current employees.”

Another benefit of the website is that it makes it easier to see how public policy has evolved over time. “The Arlington Visual Budget has data going back to 2008 and projections out to 2021, so citizens can really understand how the budget has changed and how that impacts them,” says Adam Langley, senior research analyst at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. “Taxpayers can see that state aid for general governments was cut in half from 2009 to 2010, and that it hasn’t recovered at all since then. Because of that cut, the share of Arlington’s budget funded by state aid has fallen, while the share covered by property taxes has grown from 70 percent to 76 percent. The impact of government decisions on household budgets becomes clearer.”

Brendhan Zubricki, the town administrator for Essex—a community of approximately 3,500 people roughly 26 miles north of Boston—quickly understood how the interactive budgeting tool could help local residents make an important financial decision in real time. For the past hundred years, the town has leased to private leaseholders a parcel of publicly owned seaside property known as Conomo Point. Essex relies on the approximately $500,000 in annual property taxes collected on the land to help cover its $6.4 million tax-funded budget, which doesn’t include the $7.4 million it pays to participate in two regional school districts. In May 2015, Essex taxpayers asked to vote on whether to continue leasing the land with improved public access to the prime strip of waterfront or take over the whole parcel for public use. Should residents vote in favor of a park, the land would no longer be taxable, at which point they would experience a tax increase to cover the $500,000 in lost revenue.

Zubricki turned to the visual budgeting tool to model the various tax scenarios at a town meeting that was called in advance of the vote. “The basic model was a visualization tool to help the average person understand the budget. But we took it a step further and used it to explain Essex’s financial future as it related to this one major item. It worked well. We got a lot of positive feedback from meeting attendees,” says Zubricki. Months later, in a nonbinding vote, residents overwhelmingly opted to continue leasing the land at Conomo Point and explore ways to improve access to existing waterfront parks and other public spaces (the binding vote will take place in May 2016).

In keeping with the principles of the civic technology movement—“open data, open source”—LaCourt, Jones, and the team at Involution Studios made the visual budgeting tool available to the public at no cost. Doing so enabled local government officials to repurpose the tool, free of charge, for their respective municipalities simply by incorporating their community’s budgeting data, all of which is publicly available.

“By making the software open source, Annie and Alan are really helping smaller municipalities that can’t afford a chief technology officer or a developer or a design firm, and have to balance competing concerns like whether to fund a school program or build a website,” says Germán. “These communities can use the tool by just plugging in their own data.”

Germán goes on to say that the software also helps local officials to plan better for the future. “Visual Budget enables public officials to model multiyear scenarios. Multiyear forecasting and planning is critical for fiscal health and stability, but is not necessarily available to small towns.” The site has won numerous awards, including the 2014 Innovation Award from the Massachusetts Municipal Association.

Earlier this year, LaCourt, Jones, and the Involutions Studios formed Visual Government (visgov.com) in response to growing interest in the software. Visual Government “continues the commitment to make meaningful budget presentations affordable for municipalities and civic groups of all sizes.” While the software remains available for free, Visual Government also offers a consulting package, which includes building and hosting a website, and assisting the municipality to compile past, present, and future budget data. Determined to remain affordable, the package costs $3,000 and is designed primarily for communities that lack the staff to create their own website.

“The visual budget websites aren’t high-volume sites,” says Jones. “But they are high-value sites. They show the consequences of financial decisions in a way that feels more evidence-based, and less anecdotal. We always refer to them as the ‘No Spin Zones.’”

Loren Berlin is a writer and communications consultant based in Greater Chicago.

Después de que Karin Brandt obtuvo su título de Maestría en el Instituto de Tecnología de Massachusetts, notó cierto nivel de frustración en sus antiguos compañeros de planificación. “La idea de generar un cambio, de la que tanto habíamos hablado en la escuela de posgrado, no se estaba concretando”, recordó. Una de las razones era el hecho de que hacer participar al público en general en el proceso de planificación a menudo constituía un desafío.

Mientras tanto, siguió Brandt, sus amigos de otros departamentos de MIT estaban “creando empresas, resolviendo problemas, haciendo cosas realmente interesantes” con la tecnología. Quizás, concluyó, había una superposición útil entre estas dos tendencias divergentes. Quizás se podrían usar tecnologías innovadoras para mejorar los elementos públicos del proceso de planificación. De manera que, en 2013, después de dejar su puesto de analista de investigación en el Instituto Lincoln, Brand fundó coUrbanize junto con su compañero del programa de posgrado de MIT David Quinn, un científico de datos. Este emprendimiento, financiado por capital de riesgo, ofrece una plataforma de comunicaciones enfocada en la planificación y diseñada para facilitar y mejorar la manera en que los planificadores, emprendedores y el público interactúan en proyectos específicos.

El desafío subyacente en este caso era conocido, por supuesto, por cualquier persona involucrada en la profesión, “Una reunión de planificación tradicional, con el micrófono y la lista de oradores, y tres minutos por orador, es importante”, dice Amy Cotter, una veterana del Consejo de Planificación del Área Metropolitana de Boston, y ahora gerente de los programas de desarrollo urbano en el Instituto Lincoln. “Pero su valor es limitado”. En pocas palabras, sólo algunos miembros de la comunidad tienen el tiempo o la predisposición para participar en este tipo de foros, lo cual limita la perspectiva de lo que la comunidad piensa realmente sobre un emprendimiento inmobiliario o una iniciativa de planificación, y deja muchos comentarios y opiniones potencialmente útiles sin expresar.

En el pasado, algunos consideraban que este paso del proceso de planificación era “más bien un ejercicio técnico”, en el que los datos de los expertos tenían prioridad por sobre la opinión de la comunidad, continúa Cotter. “Pero el área de planificación ha estado pasando por una transición. En este momento, la mayoría de los planificadores piensa que sus planes son mejores y más valiosos si la gente participa”. Pero no es fácil conseguir esta participación.

Ken Snyder, fundador y Director Ejecutivo de la organización sin fines de lucro PlaceMatters, con sede en Denver, observa que en los últimos cinco o diez años se ha generado un movimiento creciente alrededor de la innovación que ha aumentado la participación comunitaria, utilizando nuevas tecnologías. Un ejemplo es la plataforma llamada Engaging Plans (Planes participativos) de Urban Interactive Studio. Otro es CrowdGauge.org, desarrollada por Sasaki Associates y PlaceMatters. Esta última es una “herramienta abierta basada en la web para crear juegos educativos en línea” que pueden ayudar a “resumir, comunicar y clasificar ideas que emergen de un proceso de visualización e incorporarlas en el proceso de toma de decisiones”. (Snyder ha compilado una lista informal pero muy útil de herramientas e iniciativas de planificación creativas en bit.ly/placematters-tools).

Brandt dice que sus propias investigaciones la han llevado a concluir que los tres actores principales en la mayoría de los proyectos —los planificadores, los emprendedores y la comunidad en general— querían esencialmente lo mismo: mayor transparencia de las otras dos partes. En otras palabras, al mismo tiempo que los planificadores querían más comentarios del público, los ciudadanos frecuentemente sentían que no recibían información suficiente y verdaderamente accesible.

CoUrbanize fue desarrollado con contribuciones directas de planificadores y emprendedores, y la plataforma ofrece una página principal en línea para difundir información pública sobre cualquier proyecto. Esto quiere decir que es al mismo tiempo un foro para recoger las opiniones de la comunidad y un lugar que permite acceder ampliamente a planes y propuestas. Lo más importante es que se propone ser un punto de contacto flexible que suplementa, sin reemplazar, los mecanismos tradicionales y de otro tipo para recabar los comentarios del público.

Uno de los ejemplos más interesantes hasta la fecha ha sido el Plan de Renovación Urbana de Kendall Square en Cambridge, Massachusetts. La Autoridad de Revitalización de Cambridge y la empresa inmobiliaria Boston Properties están colaborando en un esfuerzo público-privado que abarca 100.000 metros cuadrados de nuevos emprendimientos comerciales y residenciales. La empresa de desarrollo inmobiliario, en colaboración con coUrbanize, ha distribuido carteles que preguntaban a los usuarios reales su opinión sobre los usos potenciales del espacio correspondiente. Esto significaba que cualquiera podía enviar sus respuestas por mensaje de texto, y que estas se recopilaran en un foro comunitario en línea de coUrbanize.

“La gente tiene ideas mucho más interesantes cuando están en un espacio físico”, dice Brandt. “Y la mayoría de la gente no sabe lo que puede decir. Así que es muy útil que se les hagan preguntas específicas”. Este experimento recogió más de 200 comentarios, más datos adicionales de los usuarios del foro que apoyaban o criticaban estos comentarios. El equipo de planificación y desarrollo “realizó cambios en el plan gracias a los comentarios recibidos”, dice Brandt, como el agregado de una cantidad sustancial de viviendas sociales y la inclusión de un “espacio de innovación” que ofrecía precios más bajos que el mercado a empresas en formación (startups) calificadas. Y añade que dentro de poco se concretarán también algunas ideas derivadas de la plataforma para espacios abiertos.

Desde la perspectiva de planificación, la clave está en ampliar la base de opinión. Esto puede dar lugar a ideas que nunca hubieran surgido en una reunión comunitaria tradicional. Pero es más importante aún comprender claramente lo que “la comunidad” desea, respalda u objeta sobre un proyecto en particular, y no recoger sólo lo que piensan las personas que asisten a una reunión pública.

Cotter apunta, con el acuerdo enfático de Brandt, que las reuniones presenciales siguen siendo importantes. Pero una plataforma como coUrbanize brinda un foro para aquellos que no pueden (o simplemente no quieren) participar en este tipo de reuniones: un trabajador del turno de noche, padres que tienen que quedarse en casa o jóvenes de la generación del milenio, a quienes el contexto en línea les resulta más fácil y conveniente. Según Brandt: “Uno de nuestros clientes dice que nuestra plataforma es una reunión comunitaria de 24 horas”. (Es de hacer notar que coUrbanize publica “directrices comunitarias” que requieren que los usuarios/ciudadanos se inscriban con sus nombres reales, para reducir al mínimo los comentarios de planificación equivalentes al spam. “Nuestros socios municipales nos han dicho que los comentarios que reciben de coUrbanize frecuentemente son más apropiados”, dice Brandt).

Para aprovechar al máximo esta accesibilidad, las ciudades o emprendedores inmobiliarios que usan coUrbanize o una plataforma equivalente tienen que volver a pensar en cómo presentar sus ideas. Cotter señala que incluso los términos más básicos como “contratiempo” o “densidad” pueden no significar nada para una persona no experta en la materia. (Como orientación para recoger opiniones de la comunidad, PlaceMatters ha utilizado métodos creativos como la instalación de ventanas emergentes (popups) para demostrar los beneficios de una ciclovía protegida en Portland, Oregón, ubicada en un lugar físico real). CoUrbanize ofrece a los planificadores y emprendedores un marco de referencia intuitivo para presentar ideas, tanto con imágenes como con palabras; casi como la página principal de una campaña de Kickstarter.

Por supuesto, los usuarios son los que tienen la responsabilidad de aprovechar la plataforma al máximo. Y como el modelo de negocios de coUrbanize depende en parte de la participación de los emprendedores, Brandt remarca que este tipo de plataforma puede revelar más rápida y eficientemente problemas que en circunstancias normales podrían haber provocado demoras costosas en el proyecto. La mayoría de los clientes y proyectos iniciales de la firma está concentrada en Massachusetts, pero coUrbanize también ha trabajado en Atlanta y otros lugares donde se lo han solicitado. Este año la compañía ampliará su radio de acción a Nueva York y San Francisco.

El objetivo, según Brandt, es que “ganen todos los jugadores”. Sin duda, la ganancia potencial para los miembros de la comunidad (los usuarios de coUrbanize, pero también de otras plataformas que intentan ampliar el proceso de planificación con herramientas tecnológicas) es particularmente intrigante. Y eso, dice Cotter, es algo que los planificadores han estado buscando durante años y que será cada vez más práctico a medida que la tecnología mejore. La clave, dice, está en “brindar a la gente la confianza de saber que se la escuchó y que su opinión será tenida en cuenta”. E incluso si su opinión no se tuviera en cuenta, se debería explicar por qué, y cuáles son las ventajas y desventajas de su propuesta.

“Hay tanta gente que no sabe que puede influir sobre su barrio”, dice Brandt. “No sabe qué es la planificación, y no ha asistido nunca a una reunión”. Quizá la generación actual de plataformas tecnológicas pueda ayudar a cambiar esto: “Hay mucha más gente en línea”, argumenta Brandt, “que los que tienen libres los martes a las 7 de la tarde”.

Rob Walker (robwalker.net) es colaborador de Design Observer y The New York Times.

Fotografía: Karin Brandt