Ekonomické nástroje v české územně plánovací praxi potenciál a bariéry jejich využití

• Authors: Vejchodská Eliška , Felcman Jindřich , Šindlerová Veronika

Title variants

EN

Economic tools in Czech spatial planning practice: the potential of and barriers to their use

• Languages of publication: CS

Abstracts

CS

V červnu 2019 proběhl pod záštitou MMR ČR pracovní seminář s odbornou veřejností na téma inovativních nástrojů územního plánování. Diskuse týkající se inovativních nástrojů a vhodná inspirace ze zahraničí je v souvislosti s probíhající rekodifikací stavebního práva více než potřebná. Jedním z cílů semináře bylo také získat kvalifikovanou zpětnou vazbu o nástrojích a jejich možném využití v rámci českého stavebního práva od odborné veřejnosti. Článek přináší přehled nejlépe hodnocených nástrojů – švýcarské paušální odvedení části zhodnocení pozemku územním plánem, mnichovský model finančních dohod s developery podepřených transparentními pravidly a německý přístup k reorganizaci území. Spolu s tím jsou v článku diskutovány nejčastěji zmiňované přínosy, které by tyto nástroje mohly pro českou územně plánovací praxi znamenat, a zároveň bariéry, které bude nutné pro jejich aplikaci překonat.

EN

In June 2019, a work seminar on innovative tools in spatial planning was held for specialists under the auspices of the Ministry for Regional Development. A discussion on innovative tools and usable inspiration from abroad is highly desirable in relation to current recodification of building legislation. One of the aims of the seminar was to get reliable feedback about these tools and their use in Czech building legislation. The article presents an outline of tools that were evaluated most highly and a discussion on benefits that can be generated by economic tools as well as barriers that must be overcome in order to apply these tools in Czech spatial planning practice. The respondents said that the most promising of the tools presented was the Swiss system of flat rate levy from appreciation of land after construction or sale. Ranked second were financial agreements between municipalities and developers under transparent rules. The third position was occupied by a tool called land readjustment. On the other hand, tradeable rights seem to be the least attractive tool for the Czech specialists. Also, the Dutch tool of purchase of land by municipalities, in combination with possible expropriation for building with overhead costs carried by the municipality, are not attractive for Czech professionals. As to potential benefits from these tools, the respondents were most interested in the possibility of financing public infrastructure. Also, they mentioned more justice, more equality of conditions and more transparency in relation to equal business settings and land annuity as windfall profit. Another type of benefit, efficient land use,was often mentioned in relation to defence against speculation with land. According to the respondents, the impossibility of parcelling out plots economically and placing buildings in the most suitable urban locations was an obstacle for a more economical arrangement of buildings and high-quality urban planning in the Czech Republic. The response about barriers in implementation of economic tools was characterized by three main topics. One was excessive protection of ownership rights in the Czech Republic, usually accompanied by the objection that Czech legislation does not define public interest in a way applicable to private land owners. This objection was particularly strong in comparison with German tools of territorial reorganization. Second, some respondents had doubts about the professional capacity of public administration bodies to apply these tools, e.g. due to high numbers of Czech municipalities with spatial planning within their authority, most of which have a population lower than 500. The third type of objection was scepticism about pushing these tools through in legislation.

Keywords

CS

územní plánování; ekonomické nástroje; zahraniční modely; bariéry zavádění nástrojů

EN

territorial planning; economic instruments; foreign models; barriers to the introduction of instruments

• Publisher: Ministerstvo pro místní rozvoj ČR. Ústav územního rozvoje
• Journal: Urbanismus a územní rozvoj
• Year: 2019
• Issue: 6
• Pages: 11-17

Contributors

author

Vejchodská Eliška

• Faculty of Humanities, Charles University
• Faculty of Social and Economics Studies, Jan Evangelista Purkyně University in Ústí nad Labem

author

Felcman Jindřich

• Faculty of Architecture, Czech technical university in Prague
• Faculty of Architecture, Czech technical university in Prague
• Faculty of Environmental Sciences Czech University of Life Sciences Prague Prague

author

Šindlerová Veronika

• Faculty of Environmental Sciences Czech University of Life Sciences Prague Prague
• Faculty of Environmental Sciences Czech University of Life Sciences Prague Prague
• Faculty of Architecture, Czech technical university in Prague

References

• CROOK, Tony; HENNEBERRY, John; WHITEHEAD, Christine (2015). Planning gain: Providing infrastructure and affordable housing. John Wiley & Sons.
• DAVY, Benjamin: Mandatory Happiness? Land Readjustment and Property in Germany In: HONG, Yu-hung; NEEDHAM, Barrie (ed.). Analyzing land readjustment: Economics, law, and collective action. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 2007.
• DAVY, Benjamin (2012). Land Policy, Planning and the Spatial Consequences of Property, Ashgate Publishing.
• DOLEŽELOVÁ, Lucie, VEJCHODSKÁ, Eliška (2018). Mnichovský model: Nastavení finanční participace investorů na základě zastavitelnosti území, Urbanismus a územní rozvoj, 3, pp. 22–26.
• ESPACESUISSE: Mehrwertausgleich in den Kantonen, EspaceSuisse, 2019. Dostupné z: https://www.espacesuisse.ch/sites/default/files/documents/Regelungen_Mehrwertausgleich_190215_1.pdf.
• HARTMANN, Thomas, SPIT, Tejo (2015): Dilemmas of involvement in land management – Comparing an active (Dutch) and a passive (German) approach. Land Use Policy, 42: 729–737.
• HAVEL, Małgorzata Barbara (2017). How the distribution of rights and liabilities in relation to betterment and compensation links with planning and the nature of property rights: Reflections on the Polish experience. Land Use Policy, 67: 508–516.
• HONG, Yu-Hung, NEEDHAM, Barrie (eds.): Analyzing Land Readjustment. Economics, Law, and Collective Action. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 2007.
• kRPG (1987): Ausführungsgesetz zum Bundesgesetz über die Raumplanung, Švýcarsko, v aktuálním znění k 21. 5. 2017.
• MUÑOZ GIELEN, Demetrio; LENFERINK, Sander (2018). The role of negotiated developer obligations in financing large public infrastructure after the economic crisis in the Netherlands. European Planning Studies, 26.4: 768–791.
• MUÑOZ GIELEN, Demetrio; TASAN-KOK, Tuna (2010). Flexibility in Planning and the Consequences for Public-value Capturing in UK, Spain and the Netherlands. European Planning Studies, 18.7: 1097–1131.
• NEEDHAM, Barrie (2016). Dutch land-use planning: The principles and the practice. Routledge.
• RPG (1979): Bundesgesetz über die Raumplanung (Raumplanungsgesetz), Švýcarsko, v aktuálním znění k 1. 1. 2019.
• VEJCHODSKÁ, Eliška (2017). Nástroje územního rozvoje založené na podmíněnosti práva k výstavbě a jejich využití v evropských zemích, Urbanismus a územní rozvoj, 1, pp. 13–16.
• VEJCHODSKÁ, Eliška (2019). Ekonomické nástroje územního plánování v Evropě a jejich možné uplatnění v České republice, Urbanismus a územní rozvoj, 4, pp. 39–40.