Equitable Access to Land
In Albuquerque and surrounding communities, residents can elect to redistribute a portion of their wealth to Indigenous communities on Tiwa land through the grassroots Honor Native Land Tax. These recurring contributions acknowledge the legacies of settler colonialism and support the Pueblo Action Alliance and The Red Nation in their movements for land, water, and Native liberation. This powerful project underscores the injustices of land (dis)possession in New Mexico and offers one approach to chip away at it.
But it also raises questions about underlying structures and systems. At a governmental level, what kinds of policies could address inequitable land access? How might local, state, and federal policymakers support community-led efforts?
In what some advocates have termed an “emerging solidarity economy,” community coalitions have devised many creative solutions to the challenge of inequitable land access.[1] For example, the first community land trust developed in Georgia during the 1960s Civil Rights Movement to connect Black farmers with land. In subsequent decades, hundreds of communities, organizations, and local governments have experimented with collective ownership models as an antidote to discriminatory lending practices, industry encroachment, and the housing crisis.
The stakes are high. Land dispossession in the U.S., particularly against Indigenous and Black communities, contributes to serious economic disparities such as the wealth gap and inequitable access to capital. While white neighborhoods have historically enjoyed high property values, incentives for home ownership, and access to parks, communities of color have contended with discriminatory practices such as redlining and racially restrictive covenants. Artificially low property values and municipal disinvestment in Black and brown neighborhoods attract environmentally hazardous industries, making factories, refineries, waste sites, and urban heat zones the alter-egos of coveted green spaces. A failure to enact corrective policies would further entrench harmful outcomes.
Recognizing that land access is a key determinant of community health, generational wealth, affordable housing availability, and environmental wellbeing, these community-oriented policy options may help address inequitable land distribution in New Mexico and elsewhere:
1. Vacant Lot Greening Program
Vacant lots are prime candidates for greening in urban areas, where under-resourced communities lack access to parks, public lands, recreational spaces, and community gathering places.[2] As a potential model for future programs, the Pennsylvania Horticultural Society (PHS) is a longstanding organization that contracts with the City of Philadelphia to perform a variety of greening functions. Among these initiatives, the LandCare program spends around $1,500 for each initial vacant lot clean-up and about $300 per lot for yearly upkeep. The program’s director estimates that the total cost (on a portfolio averaging around 2,000 new lots per year) equates to about 12 cents per square foot of landscaping.[3] While PHS covers the up-front cost, these charges are added as liens to the property, which must be paid off before any sale of the lot.
[4]
The City of Albuquerque could develop a similar a greening initiative using PHI’s LandCare program as a template, perhaps in coordination with researchers from a partnering institution such as the University of New Mexico. While the City estimates that 1,200-1,300 vacant, abandoned, or dilapidated residential properties are scattered across Albuquerque,[5] the number of vacant lots (devoid of preexisting housing) is likely much higher. The City could team with researchers to map, quantify, and assess the status of these lots, and then contract with a landscaping organization in the vein of PHI to begin greening selected areas.
Importantly, the City would need to engage with local stakeholders during the selection and planning phases. It might also consider employing neighborhood residents to green and maintain the selected lots.[6] The City of Albuquerque could begin by working toward a portfolio goal of 500 lots, resulting in an estimated cost of $900,000 for the first year. This expense would be manageable for the City, which projects a $1.4 billion budget for FY/23.[7] It is also a relatively “safe” option politically and the newly greened lots may have significant psychological and community health benefits within neighborhoods. However, policymakers should heed a word of caution: any community-based land reclamation projects should be paired with affordable housing initiatives and/or a reduction in property taxes for longstanding residents to prevent green gentrification.[8]
2. Land Bank / Land Trust Partnership
Land banks are authorities established by cities or counties, which acquire tax-delinquent abandoned properties and develop an inventory of land that can be repurposed for other community needs.
Land trusts are community nonprofit entities that can permanently take ownership of a parcel of land and sell only its improvements (housing or other built infrastructure) at a reduced cost to community members. The land trust organization can then support homeowners and other community participants with repairs and infrastructure needs, including climate adaptability.
In partnership, these two structures can facilitate community-led land reclamation and redistribution via a collective ownership model.[9] While the land bank initially accumulates properties through tax foreclosure, private donation, or public transfer, it can subsequently resell this land at a reduced price to a land trust organization. The land trust permanently removes the land from speculative markets and rehabilitates it for affordable housing, neighborhood gardens, parks, open space, community centers, or local storefronts.[10]
The City of Albuquerque is currently in a research and development phase as it considers establishing a land banking program. Around 2018, it contracted with the Center for Community Progress (CCP) to evaluate the possibility of land banking as a solution to the challenge of Albuquerque’s “vacant, abandoned, and substandard properties” destined for foreclosure. The City’s newly adopted Vacant and Abandoned Houses Task Force estimated that 1,200-1,300 properties qualify for acquisition.[11] CCP ultimately recommended that the City designate an existing department to initiate a City Land Banking Program, develop acquisition guidance with the support of the City Attorney, construct a website inventory of available properties, and form relationships with community partners.[12]
As the City considers these possibilities, it could partner with one or more land trusts to ensure that future land bank properties are rehabilitated and permanently protected in the best interest of the community. Albuquerque is already home to several established land trusts, including the Sawmill Community Land Trust (focused on neighborhood revitalization and affordable housing) and the Rio Grande Agricultural Land Trust (focused on the environmental preservation of farms, ranches, and open space). Each partner would meet a different need, depending on the types of property available.
Based on similar partnerships in other cities, this policy option would cost around $2.9 million annually for the City to implement.[13] One risk is that the City could resort to selling off properties to market speculators during tight financial periods instead of funneling them at reduced cost to land trusts. To prevent this temptation, the City should maintain an equity lens as it develops its internal land banking policies and should commit to partnering with land trusts for a significant percentage of qualifying properties.
3. State Loan Fund for Neighborhood-Led Investment
The state government could create a loan fund to help finance select community projects that revolve around collective land purchase, reclamation, and revitalization. A rolling fund of $25 million would sustainably loan up to $1 million annually at a 4% interest rate. If awards averaged $250,000 each, this could support about four projects per year. For example, one financing model (based on a Portland case study) shows how a founding nonprofit could combine a low-interest state loan with a bank loan to acquire a small community plaza retail property, in which several hundred neighborhood residents could then invest $10 monthly shares.[14] To ensure that both urban and rural neighborhoods receive equal opportunity, the funding guidelines should specify equitable allocations to differently populated areas of the state.
Legislators could simultaneously create a package to reduce other barriers to locally initiated investment, by authorizing mixed-use zoning, creating a statewide land bank enabling statute,[15] and developing resources for neighborhood coalitions. Administratively, statutory modifications – along with a capital stream fund – would be a relatively straightforward package to implement.
Perhaps the greatest challenge here, in terms of political feasibility, is educating lawmakers and community members about the different enabling and financing mechanisms for neighborhood coalition projects. The legislative package should include an application process for funding candidates and easy-to-understand educational materials, created in partnership with community organizations that specialize in land reclamation and local revitalization work. Several research institutions have already developed explainers and other educational resources, including Brookings, Urban Institute, and Georgetown Climate Center.
4. S. 2708 / H.R. 5493 – Land Grant-Mercedes Traditional Use Recognition and Consultation Act
Members of the New Mexico Congressional Delegation (Sen. Luján, Sen. Heinrich, Rep. Leger Fernández, and Rep. Stansbury) have introduced a bill that would clarify and expand federal recognition of land grant communities in New Mexico. The legislation would permit land grant communities to access public lands for traditional uses, including hunting, fishing, gathering, and grazing. It would also require the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management to consult with them on management practices.[16]
Land grant-mercedes are the descended communities of those who received communal access to grazing, firewood, and acequia water infrastructure via the Spanish and Mexican land grant system between 1690-1850. When the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed in 1848, the U.S. government was supposed to develop a system for adjudicating the land grants. Instead, much of that land ended up in the hands of attorneys, speculators, corporations, and the public domain, resulting in the dispossession of thousands of communal acres from both Hispano and Native American inhabitants. [17]
Today, the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) have purview over vast swaths of former common-usage lands. The remaining land grant commons tend to share borders with federally managed properties and are affected by the management decisions of these agencies. Expanded consultation would support a coordinated response to mounting climate crises, including beetle infestation, drought, and wildfires.
Collectively, the two agencies hold about 22 million acres in New Mexico.[18] The cost estimate for the Act’s implementation is $2 million, which would cover 10 additional federal employees for two years to design access guidelines in consultation with communities.[19] Politically, the bipartisan support for land grant communities in New Mexico bodes well for the potential passage of federal legislation, although the bill’s regional specificity may limit its prioritization in Congress.
5. Expansion of Public Lands via Urban Wildlife Refuge
Neighborhood coalition groups can partner with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to expand public lands through the creation of urban wildlife refuges. The Valle de Oro National Wildlife Refuge in Albuquerque’s South Valley is the first example of this arrangement in the U.S., and its organizers intend for the project to serve as a national model.[20]
Valle de Oro sits on 570 acres of a former dairy farm and offers a waypoint for migratory birds. The Refuge occupies Tiwa ancestral lands along the Rio Grande in Albuquerque’s South Valley, which also has a more recent Chicano farming history rooted in land grants and acequia waterways. Valle de Oro is much more than a site of detached environmental protection. From its beginning, the Refuge has honored and incorporated the local people’s stewardship of the land. Envisioned as a sacred collaborative space, it also serves as a community hub for elders and youth to meet and learn from one another.
The Mountain View neighborhood, which hosts Valle de Oro, has weathered decades of industrial activity, environmental contamination, and adverse health outcomes.[21] The Refuge is the neighborhood’s first green space, making it a vital addition to community life. Since the neighborhood has historically been treated as a “dumping ground” for urban industrial projects, the equity-centered community coalition has been critical for the project’s success.
Valle de Oro’s acquisition and community-led decision-making process can serve as a prototype for future project locales. At the time of the dairy’s three-phase purchase in 2012 and 2013, the total acquisition cost of the project – including land and water rights – was $18.5 million.[22] Numerous local, state, and federal partners contributed funding for this purchase, including the Friends of the Valle de Oro, Bernalillo County, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the New Mexico Capital Outlay Fund, the Trust for Public Land, and USFWS.
Using Valle de Oro as a benchmark, policymakers should expect a rough cost of $35,000 per acre for similar land acquisition projects. Of course, this number may vary based on geographically disparate land values. In the long-term, project managers should anticipate additional costs to develop and maintain the refuge, hire staff, install a visitors’ center, and facilitate educational programming. Valle de Oro, for example, has been awarded an annually renewable $1 million grant from USFWS to augment its $250,000 annual budget.
Following the Refuge’s acquisition, the Mountain View coalition developed an Environmental and Economic Justice Strategic Plan that details the historical context, process, goals, strategies, and ongoing vision for the Refuge.[23] This is an invaluable resource for communities that wish to acquire and protect public land of their own. While USFWS can provide federal resources and an overarching refuge designation for qualifying open space, the impetus and vision should come from longstanding community partners who understand the history and needs of the area.
Administratively and politically, such multilevel governmental-community partnerships can be challenging, protracted, and potentially conflictual. However, a project that moves beyond bureaucratic checklists and into community dialogue will ultimately encourage greater investment in the public lands from all levels of participation. Valle de Oro models the way in which protection of the land is intimately linked with the wellbeing of its residents.
Recommendation
All five policy options complement one another, but several already have solid footing in New Mexico. Advocates for equitable land access might consider beginning their efforts locally and rippling outward, based on a three-tiered policy strategy:
1) land trust / land bank partnerships
2) expansion of public lands via Urban Wildlife Refuges
3) the land grant Act
All three initiatives draw from local history and community knowledge. While proponents of “efficiency” may hesitate to undertake the coalition work required for these policy pursuits, any equity-centered approach necessitates extra time and complexity to accomplish desired community outcomes. Together, these policy options would open up millions of acres of land – rural and urban – to communities that have historically been cut off from access.
__________________
[1] Loh, Tracy H., and Hanna Love. “The Emerging Solidarity Economy: A Primer on Community Ownership of Real Estate.” Brookings Institution, 19 July 2021, https://www.brookings.edu/essay/the-emerging-solidarity-economy-a-primer-on-community-ownership-of-real-estate/.
[2] Plumer, Brad, and Nadja Popovich. “How Decades of Racist Housing Policy Left Neighborhoods Sweltering,” The New York Times, 24 Aug. 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/08/24/climate/racism-redlining-cities-global-warming.html;
Avila, Magdalena. Informant Interview. Associate Professor and Program Coordinator, Community Health Education Program; Co-Director, Community Engagement Dissemination Core of the Transdisciplinary Research, Equity & Engagement Center. University of New Mexico. 28 March 2022. https://cpr.unm.edu/administration/people-profiles/magdalena-avila.html.
[3] Loesch, Maggie. “Greening Vacant Lots: Low Cost, Big Effect in Philly.” Shelterforce, 13 Nov. 2018, https://shelterforce.org/2018/11/13/greening-vacant-lots-low-cost-big-effect-in-philly.
[4] South, Eugenia C. “If Black Lives Really Matter, We Must Invest in Black Neighborhoods.” The Washington Post, 16 March 2021, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/03/16/black-neighborhoods-parks-safety/.
[5] Vacant and Abandoned Houses Task Force. “Findings and Recommendations Presented to the City Council.” City of Albuquerque, 17 Jan. 2018, https://www.cabq.gov/council/documents/vacant-abandoned-houses-task-force-final-final-report-1-17-18.pdf.
[6] Bikomeye, Jean C., Sima Namin, Chima Anyanwu, Caitlin S. Rublee, Jamie Ferschinger, Ken Leinbach, Patricia Lindquist, August Hoppe, Lawrence Hoffman, Justin Hegarty, Dwayne Sperber, and Kirsten M. M. Beyer. “Resilience and Equity in a Time of Crises: Investing in Public Urban Greenspace Is Now More Essential Than Ever in the US and Beyond.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, vol. 18, 2021, pp. 8420, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18168420.
[7] Keller, Timothy M. “Proposed Budget Fiscal Year 2023.” City of Albuquerque, 2022, https://www.cabq.gov/dfa/documents/fy23-proposed-final-web-version.pdf.
[8] Penney, Veronica. “Denver Wants to Fix a Legacy of Environmental Racism.” The New York Times, 30 Sept. 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/30/climate/city-parks.html;
Bikomeye, Jean C., Sima Namin, Chima Anyanwu, Caitlin S. Rublee, Jamie Ferschinger, Ken Leinbach, Patricia Lindquist, August Hoppe, Lawrence Hoffman, Justin Hegarty, Dwayne Sperber, and Kirsten M. M. Beyer. “Resilience and Equity in a Time of Crises: Investing in Public Urban Greenspace Is Now More Essential Than Ever in the US and Beyond.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, vol. 18, 2021, pp. 8420, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18168420.
[9] Zehner, Emma. “Opening Doors: Land Banks and Community Land Trusts Partner to Unlock Affordable Housing Opportunities,” Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 7 Oct. 2020, https://www.lincolninst.edu/publications/articles/2020-10-opening-doors-land-banks-community-land-trusts-partner-affordable-housing.
[10] Loh, Tracy H., and Hanna Love. “The Emerging Solidarity Economy: A Primer on Community Ownership of Real Estate.” Brookings Institution, 19 July 2021, https://www.brookings.edu/essay/the-emerging-solidarity-economy-a-primer-on-community-ownership-of-real-estate/.
[11] Vacant and Abandoned Houses Task Force. “Findings and Recommendations Presented to the City Council.” City of Albuquerque, 17 Jan. 2018, https://www.cabq.gov/council/documents/vacant-abandoned-houses-task-force-final-final-report-1-17-18.pdf.
[12] Center for Community Progress Technical Assistance. “Land Banking in Albuquerque: Feasibility, Efficacy, and Relationship to Existing Tools for Vacant, Abandoned, and Substandard Properties.” Center for Community Progress, Apr. 2019, https://communityprogress.org/publications/land-banking-in-albuquerque/.
[13] Graziani, Kim, and Tarik Abdelazim. “Piloting New Partnership Opportunities Between a Land Bank and a Community Land Trust in Albany, New York.” Center for Community Progress, Nov. 2017, https://communityprogress.org/publications/tasp-albany/.
[14] Hopkins, Elwood, Jennifer S. Vey, and Tracy Hadden Loh. “How States Can Empower Local Ownership for a Just Recovery.” Brookings Institution, 23 July 2020, https://www.brookings.edu/research/how-states-can-empower-local-ownership-for-a-just-recovery/.
[15] Center for Community Progress Technical Assistance. “Land Banking in Albuquerque: Feasibility, Efficacy, and Relationship to Existing Tools for Vacant, Abandoned, and Substandard Properties.” Center for Community Progress, Apr. 2019, https://communityprogress.org/publications/land-banking-in-albuquerque/.
[16] "H.R. 5493 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Land Grant-Mercedes Traditional Use Recognition and Consultation Act." Congress.gov, Library of Congress, 1 March 2022, https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/5493;
"S. 2708 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Land Grant-Mercedes Traditional Use Recognition and Consultation Act." Congress.gov, Library of Congress, 10 Aug. 2021, https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/2708.
[17] Sanchez, Juan. Letter to House Committee on Natural Resources in support of H.R. 3682. New Mexico Land Grant Council, 16 Apr. 2020, https://www.congress.gov/116/meeting/house/110804/witnesses/HHRG-116-II10-Wstate-ArchuletaA-20200618-SD123.pdf.
[18] “Conserving New Mexico’s Wildlife for Future Generations,” New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, 2016, https://www.wildlife.state.nm.us/hunting/maps/lands-information/.
[19] Shankaran, Janani. “Cost Estimate: H.R. 3682, Land Grant-Mercedes Traditional Use Recognition and Consultation Act,” Congressional Budget Office, 20 Oct. 2020, https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2020-10/hr3682.pdf.
[20] Avila, Magdalena. Informant Interview. Associate Professor and Program Coordinator, Community Health Education Program; Co-Director, Community Engagement Dissemination Core of the Transdisciplinary Research, Equity & Engagement Center. University of New Mexico. 28 March 2022. https://cpr.unm.edu/administration/people-profiles/magdalena-avila.html.
[21] Kutz, Jessica. “Can a Wildlife Refuge Help a Community’s Fight for Environmental Justice?” High Country News, 9 Apr. 2021, https://www.hcn.org/issues/53.5/south-wildlife-can-a-wildlife-refuge-help-a-communitys-fight-for-environmental-justice.
[22] Nathanson, Rick. “Valle de Oro Gets $1 Million Budget Boost.” The Albuquerque Journal, 22 March 2016, https://www.abqjournal.com/744407/valle-de-oro-gets-1-million-budget-boost.html.
[23] Friends of Valle de Oro National Wildlife Refuge (FVDO) and Los Jardines Institute (LJI). “Valle de Oro National Wildlife Refuge: Environmental and Economic Justice Strategic Plan.” Friends of Valle de Oro, 2017-2020, https://friendsofvalledeoro.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/VdO-Environmental-and-Economic-Justice-Strategic-Plan-April-2017.pdf.
But it also raises questions about underlying structures and systems. At a governmental level, what kinds of policies could address inequitable land access? How might local, state, and federal policymakers support community-led efforts?
In what some advocates have termed an “emerging solidarity economy,” community coalitions have devised many creative solutions to the challenge of inequitable land access.[1] For example, the first community land trust developed in Georgia during the 1960s Civil Rights Movement to connect Black farmers with land. In subsequent decades, hundreds of communities, organizations, and local governments have experimented with collective ownership models as an antidote to discriminatory lending practices, industry encroachment, and the housing crisis.
The stakes are high. Land dispossession in the U.S., particularly against Indigenous and Black communities, contributes to serious economic disparities such as the wealth gap and inequitable access to capital. While white neighborhoods have historically enjoyed high property values, incentives for home ownership, and access to parks, communities of color have contended with discriminatory practices such as redlining and racially restrictive covenants. Artificially low property values and municipal disinvestment in Black and brown neighborhoods attract environmentally hazardous industries, making factories, refineries, waste sites, and urban heat zones the alter-egos of coveted green spaces. A failure to enact corrective policies would further entrench harmful outcomes.
Recognizing that land access is a key determinant of community health, generational wealth, affordable housing availability, and environmental wellbeing, these community-oriented policy options may help address inequitable land distribution in New Mexico and elsewhere:
1. Vacant Lot Greening Program
Vacant lots are prime candidates for greening in urban areas, where under-resourced communities lack access to parks, public lands, recreational spaces, and community gathering places.[2] As a potential model for future programs, the Pennsylvania Horticultural Society (PHS) is a longstanding organization that contracts with the City of Philadelphia to perform a variety of greening functions. Among these initiatives, the LandCare program spends around $1,500 for each initial vacant lot clean-up and about $300 per lot for yearly upkeep. The program’s director estimates that the total cost (on a portfolio averaging around 2,000 new lots per year) equates to about 12 cents per square foot of landscaping.[3] While PHS covers the up-front cost, these charges are added as liens to the property, which must be paid off before any sale of the lot.
[4]The City of Albuquerque could develop a similar a greening initiative using PHI’s LandCare program as a template, perhaps in coordination with researchers from a partnering institution such as the University of New Mexico. While the City estimates that 1,200-1,300 vacant, abandoned, or dilapidated residential properties are scattered across Albuquerque,[5] the number of vacant lots (devoid of preexisting housing) is likely much higher. The City could team with researchers to map, quantify, and assess the status of these lots, and then contract with a landscaping organization in the vein of PHI to begin greening selected areas.
Importantly, the City would need to engage with local stakeholders during the selection and planning phases. It might also consider employing neighborhood residents to green and maintain the selected lots.[6] The City of Albuquerque could begin by working toward a portfolio goal of 500 lots, resulting in an estimated cost of $900,000 for the first year. This expense would be manageable for the City, which projects a $1.4 billion budget for FY/23.[7] It is also a relatively “safe” option politically and the newly greened lots may have significant psychological and community health benefits within neighborhoods. However, policymakers should heed a word of caution: any community-based land reclamation projects should be paired with affordable housing initiatives and/or a reduction in property taxes for longstanding residents to prevent green gentrification.[8]
2. Land Bank / Land Trust Partnership
Land banks are authorities established by cities or counties, which acquire tax-delinquent abandoned properties and develop an inventory of land that can be repurposed for other community needs.
Land trusts are community nonprofit entities that can permanently take ownership of a parcel of land and sell only its improvements (housing or other built infrastructure) at a reduced cost to community members. The land trust organization can then support homeowners and other community participants with repairs and infrastructure needs, including climate adaptability.
In partnership, these two structures can facilitate community-led land reclamation and redistribution via a collective ownership model.[9] While the land bank initially accumulates properties through tax foreclosure, private donation, or public transfer, it can subsequently resell this land at a reduced price to a land trust organization. The land trust permanently removes the land from speculative markets and rehabilitates it for affordable housing, neighborhood gardens, parks, open space, community centers, or local storefronts.[10]
The City of Albuquerque is currently in a research and development phase as it considers establishing a land banking program. Around 2018, it contracted with the Center for Community Progress (CCP) to evaluate the possibility of land banking as a solution to the challenge of Albuquerque’s “vacant, abandoned, and substandard properties” destined for foreclosure. The City’s newly adopted Vacant and Abandoned Houses Task Force estimated that 1,200-1,300 properties qualify for acquisition.[11] CCP ultimately recommended that the City designate an existing department to initiate a City Land Banking Program, develop acquisition guidance with the support of the City Attorney, construct a website inventory of available properties, and form relationships with community partners.[12]
As the City considers these possibilities, it could partner with one or more land trusts to ensure that future land bank properties are rehabilitated and permanently protected in the best interest of the community. Albuquerque is already home to several established land trusts, including the Sawmill Community Land Trust (focused on neighborhood revitalization and affordable housing) and the Rio Grande Agricultural Land Trust (focused on the environmental preservation of farms, ranches, and open space). Each partner would meet a different need, depending on the types of property available.
Based on similar partnerships in other cities, this policy option would cost around $2.9 million annually for the City to implement.[13] One risk is that the City could resort to selling off properties to market speculators during tight financial periods instead of funneling them at reduced cost to land trusts. To prevent this temptation, the City should maintain an equity lens as it develops its internal land banking policies and should commit to partnering with land trusts for a significant percentage of qualifying properties.
3. State Loan Fund for Neighborhood-Led Investment
The state government could create a loan fund to help finance select community projects that revolve around collective land purchase, reclamation, and revitalization. A rolling fund of $25 million would sustainably loan up to $1 million annually at a 4% interest rate. If awards averaged $250,000 each, this could support about four projects per year. For example, one financing model (based on a Portland case study) shows how a founding nonprofit could combine a low-interest state loan with a bank loan to acquire a small community plaza retail property, in which several hundred neighborhood residents could then invest $10 monthly shares.[14] To ensure that both urban and rural neighborhoods receive equal opportunity, the funding guidelines should specify equitable allocations to differently populated areas of the state.
Legislators could simultaneously create a package to reduce other barriers to locally initiated investment, by authorizing mixed-use zoning, creating a statewide land bank enabling statute,[15] and developing resources for neighborhood coalitions. Administratively, statutory modifications – along with a capital stream fund – would be a relatively straightforward package to implement.
Perhaps the greatest challenge here, in terms of political feasibility, is educating lawmakers and community members about the different enabling and financing mechanisms for neighborhood coalition projects. The legislative package should include an application process for funding candidates and easy-to-understand educational materials, created in partnership with community organizations that specialize in land reclamation and local revitalization work. Several research institutions have already developed explainers and other educational resources, including Brookings, Urban Institute, and Georgetown Climate Center.
4. S. 2708 / H.R. 5493 – Land Grant-Mercedes Traditional Use Recognition and Consultation Act
Members of the New Mexico Congressional Delegation (Sen. Luján, Sen. Heinrich, Rep. Leger Fernández, and Rep. Stansbury) have introduced a bill that would clarify and expand federal recognition of land grant communities in New Mexico. The legislation would permit land grant communities to access public lands for traditional uses, including hunting, fishing, gathering, and grazing. It would also require the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management to consult with them on management practices.[16]
Land grant-mercedes are the descended communities of those who received communal access to grazing, firewood, and acequia water infrastructure via the Spanish and Mexican land grant system between 1690-1850. When the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed in 1848, the U.S. government was supposed to develop a system for adjudicating the land grants. Instead, much of that land ended up in the hands of attorneys, speculators, corporations, and the public domain, resulting in the dispossession of thousands of communal acres from both Hispano and Native American inhabitants. [17]
Today, the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) have purview over vast swaths of former common-usage lands. The remaining land grant commons tend to share borders with federally managed properties and are affected by the management decisions of these agencies. Expanded consultation would support a coordinated response to mounting climate crises, including beetle infestation, drought, and wildfires.
Collectively, the two agencies hold about 22 million acres in New Mexico.[18] The cost estimate for the Act’s implementation is $2 million, which would cover 10 additional federal employees for two years to design access guidelines in consultation with communities.[19] Politically, the bipartisan support for land grant communities in New Mexico bodes well for the potential passage of federal legislation, although the bill’s regional specificity may limit its prioritization in Congress.
5. Expansion of Public Lands via Urban Wildlife Refuge
Neighborhood coalition groups can partner with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to expand public lands through the creation of urban wildlife refuges. The Valle de Oro National Wildlife Refuge in Albuquerque’s South Valley is the first example of this arrangement in the U.S., and its organizers intend for the project to serve as a national model.[20]
Valle de Oro sits on 570 acres of a former dairy farm and offers a waypoint for migratory birds. The Refuge occupies Tiwa ancestral lands along the Rio Grande in Albuquerque’s South Valley, which also has a more recent Chicano farming history rooted in land grants and acequia waterways. Valle de Oro is much more than a site of detached environmental protection. From its beginning, the Refuge has honored and incorporated the local people’s stewardship of the land. Envisioned as a sacred collaborative space, it also serves as a community hub for elders and youth to meet and learn from one another.
The Mountain View neighborhood, which hosts Valle de Oro, has weathered decades of industrial activity, environmental contamination, and adverse health outcomes.[21] The Refuge is the neighborhood’s first green space, making it a vital addition to community life. Since the neighborhood has historically been treated as a “dumping ground” for urban industrial projects, the equity-centered community coalition has been critical for the project’s success.
Valle de Oro’s acquisition and community-led decision-making process can serve as a prototype for future project locales. At the time of the dairy’s three-phase purchase in 2012 and 2013, the total acquisition cost of the project – including land and water rights – was $18.5 million.[22] Numerous local, state, and federal partners contributed funding for this purchase, including the Friends of the Valle de Oro, Bernalillo County, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the New Mexico Capital Outlay Fund, the Trust for Public Land, and USFWS.
Using Valle de Oro as a benchmark, policymakers should expect a rough cost of $35,000 per acre for similar land acquisition projects. Of course, this number may vary based on geographically disparate land values. In the long-term, project managers should anticipate additional costs to develop and maintain the refuge, hire staff, install a visitors’ center, and facilitate educational programming. Valle de Oro, for example, has been awarded an annually renewable $1 million grant from USFWS to augment its $250,000 annual budget.
Following the Refuge’s acquisition, the Mountain View coalition developed an Environmental and Economic Justice Strategic Plan that details the historical context, process, goals, strategies, and ongoing vision for the Refuge.[23] This is an invaluable resource for communities that wish to acquire and protect public land of their own. While USFWS can provide federal resources and an overarching refuge designation for qualifying open space, the impetus and vision should come from longstanding community partners who understand the history and needs of the area.
Administratively and politically, such multilevel governmental-community partnerships can be challenging, protracted, and potentially conflictual. However, a project that moves beyond bureaucratic checklists and into community dialogue will ultimately encourage greater investment in the public lands from all levels of participation. Valle de Oro models the way in which protection of the land is intimately linked with the wellbeing of its residents.
Recommendation
All five policy options complement one another, but several already have solid footing in New Mexico. Advocates for equitable land access might consider beginning their efforts locally and rippling outward, based on a three-tiered policy strategy:
1) land trust / land bank partnerships
2) expansion of public lands via Urban Wildlife Refuges
3) the land grant Act
All three initiatives draw from local history and community knowledge. While proponents of “efficiency” may hesitate to undertake the coalition work required for these policy pursuits, any equity-centered approach necessitates extra time and complexity to accomplish desired community outcomes. Together, these policy options would open up millions of acres of land – rural and urban – to communities that have historically been cut off from access.
__________________
[1] Loh, Tracy H., and Hanna Love. “The Emerging Solidarity Economy: A Primer on Community Ownership of Real Estate.” Brookings Institution, 19 July 2021, https://www.brookings.edu/essay/the-emerging-solidarity-economy-a-primer-on-community-ownership-of-real-estate/.
[2] Plumer, Brad, and Nadja Popovich. “How Decades of Racist Housing Policy Left Neighborhoods Sweltering,” The New York Times, 24 Aug. 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/08/24/climate/racism-redlining-cities-global-warming.html;
Avila, Magdalena. Informant Interview. Associate Professor and Program Coordinator, Community Health Education Program; Co-Director, Community Engagement Dissemination Core of the Transdisciplinary Research, Equity & Engagement Center. University of New Mexico. 28 March 2022. https://cpr.unm.edu/administration/people-profiles/magdalena-avila.html.
[3] Loesch, Maggie. “Greening Vacant Lots: Low Cost, Big Effect in Philly.” Shelterforce, 13 Nov. 2018, https://shelterforce.org/2018/11/13/greening-vacant-lots-low-cost-big-effect-in-philly.
[4] South, Eugenia C. “If Black Lives Really Matter, We Must Invest in Black Neighborhoods.” The Washington Post, 16 March 2021, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/03/16/black-neighborhoods-parks-safety/.
[5] Vacant and Abandoned Houses Task Force. “Findings and Recommendations Presented to the City Council.” City of Albuquerque, 17 Jan. 2018, https://www.cabq.gov/council/documents/vacant-abandoned-houses-task-force-final-final-report-1-17-18.pdf.
[6] Bikomeye, Jean C., Sima Namin, Chima Anyanwu, Caitlin S. Rublee, Jamie Ferschinger, Ken Leinbach, Patricia Lindquist, August Hoppe, Lawrence Hoffman, Justin Hegarty, Dwayne Sperber, and Kirsten M. M. Beyer. “Resilience and Equity in a Time of Crises: Investing in Public Urban Greenspace Is Now More Essential Than Ever in the US and Beyond.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, vol. 18, 2021, pp. 8420, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18168420.
[7] Keller, Timothy M. “Proposed Budget Fiscal Year 2023.” City of Albuquerque, 2022, https://www.cabq.gov/dfa/documents/fy23-proposed-final-web-version.pdf.
[8] Penney, Veronica. “Denver Wants to Fix a Legacy of Environmental Racism.” The New York Times, 30 Sept. 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/30/climate/city-parks.html;
Bikomeye, Jean C., Sima Namin, Chima Anyanwu, Caitlin S. Rublee, Jamie Ferschinger, Ken Leinbach, Patricia Lindquist, August Hoppe, Lawrence Hoffman, Justin Hegarty, Dwayne Sperber, and Kirsten M. M. Beyer. “Resilience and Equity in a Time of Crises: Investing in Public Urban Greenspace Is Now More Essential Than Ever in the US and Beyond.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, vol. 18, 2021, pp. 8420, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18168420.
[9] Zehner, Emma. “Opening Doors: Land Banks and Community Land Trusts Partner to Unlock Affordable Housing Opportunities,” Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 7 Oct. 2020, https://www.lincolninst.edu/publications/articles/2020-10-opening-doors-land-banks-community-land-trusts-partner-affordable-housing.
[10] Loh, Tracy H., and Hanna Love. “The Emerging Solidarity Economy: A Primer on Community Ownership of Real Estate.” Brookings Institution, 19 July 2021, https://www.brookings.edu/essay/the-emerging-solidarity-economy-a-primer-on-community-ownership-of-real-estate/.
[11] Vacant and Abandoned Houses Task Force. “Findings and Recommendations Presented to the City Council.” City of Albuquerque, 17 Jan. 2018, https://www.cabq.gov/council/documents/vacant-abandoned-houses-task-force-final-final-report-1-17-18.pdf.
[12] Center for Community Progress Technical Assistance. “Land Banking in Albuquerque: Feasibility, Efficacy, and Relationship to Existing Tools for Vacant, Abandoned, and Substandard Properties.” Center for Community Progress, Apr. 2019, https://communityprogress.org/publications/land-banking-in-albuquerque/.
[13] Graziani, Kim, and Tarik Abdelazim. “Piloting New Partnership Opportunities Between a Land Bank and a Community Land Trust in Albany, New York.” Center for Community Progress, Nov. 2017, https://communityprogress.org/publications/tasp-albany/.
[14] Hopkins, Elwood, Jennifer S. Vey, and Tracy Hadden Loh. “How States Can Empower Local Ownership for a Just Recovery.” Brookings Institution, 23 July 2020, https://www.brookings.edu/research/how-states-can-empower-local-ownership-for-a-just-recovery/.
[15] Center for Community Progress Technical Assistance. “Land Banking in Albuquerque: Feasibility, Efficacy, and Relationship to Existing Tools for Vacant, Abandoned, and Substandard Properties.” Center for Community Progress, Apr. 2019, https://communityprogress.org/publications/land-banking-in-albuquerque/.
[16] "H.R. 5493 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Land Grant-Mercedes Traditional Use Recognition and Consultation Act." Congress.gov, Library of Congress, 1 March 2022, https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/5493;
"S. 2708 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Land Grant-Mercedes Traditional Use Recognition and Consultation Act." Congress.gov, Library of Congress, 10 Aug. 2021, https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/2708.
[17] Sanchez, Juan. Letter to House Committee on Natural Resources in support of H.R. 3682. New Mexico Land Grant Council, 16 Apr. 2020, https://www.congress.gov/116/meeting/house/110804/witnesses/HHRG-116-II10-Wstate-ArchuletaA-20200618-SD123.pdf.
[18] “Conserving New Mexico’s Wildlife for Future Generations,” New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, 2016, https://www.wildlife.state.nm.us/hunting/maps/lands-information/.
[19] Shankaran, Janani. “Cost Estimate: H.R. 3682, Land Grant-Mercedes Traditional Use Recognition and Consultation Act,” Congressional Budget Office, 20 Oct. 2020, https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2020-10/hr3682.pdf.
[20] Avila, Magdalena. Informant Interview. Associate Professor and Program Coordinator, Community Health Education Program; Co-Director, Community Engagement Dissemination Core of the Transdisciplinary Research, Equity & Engagement Center. University of New Mexico. 28 March 2022. https://cpr.unm.edu/administration/people-profiles/magdalena-avila.html.
[21] Kutz, Jessica. “Can a Wildlife Refuge Help a Community’s Fight for Environmental Justice?” High Country News, 9 Apr. 2021, https://www.hcn.org/issues/53.5/south-wildlife-can-a-wildlife-refuge-help-a-communitys-fight-for-environmental-justice.
[22] Nathanson, Rick. “Valle de Oro Gets $1 Million Budget Boost.” The Albuquerque Journal, 22 March 2016, https://www.abqjournal.com/744407/valle-de-oro-gets-1-million-budget-boost.html.
[23] Friends of Valle de Oro National Wildlife Refuge (FVDO) and Los Jardines Institute (LJI). “Valle de Oro National Wildlife Refuge: Environmental and Economic Justice Strategic Plan.” Friends of Valle de Oro, 2017-2020, https://friendsofvalledeoro.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/VdO-Environmental-and-Economic-Justice-Strategic-Plan-April-2017.pdf.
Comments
Post a Comment