You are viewing this article in the AnnArbor.com archives. For the latest breaking news and updates in Ann Arbor and the surrounding area, see MLive.com/ann-arbor
Posted on Sun, Jul 11, 2010 : 6 a.m.

Washtenaw County commissioners reconsider land bank

By Tom Perkins

Washtenaw County’s Board of Commissioners have revived a proposed land bank that would give the county additional options for dealing with the continued wave of property foreclosures. The board had voted to dissolve the short-lived land bank in March over funding and other issues.

The board, meeting as the Ways and Means committee, this past Wednesday voted to send forward a motion supporting the re-establishment of the Washtenaw County Land Bank Authority. But it omitted language on funding until basic questions on how a land bank will be governed are answered.

Although the vote was 9-2 to approve the motion, many commissioners expressed a desire to have a clearer plan in place and they want to see how a governing body might look at their Aug. 4 meeting.

County Treasurer Catherine McClary said there were 26 foreclosures in 2008, 106 last year, and 515 this year. Her office currently has 391 properties it must auction off to the highest bidder starting this month.

The land bank was originally established last July at McClary's urging to take possession of some of those properties and resell them. Bylaws and a draft of policies had been written, but many basic questions remained unanswered, including how the program would be funded.

When the issues came in front of the county board in March, commissioners opted instead to dissolve the land bank.

McClary conceded the process was rushed and feels she failed to fully inform the board of how a land bank could help the county.

“I did a poor job of explaining the benefits of a land bank,” she said. “By preventing blight and by managing abandoned property, you can increase or stabilize property value in surrounding properties. I think the communities, especially in eastern Washtenaw County, now see the value in that and I think they have conveyed it to the board.”

McClary said a land bank can receive tax breaks, qualify for brownfield credits, apply for bank loans, arrange rent-to-own agreements with homeowners who have foreclosed on their homes and sell sidelots.

“Land banks can do a lot of things and have a lot of special tools that are built into sate law,” she said.

Though the board voted 9-2 to approve the motion - Leah Gunn and Barbara Bergman voted against it - commissioners raised a number of issues in the nearly hour-and-a-half discussion.

Among the primary concerns was funding.

McClary proposed a dedicated source of funding through revenue collected on foreclosures. When a property turns delinquent, an interest rate of 1 percent per month is applied to the parcel and credited to the county’s delinquent tax revolving fund. That money is earmarked for foreclosure prevention.

Once a property is in foreclosure, state law adds another .5 percent, which McClary suggested as the base funding source. That arrangement would have provided an estimated $668,000 this year.

Several commissioners pointed out that figure is insufficient to run a land bank, but McClary said additional revenues are available through grants, bank loans, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Michigan State Housing Development Authority and foundation funding.

The land bank also receives revenue from the sale of property. Rolland Sizemore said representatives from Ypsilanti Township and Superior Township had discussed ideas for providing their own funds at a meeting earlier in the day.

Commissioners also raised concerns about the cost of running a land bank. Among those costs are acquiring a property, its maintenance, rehabilitation and demolishment. McClary estimated demolishing a home at $10,000 and said the price of acquiring a home could range anywhere from $1 to tens of thousands of dollars for bigger properties.

Gunn said those figures could be much higher.

“I think the land bank is in going to get itself into a whole lot of trouble,” she said, pointing to problems the Genesee County Land Bank is having with owning thousands of foreclosed properties in Flint.

McClary said the land bank could pick and choose which properties it acquires, and the bulk of those would likely be tax foreclosures, not mortgage foreclosures. She also pointed out that tax foreclosures are spread throughout the county, while the majority of mortgage foreclosures are in the county’s eastern half.

Conan Smith fully supported further re-exploring the concept.

“My personal preference would be to move forward with governance, allow the strategy to develop and then, at a later date, decide if we want to fund it,” he said. “I think that strategy comes about when you have a board in place and a body empowered to begin that process.”


Kristin Judge pointed out that 76 percent of the county’s revenue comes from property value, and said the land bank could prove valuable.

“The treasurer has gone above and beyond to set up the land bank,” she said. “Let’s set it up, give them the appointed people, let’s do our part first, and if it doesn’t work, let’s say it doesn’t work.”

As the discussion came to a close, Gunn and Bergman were still not sold.

“I’m having trouble voting for a shell,” Bergman said. “To put an organization out there with no funds is creating a shell, and that sounds quite political to me. I can’t vote for an organization that is a shell.”

During public comment, Ypsilanti Township Clerk Karen Lovejoy-Roe blasted Bergman for a phone conversation they had earlier in the day in which Bergman had indicated she was not inclined to help out Ypsilanti Township through the land bank.

Lovejoy-Roe said Bergman told her 'You're not going to like what I have to say, but, frankly, I don't want to do anything to help Ypsilanti Township.' Lovejoy-Roe said Bergman then brought up the township's lawsuit against the county told her to bring a check for $500,000 to the meeting to cover costs.

Bergman confirmed she did ask Lovejoy-Roe to bring a check. She said funding is not available for a land bank, and Ypsilanti Township had depleted $1 million of the county's and their own funds on legal costs. She said Lovejoy-Roe did not express concern for the county's housing situation as a whole, but solely for Ypsilanti Township.

"I was not particularly pleasant to her, and I was probably less pleasant than I should have been. But I'm going to stand by the fact that my sympathy for Ypsilanti Township is quite limited," she said.

Tom Perkins is a freelance writer for AnnArbor.com. Reach the news desk at news@annarbor.com or 734-623-2530.

Comments

Captain Magnificent

Mon, Jul 26, 2010 : 9:46 p.m.

This whole darn state is hopping mad. Land Bank? As opposed to what... an Air Bank? A Sea Bank? Of course it's a land bank. ALL BANKS ARE LAND BANKS, PEOPLE! The "Land" part is redundant, you don't need to say it. It's like saying Airplane, Ice Cold, dripping wet, or sky high... completely UNNECESSARY! I swear, sometimes I think I'm the only one left with any darn sense these days.

Speechless

Mon, Jul 12, 2010 : 4 p.m.

A thank-you to the County Commissioners for taking steps to develop a positive regional response to the housing crisis. While the County can't fix the root causes of the national housing collapse, it can make a contribution locally by seeking to alleviate symptoms where it can. The ongoing crisis is among history's more stunning examples of failure in minimally-regulated "free markets," and a well-run, county-wide land bank lessens the painful aftermath in our region and also helps prevent the further spread of damage.

TooT

Sun, Jul 11, 2010 : 3:59 p.m.

@ BenWoodruff "Ypsi Township has discretionary funds for a land bank? I thought that they had to reduce employee hours to 32 and cut fire department positions (without layoffs) because they were in financial problems?" Yes Ben the township also is donating land to build a boathouse for Saline and EMU. We must be just rolling in dough!! Hey let's cut some more fire, police, garbage pick-up services. Anything to help out poor ole' broke EMU who is in perpetual construction year round.

Kristin Judge

Sun, Jul 11, 2010 : 3:17 p.m.

Thanks Bob Beckley for your comments about the Genesee Land Bank. Land Banks can work, and we need to do everything we can as a County Board to keep property values up. As I said in the board meeting, we need to give the Land Bank a chance. I trust the smart people who will make up the Authority board to work hard and make wise decisions. If it does not work, the Board of Commissioners has the right to disband it. This is not a time for political posturing.

Bob Beckley

Sun, Jul 11, 2010 : 11:51 a.m.

It is unfortunate Gunn is not better informed. The Genesee County Land Bank is not having "problems". It is financially solvent and independent of the County's coffers. It operates 10 programs including rehabilitation of abandoned property, supporting community gardens, demolishing derelict buildings and other activities that help to preserve neighborhoods. Most importantly it keeps property from falling into the hands of speculators, not your next door neighbors, but gamblers from California, Florida and other remote places looking for a diamond in the rough. When they discover they can't unload these properties they don't pay their taxes and the property goes back into the foreclosure cycle. There goes the neighborhood at great cost to the entire community. If you want to be truly informed about the Genesee County Land Bank, a national model for land bank operation, go to it's web site

Tom Perkins

Sun, Jul 11, 2010 : 11:28 a.m.

tlb1201, Copied from the article: McClary said the land bank could pick and choose which properties it acquires, and the bulk of those would likely be tax foreclosures, not mortgage foreclosures. She also pointed out that tax foreclosures are spread throughout the county, while the majority of mortgage foreclosures are in the countys eastern half.

tlb1201

Sun, Jul 11, 2010 : 10:48 a.m.

We are talking about TAX foreclosures here. Please call them "tax foreclosures" up-front in the article, not simply "foreclosures". That is misleading and almost appears contrived to garner sympathy support for the land bank. The land bank should not deal with foreclosures by lenders. That is speculative and is unnecessary I don't believe a land bank is necessary. Market trends indicate that foreclosures in general have likely peaked. By McClary's own numbers, this year's tax foreclosures are three quarters of last year's. There are signs of stability coming about in the real estate market. Listings and inventories are down and sales are up. It's very likely that the market can absorb these properties without additional intervening government bureaucracy. We will all be much better off getting properties quickly into new private ownership that will pay taxes, not languishing in non-taxable government-owned inventory. Government is not usually an efficient investor when it comes to speculative ownership. That's what this is, speculation by the government using tax-paid dollars put at risk. Gambling on other people's (additional source's) money. So if they go ahead and explore the why's and why not's of the land bank, they had better come up with some pretty convincing reasons. Otherwise, it looks like more bureaucracy and more net cost to the taxpayers for the sake of expanding a local politician's job description. Yes, Lovejoy-Rowe and Ypsilanti Township are in a financial pickle. But please don't ask me to bail them out. They spent themselves into it all by themselves.

BenWoodruff

Sun, Jul 11, 2010 : 9:14 a.m.

Ypsi Township has discretionary funds for a land bank? I thought that they had to reduce employee hours to 32 and cut fire department positions (without layoffs) because they were in financial problems?

BenWoodruff

Sun, Jul 11, 2010 : 9:12 a.m.

Ypsi Township has discretionary funds for a land bank? I thought that they had to reduce employee hours to 32 and cut fire department positions (without layoffs) because they were in financial problems?

Bones

Sun, Jul 11, 2010 : 9:01 a.m.

Maybe the banks who started a major protion of the problem should pay for this.

InsideTheHall

Sun, Jul 11, 2010 : 8:18 a.m.

This is not a role for government and frankly it is shocking how at the local levels they tend to claim that "additional revenues" is available (state/federal). Well this just in, the state and feds are broke plus that money is taxpayer money NOT "additional revenues". "Several commissioners pointed out that figure is insufficient to run a land bank, but McClary said additional revenues are available through grants, bank loans, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Michigan State Housing Development Authority and foundation funding."

Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball

Sun, Jul 11, 2010 : 7:38 a.m.

1) Land is always high risk - just ask any developer in the county. Who pays the taxes on County owned property anyways? 2) The County should cut every dollar it can muster to lower taxes. 3) How about unified Zoning throughout the county? 4) Less assets = less costs. 5) Fix the Bridge. 6) Cut salaries.