policy audit: public land disposition policies and procedures

DRAFT FINAL – DECEMBER 22, 2010

PHASE ONE: RESEARCH AND PRIORITIESPOLICY AUDIT TOPIC:

PUBLIC LAND DISPOSITION POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

HR&A ADVISORSDRAFT FINAL: DECEMBER 22, 2010

OBJECTIVES AND PRIORITIESGoals, Purpose and Topic

Systemic ChallengesRole within Team

11.11.21 3Role within Team

METHODOLOGYData Collection and Approach

Missing Data

EXISTING CONDITIONS AND TRENDS

1.3

22.12.2

3

PHASE ONE: RESEARCH AND PRIORITIES

EXISTING CONDITIONS AND TRENDSSummary Takeaways

Current System of Land HoldersThe Land OwnersProperty Sources

Real Estate Missioni i i

33.03.13.2

AUDIT ORGANIZATIONPUBLIC LAND DISPOSITION POLICIES AND PROCEDURESDisposition Process

Foreclosure & Auction ProcessPricing Policy

Regulatory AuthorityDisposition Approvals

Funding SourcesThe Land Owners: Takeaways

The Public Land

PRELIMINARY FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONSOpportunities/Strengths/Challenges

Priorities

3.33.4

44.14.2


1. OBJECTIVES & PRIORITIES


PUBLIC LAND DISPOSITION POLICIES AND PROCEDURESOBJECTIVES & PRIORITIES

1.1 Goals, Purpose and Topic, p pObjectives & Priorities

11 Detail location and condition of publicly‐owned land.

2 Assess disposition processes of land owners.

3 Develop policy and implementation strategies for development of public3 Develop policy and implementation strategies for development of public land consistent with strategic framework goals.


1.1 Goals, Purpose and Topic


, p pThe crisis of public land ownership

Add li l l• Adds little value• Jobs• Housing• Amenities• Property Taxes

• Drain on public resources

• Blight on neighborhood

• Attracts speculators




, p pMagnitude of crisis

Approx. 50,000 Parcels in PublicParcels in Public Ownership


SOURCE: Surplus Public Land Data complied by HR&A through interviews and data collection from Detroit P&DD, DEGC, the Detroit Land Bank Authority, Detroit Public Schools, Wayne County Land Bank, MichiganLand Bank Fast Track Authority, and Detroit property assessment data. (data compiled in October and November 2010).



12,000 parcels auctioned due to tax foreclosure in September

, p pMagnitude of crisis

to tax foreclosure in September 2010

44% increase over September 2009 auctionSeptember 2009 auction

If current volume continues, 60,000 parcels will go to auction over next 5 years


SOURCE: Wayne County Treasurer's public auction (October 2010)


1.2 Systemic Challengesy gPerceived problems

Limited market or economic purposeLimited market or economic purpose

Some processes encourage speculation

Other processes have onerous approvals

Lack of financial and staff capacity



1.2 Systemic Challengesy gUnacceptable outcomes

Poor maintenance Speculation with no i t tinvestment

T d li ft Auction of land Tax delinquency after sale targeted for

redevelopment



1.2 Systemic Challengesy gPrimary obstacle

A il bl P d tiAvailable Public Land

Productive Economic UsePublic Land Economic Use



1.2 Systemic Challengesy gNeed for vision

Comprehensive land development strategy must guide a coordinated public disposition process.p p




1.2 Systemic Challengesy gNeed for mission alignment

Agency missions and capacity must align with land goals and with the scale of the g y p y g gcrisis.

DLBADetroit Land Bank

Authority



1.3 Role within TeamChallenges shape our role

112

Comprehensively define vision for public land use.

Identify parcel uses consistent with vision.23 Identify required roles to accomplish variety of parcel uses.

Identify parcel uses consistent with vision.




112


Identify parcel uses consistent with vision.2 Identify parcel uses consistent with vision. Permanent new use

Private redevelopment Economic development Community development

Amenity Transitional Use Land bank and inventory

3 Identify required roles to accomplish variety of parcel uses

Land bank and inventory


3 Identify required roles to accomplish variety of parcel uses.



112


Identify parcel uses consistent with vision.23

Identify parcel uses consistent with vision.

Identify required roles to accomplish variety of parcel uses.

Organizer of ongoing surplus properties disposition Organizer of economic development Organizer of community development goals Long‐term land holder Others?


2. METHODOLOGY


PUBLIC LAND DISPOSITION POLICIES AND PROCEDURESMETHODOLOGY

2.1 Data Collection and ApproachppMethodology

Background i l i

Interviews with public entities and

Evaluation of primary i l /material review public entities and

policy experts materials/property inventories



2.1 Data Collection and ApproachppSources

Interviews Primary Materials

• Malika Heath, Detroit Vacant Properties Campaign, Community Legal Resources (CLR)

• Michael Brady, CLR• Sam Butler, CLR• Jane Tigan CLR

• Detroit Land Bank Draft Business Plan, 2010‐2011• Detroit Public School Real Estate Inventory• Detroit Public Schools, Real Estate Department Policy and Procedures

• State of Michigan Land Bank Fast Track Authority• Jane Tigan, CLR• Steve Bancroft, Detroit Office of Foreclosure Prevention and Response

• Tammy Dean, Detroit Public Schools• Khalilah Burt Gaston, Michigan State Land BankD Kild C t f C it P

• State of Michigan Land Bank Fast Track Authority, Guidelines: Policy and Procedures for Property Acquisition and Disposition

• Community Legal Resources, Vacant Property Legal Manual, I&II

• Community Legal Resources Vacant Property• Dan Kildee, Center for Community Progress• Amy Hovey, Center for Community Progress• Ron Markoe, Detroit Planning and Development Department (P&DD)

• Malik Goodman, Detroit Economic Growth C ti (DEGC)

Community Legal Resources, Vacant Property Toolbox, 2nd Edition

• Intergovernmental Agreement between the Michigan Land Bank fast Track Authority and the City of Detroit creating the Detroit Land Bank Authority

Corporation (DEGC)• Sharon Moore, Detroit Water and Sewerage Department (DWSD)

• Aundra Wallace, Detroit Land Bank Authority (DLBA) • Jano Hannah, Wayne County Land Bank (WCLB)


• Darryl Lattimer, Detroit Water and Sewerage Department (DWSD)


2.1 Data Collection and Approach

Secondary Research Materials Secondary Research Materials

ppSources

• Alan Mallach_Restoring Problem Properties‐A Guide to New Jersey's Abandoned Property Tools

• Alan Mallach‐National Housing Institute_MayorsResource Guide on Vacant and Abandoned Propertiesl ll h l

• HousingPolicy.org_Facilitate Reuse of Abandoned, Vacant, and Tax‐Delinquent Properties

• HousingPolicy.org_Reducing barriers for land disposition of publically owned land for affordable homes.

h b d d l• Alan Mallach‐National Housing Institute_RestoringNeighborhoods, Rebuilding Markets

• Brookings_Vacant Land in Cities‐an Urban Resource_200012

• Detroit Vacant Properties Campaign_VacantP ti T lb

• James Cohen_Abandoned Housing‐Exploring Lessons from Baltimore

• Lincoln Inst. Land Policy_Challenges in reusing vacant, abandoned and contaminated properties_200904Li l I t L d P li U b t l dProperties Toolbox

• Frank Alexander_A guide for the creation and operation of local land banks_2005

• Larry Keating and David Sjoquist_Emerging Policy regarding Tax Delinquent Properties

h ll d

• Lincoln Inst. Land Policy_Urban vacant land‐challenges and progress_2001

• Lincoln Inst. Land Policy_Vacant and abandoned property‐remedies for acquisition and development_2005M t D Di iti f P bli L d 200902• Margaret Dewar Challenges in Reusing Vacant Land

• US Conference of Mayors_Combating Problems of Vacant Land and Abandoned Properties_27 Best Practices

• UMich‐Jessica de Wit_Revitalizing Blighted C iti ith L d B k

• Margaret Dewar_Disposition of Public Land_200902• Margaret Dewar_Selling Tax‐Reverted Land_2006• Nandini Bhaskara Rao and Margaret Dewar_Streamlining acquisition of city‐owned land for affordable housing_2004ULI Di iti f l d i D P bli


Communities with Land Banks• University of Michigan_Harnessing Community Assets‐A Detroit Land Bank Authority_200404

• ULI_Disposition of excess land in Denver Public School system


2.2 Missing Datag

Missing Resources Secondary Research Materials

• County Treasurer’s Office property inventory and agency policies

• Refined DEGC property database• Expansion/clarification of P&DD property data:

Distin tion bet een s rpl s and a ti e properties

• Cont. .

• Distinction between surplus and active properties• Information regarding built structures or current occupancy

• P&DD data update from December 2010 not yet incorporated


3. EXISTING CONDITIONS & TRENDS


PUBLIC LAND DISPOSITION POLICIES AND PROCEDURESEXISTING CONDITIONS & TRENDS

3.0 Public Land and Owning EntitiesgSummary Takeaways

1 P&DD controls 84% of surplus publicly owned property1. P&DD controls 84% of surplus publicly owned property

2. Land Banks have critical quiet title & lien clearance authorities, but are least integrated into ownership chain or redevelopment planningg p p p g

3. Without unified vision for land or system for coordinating redevelopment, disparate missions, authorities, procedures & sale criteria across multiple public owners

li bl d d l ffcomplicate assemblage and redevelopment efforts.

4. Assemblage will be key: of the 47,200 surplus public parcels, approximately 95% are <10 000 sf Small size is even more characteristic of vacant parcels<10,000 sf. Small size is even more characteristic of vacant parcels.

5. Approximately 10% of public land is improved; occupancy is largely unknown


6. Vast majority – 83% ‐‐ of vacant or improved public land is residential.


3.1 Current System of Land Holdersy

LAND BANKS COUNTY CITY/LOCALLAND BANKS COUNTY CITY/LOCAL

Planning & DevelopmentMichigan State Land Bank County Treasurer

Planning & Development Department

Wayne County Land Bank Detroit Public Schools

DLBA

Detroit Land Bank Authority Economic Growth Corporation

Detroit Land Bank Authority



3.2 The Land OwnersProperty sources The source of properties in each entity’s portfolio – particularly foreclosed v. surplus ‐‐ reflects and

dictates everything from mission, to disposition procedures and goals, to pricing policy.

Tax Foreclosure


Authority

Tax Foreclosure

Agency Surplus

Targeted gAcquisition


Contribution


3.2 The Land OwnersReal estate mission Entities dealing with foreclosed properties focus on economic & community development; entities

dealing with surplus property focus on reducing costs/generating revenue. P&DD does both.

Reduce Costs


Authority

Reduce Costs & Liability

GenerateGenerate Revenue

Large‐Scale Economic Development


Community –scale Development

3.2 The Land Owners


Real estate mission Entities with same statutory authority interpret their responsibilities and structure their services in different ways.

DLBADLBADetroit Land Bank

Authority

Community Redevelopment

Economic Development

Development Incentive



3.2 The Land OwnersDisposition process Most land holders dispose of land or have the ability to dispose of land through a negotiated process. The

Treasurer’s office – the first line in foreclosure – is the major exception. It is required to dispose via auction.

Auction/


Authority

Public bid

Negotiated/Negotiated/ Competitive RFP

Programs (Side Lot; Garden for Growth; Project S d)


Saved)

* County Land Bank has minimal land holdings for disposition


3.2 The Land OwnersForeclosure & auction process

1 T D li t P ti t f d t t f ll ti

2 C t T f l t

1. Tax Delinquent Properties transferred to county for collection

3 Rights of first refusal granted (at the greater of Minimum Bid or FMV)

2. County Treasurer forecloses on property

4 A ctions

3. Rights of first refusal granted (at the greater of Minimum Bid or FMV)

a. State b. City c. County

4. Auctions Auction #1: Minimum Bid = taxes owed Auction #2: Minimum Bid = $500


5. City can opt to acquire at no charge (P&DD)


3.2 The Land OwnersPricing policy Most public land holders have flexibility in their ability to set property values. Treasurer’s Office is again the exception.

Entities with mission other than community or economic development prioritize sales revenue maximization upon disposition of surplus assets.


Authority

Min AuctionMin Auction Bids by Statute*

“Market” Value

Flexibility


* Confirming statutory basis


3.2 The Land OwnersRegulatory authority The Land Banks possess the most significant redevelopment powers of public land holders. Recent state

legislation eliminates all power of eminent domain for economic development.

Quiet Title


Authority

Quiet Title

EminentEminent Domain for Econ Dev

Clearance of Liens



3.2 The Land OwnersDisposition approvals Disposition by City agencies – specifically P&DD – requires City Council approval.

Director/


Authority

Director/Executive Approval

Board Approval

City Council l


Approval


3.2 The Land OwnersFunding sources Land Banks receive 50% of tax increment from redeveloped land over 5 years. Wayne County Land Bank is

supported by County General Fund, redirecting most tax increments to incentivize private development.

County/City


Authority

General Fund

Land Disposition

Tax Increment

Private Philanthropy


Public Grants/ Programs


3.3 The Land Owners: TakeawaysyMichigan Land Bank Fast Track Authority

Opportunities • Statutory authority to quiet title and clear liens• MLBFTA policy to facilitate redevelopment through

flexible pricing• Increased interest at policy level in taking active roleIncreased interest at policy level in taking active role

in redevelopment projects in Detroit• Stable funding through large land sales after initial

land bank formation and ongoing tax recapturethrough property sales

Challenges • Property is not retained at local level• MLBFTA interested in reducing large volume of land

holdings in preference of more targeted acquisitionsas tax foreclosure portfolio dwindles (owns taxp (foreclosed properties from before tax foreclosurereform in the late 1990’s)



3.3 The Land Owners: TakeawaysyWayne County Land Bank

Opportunities • Statutory authority to quiet title and clear liens• Secure funding through the County’s general fund

and the land bank program’s tax recapture

Challenges • Reports to County Executive, not the Treasurer’sOffice. Structure has influenced definition of missionto provide development incentives for economicdevelopment rather than act as a long‐term landsteward for properties in need of redevelopment



3.3 The Land Owners: TakeawaysyDetroit Land Bank Authority

DLBAOpportunities • Statutory authority to quiet title and clear liens• Organizational mission to support redevelopment of

underutilized properties and enhance themaintenance and management of properties without


Authoritymaintenance and management of properties withoutimmediate redevelopment potential

• Access to tax recapture from future property sales

Challenges • Many sources of potential funding but no consistentgand sustainable funding source identified

• Small current portfolio of properties• Uncertainty around DBLA’s desired role in

maintenance/management and redevelopment alarge portfoliog p



3.3 The Land Owners: TakeawaysyWayne County Treasurer’s Office

Opportunities • Administrator of tax delinquency and foreclosureprocess for Detroit and the County and as such:

• Recipient of fines related to tax delinquencies• First opportunity to retain key valuableFirst opportunity to retain key valuable

properties

Challenges • City of Detroit has opted to regain control of taxforeclosed properties within its jurisdiction,separating the maintenance and management needsfrom the revenues of the tax delinquency system

• Does not have statutory authorities of land bank solimited ability to enhance redevelopment potentialof sites



3.3 The Land Owners: TakeawaysyDetroit Planning and Development Department

Opportunities • Has opted to regain control of majority of Detroit taxforeclosed properties not purchased at auction so isthe largest land holder

• Driver of City’s planning goals and thus increasedDriver of City s planning goals and thus increasedability to marry redevelopment of public land tocommunity and large‐scale planning and economicdevelopment initiatives

Challenges • Has budgetary constraints and limited staff capacityto maintain and manage vast portfolio to idealstandard of care

• Each disposition requires City Council approvalslowing process and increasing redevelopment andg p g passemblage hurdles



3.3 The Land Owners: TakeawaysyDetroit Public Schools

Opportunities • The Detroit Public Schools has a growing portfolio oflarge surplus sites due to the decline in the City’spopulation

• Many sites are larger than the average publicly‐Many sites are larger than the average publiclyowned parcels because of their history ofinstitutional use

Challenges • DPS’s financial condition has required that theygprioritize land sale or lease revenue above economicdevelopment potential of their sites; this hasresulted in:

• Sale prices to be set at market valuerequirementsq

• Limited coordination with other public entitiesregarding sales in preference of rapid sale/lease



3.3 The Land Owners: TakeawaysyDetroit Economic Growth Corporation

Opportunities • DEGC operates the City’s development authoritiesgiving it redevelopment capabilities includingdevelopment functions and access to specializedfinancing toolsfinancing tools

• Acquisitions are targeted for specific economicdevelopment projects limiting extensivemaintenance costs

• The entity has been successful in coordinating long‐term large scale redevelopment initiatives such asterm, large‐scale redevelopment initiatives such asthe I‐94 Industrial Park

Challenges • Limited experience as a long‐term land manager ofresidentially‐zoned properties – focus has been ony p plarge‐scale commercial projects



3.4 The Public Land47,203 surplus parcels in public ownership

Publicly‐owned parcels: 47,203Publicly owned acreage: ~12 000 acresPublicly‐owned acreage: ~12,000 acres% of city land: ~13%

Parcels Include:• City, County, State & Land Bank• Former public uses• Tax foreclosed property• Vacant or improved

**All subsequent references to publicly owned land indicates surplus public property




3.4 The Public LandContinued data refinement is necessary

Data collection was intended to exclude active public sites but some active city parcels are stillpublic sites but some active city parcels are still included.

1,230 parcels (>3%) could not be identified in the mapping process.

Wayne County Treasurer data is pulled from the Assessors data and potentially incomplete.

P&DD data update from December 2010 is not pyet incorporated into this data set and subsequent maps



3.4 The Public Land


P&DD controls approximately 85% of parcels.

# f l % f t t l# of parcels % of totalAll Public Owners 45,970 100%P&DD 38,461 84%DPS 198 0%DEGC 30 0%DLBA 7 0%WCLB 67 0%Wayne CountyTreasurer 23 0%MI LAND BANK 7,184 16%,




3.4 The Public LandIndividual agency ownership records provide additional detail on property status

Availability for disposition

SizeSize

Land use

Vacant or improved

Occupied status

Planning status


Planning status


3.4 The Public Land92% of the property is identified as immediately available

# f l % f t t l# of parcels % of totalAvailability 45,970 100%Available for sale 42,301 92%Not Available/In use or sold 3,206 7%In disposition pipeline 369 1%Unknown 94 0%



3.4 The Public Land


The majority of the parcels are under 10,000 SF



3.4 The Public Land


The majority of the parcels are under 10,000 SF, whereas the acreage is concentrated in a few large sites

• Most publicly‐owned parcels are under

0 – 3,000 SF 3,000 SF –10,000 SF

10,000 SF –0.5 acre

1 – 3 acres 3+ acres

p y p10,000 SF

• Small portion of City lots are very large represent over 50% of total acreage but may be eliminated as data is refined

• Many parks100%

0.5 – 1 acre

• Many parks• Some industrial sites

• Average parcel size: 0.24 acres

70%

80%

90%

7%)

cres (5

8%)

50%

60%

70%

19%)

35,000

parcels (77

res (28

%)

6,80

0 ac

20%

30%

40%

9,00

0 parcels (1

cres (4

%)

3,30

0 acr

cels (2%)

es (2

%)

cels (1%)

es (2

%)

cels (1%)

cres (5

%)

cels (1%)


0%

10%

510 ac

800 parc

275 acre

280 parc

200 acre

350 parc

625 a

325 parc


3.4 The Public Land


Residential properties dominate the public portfolio

# f l % f t t l# of parcels % of totalLand Use 45,970 100%

Residential 37,960 83%Commercial, Retail, Office 3,299 7%Office 3,299 7%Mixed Use 517 1%Industrial 2,974 6%Parking 18 0%Public / Institutional 17 0%PlannedPlanned Development District 714 2%Parks / Open Space 52 0%Residential 419 1%Commercial, Retail, Office 37,960 83%Mixed Use 3,299 7%


SOURCE: Surplus Public Land Data complied by HR&A through interviews and data collection from Detroit P&DD, DEGC, the Detroit Land Bank Authority, Detroit Public Schools, Wayne County Land Bank, MichiganLand Bank Fast Track Authority, and Detroit property assessment data. (data compiled in October and November 2010). Land Use data from P&DD.

3.4 The Public Land


Vacant land for redevelopment is under both public and private ownership

Land for Redevelopment

PUBLICTax Foreclosed

Surplus Public Parcels

PRIVATEMortgage Foreclosed

Abandoned or Under‐UtilizedSurplus Public Parcels Abandoned or Under Utilized


Improved Vacant Vacant Improved

3.4 The Public Land


41,864 publicly-owned vacant parcels

SEMCOG data identifies large portion of the publicly owned land as vacant:publicly‐owned land as vacant:

91% of available publicly owned properties are vacant parcels


SOURCE: Surplus Public Land Data complied by HR&A through interviews and data collection from Detroit P&DD, DEGC, the Detroit Land Bank Authority, Detroit Public Schools, Wayne County Land Bank, MichiganLand Bank Fast Track Authority, and Detroit property assessment data. (data compiled in October and November 2010). Supplemented with vacancy data from P&DD and SEMCOG.

3.4 The Public Land


100,719 vacant parcels throughout the city (public and private)

Citywide Vacant Parcels: 100,719Citywide Vacant Parcel AreaCitywide Vacant Parcel Area10,950 acres = 12.3% of city area

Publicly‐owned parcels represent 42% of this citywide vacancy and amount to 5,900 acres (55% of total vacant acres and 6.6% of city area)


SOURCE: Detroit Planning and Development Department (P&DD), SEMCOG

3.4 The Public Land


90% of the publicly owned parcels are vacant

Both total parcels and acreage of publicly-owned vacant land is overwhelmingly in smaller increments

100%

90% of the publicly owned parcels are vacantaccording to SEMCOG data on citywide vacancyyet they only represents 50% of the publiclyowned acreage in the city.

The vast majority (98%) of vacant parcels are small

0 – 3,000 SF 3,000 SF –10,000 SF

10,000 SF –0.5 acre

1 – 3 acres 3+ acres0.5 – 1 acre

70%

80%

90%

The vast majority (98%) of vacant parcels are smallproperties under 10,000 SF

Compared to publicly‐owned land generally: Themajority of the parcels are under 10,000 SF similar

8%)

50%)

50%

60%

70% to the vacant public sites but, the acreage isconcentrated in a few large sites mainly parks andindustrial sites that are not vacant.

20%)

32,500

parcels (78

3,00

0 acres (5

acres (30

%)

20%

30%

40%

8,40

0 parcels (2

acres (8%

)

cels (2%)

es (3

%)

cels (0%)

es (2

%)

cels (0%)

cres (4

%)

cels (0%)

1,90

0


0%

10% 485

630 parc

200 acre

150 parc

100 acre

150 parc

250 a

110 parc


3.4 The Public Land


Remaining 9% of property likely contains structures but public entity data is incomplete

# f l % f t t l# of parcels % of totalImprovements 45,970 100%Improved property/contains structure 745 2%Vacant property 6,618 14%Unknown 38,607 84%



3.4 The Public Land


Similar unknowns exist regarding the occupancy of the structures

# f l % f t t l# of parcels % of totalUtilization 45,970 100%Occupied 16 0%Closed/abandoned 6,681 15%Leased 9 0%Unknown 39,264 85%



3.4 The Public Land


DEGC efforts to assemble are evident in some locations

I‐94 Industrial Park

Paradise Valley Cultural andEntertainment District

East Riverfront District Plan

Springwells Industrial Park


SOURCE: Surplus Public Land Data complied by HR&A through interviews and data collection from Detroit P&DD, DEGC, the Detroit Land Bank Authority, Detroit Public Schools, Wayne County Land Bank, MichiganLand Bank Fast Track Authority, and Detroit property assessment data. (data compiled in October and November 2010). Supplemented with planning data from DEGC

3.4 The Public Land


Summary of Publicly-Owned Property Types

# of parcels % of total

P t TProperty TypePublicly‐owned land (total) 47,200 100%Publicly‐owned land (mapped) 45,970 97%

Vacant public land 41,864 91%Residential (< 0.5 acres) 34,777 76%Residential (0.5 acres to 3 acres) 90 0%Residential (3 acres+) 51 0%Other (< 0.5 acres) 6,689 15%Other (0.5 acres to 3 acres) 201 0%( ) %Other (3 acres+) 56 0%

Improved public land 4,106 9%Residential (< 0.5 acres) 2,772 6%Residential (0 5 acres to 3 acres) 149 0%Residential (0.5 acres to 3 acres) 149 0%Residential (3 acres+) 121 0%Other (< 0.5 acres) 778 2%Other (0.5 acres to 3 acres) 188 0%Other (3 acres+) 98 0%



4. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS


4.1 Opportunities/Strengths/Challenges

PUBLIC LAND DISPOSITION POLICIES AND PROCEDURESPRELIMINARY FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS

pp g gPreliminary implications

Majority of current and future surplus holdings are tax foreclosed properties,

At Treasurer’s:

passed from County Treasurer to P&DD

At Treasurer s:Subject to AuctionNo Clear Title

At P&DD:Public Review for DispositionPublic Review for DispositionFlexible Bid Policies



4.1 Opportunities/Strengths/Challengespp g gProcedural challenges

Foreclosed property goes to auction first, fueling speculationp p y g , g p

Land Banks have strong statutory authorities, but not integrated into ownership h ichain

• Wayne County Land Bank does not define redevelopment/stewardship as its mission

• Detroit Land Bank would need to acquire property through City

Only informal communication between agencies regarding land redevelopmentOnly informal communication between agencies regarding land redevelopment goals



4.1 Opportunities/Strengths/Challengespp g gOverall challenges

No clarity of mission for citywide land developmenty y p

Maintenance of city holdings already costs over $2,000/parcel; lack of i t t t i t t tiappropriate resources to support maintenance, management, preparation

and disposition at required and growing scale

Lack of an appropriate allocation of responsibilities to best utilize existing authority and capability

Quantity of surplus public land available vastly exceeds options for productive economic use


SOURCE: Management costs from “World’s Largest Urban Farm Slated for Detroit” in The Epoch Times by Evan Mantyk on July 12, 2010 (http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/39042/); continuing to refine number.


4.1 Opportunities/Strengths/Challengespp g gOpportunities

Many of the regulatory capabilities are in placey g y p p

Detroit Land Bank presents new opportunities

Market constraints may derail minimum value criteria

Crisis moment is mobilizing public and agencies for change



4.2 PrioritiesNext steps

Expand Assessment of Land Holdingsp gWhich parcels are surplus rather than in active public use?Of those available for development, what is the size breakdown?Wh t i th i b kd ?What is the zoning breakdown?What is the condition (vacant, improved, occupied, etc)?How are these factors distributed across property owners?What can we learn about assemblage opportunities and challenges?

Explore Best PracticesExplore Best PracticesWhat are the assets and limitations of the current public ownership

structure?


What case studies offer advice for policy and procedure adjustments?


4.2 Priorities

How do we achieve it?

What do we want to accomplish?

Target utilization should drive process rationalization

achieve it?Team must define utilization

• What is the economic reuse of the

p

• What is each entity’s role in achieving future land utilization as defined by the Strategic Framework?

What is the economic reuse of the public land holdings?

• Residential?• Public amenities? • Citywide economic drivers?

• How can the disposition process be tailored for different end uses?

h d

• Citywide economic drivers?

• What is the expected pace of development?


• What resources are necessary and available? • What do we do in the interim?

policy audit: public land disposition policies and procedures

Documents

draftfinal december22

surplus public land

p p magnitude of crisis

p p objectives priorities

wayne county land bank

detroit public schools

systemic challenges

team challenges