Metro Jacksonville

Land Banking is being used to eliminate blight from several northern cities and counties-- places which have lost density & jobs --first from the loss of industry and finally from the economic and foreclosure crises. 

With certain fundamental changes, the concept of Land Banking could also preserve Springfield, if thoughtfully crafted and carefully run.



In 2009 HUD embraced land banking as a "best practice" in dealing with the real estate market crash and the foreclosure crisis.

Land Banking as defined by:


A land bank is a public authority created to efficiently hold, manage and develop tax-foreclosed property.(1) Land banks act as a legal and financial mechanism to transform vacant, abandoned and tax-foreclosed property back to productive use. Generally, land banks are funded by local governments' budgets or the management and disposition of tax-foreclosed property.(2) In addition, a land bank is a powerful locational incentive, which encourages redevelopment in older communities that generally have little available land and neighborhoods that have been blighted by an out-migration of residents and businesses.(3) While a land bank provides short-term fiscal benefits, it can also act as a tool for planning long-term community development. Successful land bank programs revitalize blighted neighborhoods and direct reinvestment back into these neighborhoods to support their long-term community vision.

http://www.umich.edu/~econdev/landbank/

It is a tragedy that whole scale demolitions are part of Land Banking Northern-style.  That plan cannot (of course) fly here in Jacksonville.  One wonders where are the preservationists in Genesee County?

Be that as it may, looking at the land banking process, we can take some lessons and develop a plan to place our neglected historic properties (and those properties eligible for historic status -- ie. older than 50 years).

The scary thing about landbanking is most of those northern cities are simply demolishing the properties they acquire. Most of those places look a hot mess waiting for redevelopment on a grand scale that will never come.  As someone said in another discussion board (SSP), you can't out-suburb the suburbs.  I think a lot of changes would need to happen with COJ for a landbanking strategy of rehabbing existing buildings to be successful locally.

Nevertheless, I've been looking into how Chicago uses NSP funds for neighborhoods similar to Springfield and Durkeeville.

http://www.chicagonsp.org/index.html

Having the opportunity to walk through Logan Square two months ago, I'd say whatever they are doing is working. Btw, is there a similar COJ website for how our NSP funds are being used?

Random Logan Square
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/Chicago-2013/i-BstrjTC/0/M/P1670362-M.jpg)

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/Chicago-2013/i-PQ9DQ2G/0/M/P1670379-M.jpg)

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/Chicago-2013/i-5GghSkP/0/M/P1670391-M.jpg)

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/Chicago-2013/i-8Wm5JRR/0/M/P1670405-M.jpg)

The ultimate goal for land banking in Springfield would be to protect the neglected historic homes.  In order to do that, these steps would have to be taken.

1.) MOTHBALLED:  the property would have to be mothballed to protect it from whatever happens next.  An important component of this would be adding those properties which are 50 years or older but not currently in a historic district to the mothball eligibility list.  This would help the Eastside, Durkeeville, North Springfield.

2.) FINE REMOVAL:  those effin' rolling fines pollute the title -- make it impossible to get financing -- penalize the owner and all subsequent owners -- makes it blooming IMPOSSIBLE to even GIVE a property away.  So the rolling fine removal takes mothballing a step further and removes all rolling fines once the property has achieved mothball status.  Remember that the rolling fines are an attempt to remove blight.   

3.) GET RID OF DIRTY DEEDS:  clean up the title.  Some houses in Springfield are so fouled in probate and deed issues that prospective buyers faint in frustration

4.) PAY OFF BACK TAXES:  Use city funds to pay off the back taxes with the understanding that once it is a viable structure, the city can re-coup those lost funds.  And while we are at it, adjust the property values to adequately reflect the value.

5.) GIVE IT AWAY:  Use a web site to list all properties, their progress, their challenges.  Develop a matrix to determine who the house should go to.  Gather a board of community members to review applications.  Involve the neighborhood as much as possible. 

6.) PROVIDE SUPPORT:  Have resources available to help with historic tax credits.  Use CDBG money to bring in more facade grants to the neighborhood.

Quote from: thelakelander on November 16, 2013, 11:47:29 AM
The scary thing about landbanking is most of those northern cities are simply demolishing the properties they acquire. Most of those places look a hot mess waiting for redevelopment on a grand scale that will never come.  As someone said in another discussion board (SSP), you can't out-suburb the suburbs.  I think a lot of changes would need to happen with COJ for a landbanking strategy of rehabbing existing buildings could be successful locally.

Nevertheless, I've been looking into how Chicago uses NSP funds for neighborhoods similar to Springfield and Durkeeville.

http://www.chicagonsp.org/index.html

Having the opportunity to walk through Logan Square two months ago, I'd say whatever they are doing is working. Btw, is there a similar COJ website for how our NSP funds are being used?

I share your concerns.

Interesting enough, COJ will have hell to pay regarding the NSP funds.  It is not in the fact that historic houses were demolished, but rather that they did not follow the guidelines for using the funds.  And perhaps just an important is the fact that they hide what they are doing.  Public Records requests are torture to get and this information should be readily available and is, in fact, required.

Under what circumstances should a house be "taken" from its owners?

Well, first of all, it seems as if once a condemned sign is posted on a house, it is essentially "taken" by the city.  The city has sucked out 75 % of its value when it slaps on the bright orange sticker.    Then a person needs to get permission to enter his own property (now remember that there is no clear checklist for condemning the property, nor is there a requirement that the condemnation should be specific -- one can just write "entire" on document).

And really scary stuff, the city can condemn for a broken window.

Has Jax rehabbed anything with NSP money?

We could start with the unsafe structures list. 

The owners could be contacted and given and opportunity to mothball their structures in return for a release from the accumulated rolling fines.  And given the assurance that the fines would be held at bay as long as the property remains mothballed.

After a period of time, say 6 months, if a COA application for mothballing isn't approved by the Historic Preservation Commission, the owner risks losing his property to a land bank.

Land banking as a concept makes me uncomfortable here, COJ is too greedy and politicized for this to work properly, it's one of those things that sounds good at first blush but won't work for reasons that will seem obvious later. I think they need to start with providing a rational and reasonable process to end rolling fines, and they need to substitute city-funded mothballing for demolition (which would actually save them money), and then call it a day.

One of the irksome things about COJ is that every proposed "solution" always involves punishing somebody or fucking with their property rights. I'm tired of that. A few of the landowners deserve it, but the vast majority are victims of MCCD run amok and exacerbated by a bad economy. What I don't like is that the way this will play out with COJ is step one of this suggestion will be "take their property, and then..." and I'm not comfortable with that. First, the practical concern, COJ almost always proves to be a worse landlord than anybody they complain about. Look at LaVilla. Second, the ethical one, this whole thing will just add insult to injury for a lot of people.

Lastly, with Springfield, most of these properties aren't actually abandoned like in areas where land banking actually works, and there is not a lack of demand by buyers, they've just been rendered economically unviable by COJ. This is an inappropriate solution to an artificially-created problem that COJ's bad policy decisions are responsible for in the first place.

Here's a pretty interesting look at how a few places are using federal funds to stablize certain areas of town. I guess Jax is currently utilizing a strategy similar to Detroit, except we don't see the importance of following the rules for some reason.

QuoteWhat Chicago can learn from other locales, and vice versa

Chicago is not alone in thinking about how to use NSP dollars to create affordable rentals and stabilize neighborhoods.

A spokesman for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, which administers the NSP, said funds are being applied differently in cities and counties across the country, according to each place's temperament. Some places – such as Detroit and Cuyahoga County, in Ohio – use demolition as a primary strategy for stabilizing communities. Other locales started off with a strategy that emphasized homeownership and have since shifted to more rental approaches.

In Milwaukee, for example, there is strong demand for affordable rental apartments. Between 400 and 500 rental units were created in Milwaukee using money from the second round of NSP, said Maria Prioletta, the city's redevelopment manager. She said because more units are at stake than with single-family home transactions, rehabbing apartments allows the city to have a strategic impact on particular neighborhoods.

Ditto for Pinellas County, Florida, which comprises St. Petersburg and Clearwater and has endured a large number of foreclosures in the past few years.

Anthony Jones, the county's community development director, said the housing crisis showed that homeownership isn't necessarily good for everyone, especially people of modest means.  So he and his colleagues have worked to acquire and rehab rental units as part of their evolving approach to using NSP funds.

When asked if he had any advice for Chicago as it embarks down this new path of creating rentals in concentrated areas, Jones said Chicago should consider putting properties in land trusts, which can impose rental price restrictions beyond the limits required by the NSP, and for longer periods of time.

Maybe, said Ludwig, but land trusts can also serve as a deterrent to potential investors. And, she said, rents are already low in the Chicago neighborhoods where the NSP is focused.

http://www.chicagonsp.org/news/1510

Chris,

If the mothball ordinance were changed to remove all accumulated rolling fines, that would accomplish a great deal, wouldn't it?

But what about the Tarpon owned properties?  How can they be encouraged to put their properties in the hands of people who will care for them?

And btw, I agree with everything you say regarding your concerns on land banking.

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on November 16, 2013, 12:01:32 PMLastly, with Springfield, most of these properties aren't actually abandoned like in areas where land banking actually works, and there is not a lack of demand by buyers, they've just been rendered economically unviable by COJ. This is an inappropriate solution to an artificially-created problem that COJ's bad policy decisions are responsible for in the first place.

I agree here.  It seems if COJ can get its act in order, there's already a market for revitalization. That's not the case in places like Detroit and Youngstown.

Quote from: thelakelander on November 16, 2013, 12:01:51 PM
Here's a pretty interesting look at how a few places are using federal funds to stablize certain areas of town. I guess Jax is currently utilizing a strategy similar to Detroit, except we don't see the importance of following the rules for some reason.

QuoteWhat Chicago can learn from other locales, and vice versa

Chicago is not alone in thinking about how to use NSP dollars to create affordable rentals and stabilize neighborhoods.

A spokesman for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, which administers the NSP, said funds are being applied differently in cities and counties across the country, according to each place's temperament. Some places – such as Detroit and Cuyahoga County, in Ohio – use demolition as a primary strategy for stabilizing communities. Other locales started off with a strategy that emphasized homeownership and have since shifted to more rental approaches.

In Milwaukee, for example, there is strong demand for affordable rental apartments. Between 400 and 500 rental units were created in Milwaukee using money from the second round of NSP, said Maria Prioletta, the city's redevelopment manager. She said because more units are at stake than with single-family home transactions, rehabbing apartments allows the city to have a strategic impact on particular neighborhoods.

Ditto for Pinellas County, Florida, which comprises St. Petersburg and Clearwater and has endured a large number of foreclosures in the past few years.

Anthony Jones, the county's community development director, said the housing crisis showed that homeownership isn't necessarily good for everyone, especially people of modest means.  So he and his colleagues have worked to acquire and rehab rental units as part of their evolving approach to using NSP funds.

When asked if he had any advice for Chicago as it embarks down this new path of creating rentals in concentrated areas, Jones said Chicago should consider putting properties in land trusts, which can impose rental price restrictions beyond the limits required by the NSP, and for longer periods of time.

Maybe, said Ludwig, but land trusts can also serve as a deterrent to potential investors. And, she said, rents are already low in the Chicago neighborhoods where the NSP is focused.

http://www.chicagonsp.org/news/1510

The difference between those examples and what we've done is that using NSP funds for demolition is generally considered appropriate by HUD in areas suffering population loss, it's something of a last resort. We've actually had a growing, not shrinking, population, and given our local conditions it was really a gross misuse of funds that could have positively impacted the community.

So, what does COJ need to do (with regards to neglected properties) to get its act together?

Quote from: thelakelander on November 16, 2013, 12:05:52 PM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on November 16, 2013, 12:01:32 PMLastly, with Springfield, most of these properties aren't actually abandoned like in areas where land banking actually works, and there is not a lack of demand by buyers, they've just been rendered economically unviable by COJ. This is an inappropriate solution to an artificially-created problem that COJ's bad policy decisions are responsible for in the first place.

I agree here.  It seems if COJ can get its act in order, there's already a market for revitalization. That's not the case in places like Detroit and Youngstown.

You and I agree.

Quote from: thelakelander on November 16, 2013, 11:57:13 AM
Has Jax rehabbed anything with NSP money?

We pulled info from the city's website that said 62 houses were rehabbed, 25 new ones built and 181 structures demolished using NSP 1 funds (26.2 million dollars).

http://www.coj.net/departments/neighborhoods/docs/housing-and-community-development/community-development/2011-12-action-plan-7-15-11-%281%29.aspx

Joe and I added it up.  Seems like there is a lot of money for a piddly amount of work.

62 rehabs at say....$100,000 each ?     $6.2 mil

25 new builds at say.....$150,000 each?  $3.8 mil

181 demos at say....$10,000 each   $1.8 mil

That adds up to 11.8 million dollars.  Where's the other 14.4 million?

Quote from: sheclown on November 16, 2013, 12:02:56 PM
Chris,

If the mothball ordinance were changed to remove all accumulated rolling fines, that would accomplish a great deal, wouldn't it?

But what about the Tarpon owned properties?  How can they be encouraged to put their properties in the hands of people who will care for them?

And btw, I agree with everything you say regarding your concerns on land banking.

I think your first point hit the nail on the head. As to the tarpon funding issue, though I'm as frustrated with that as you are, the reality is that's probably <10% of the problem. This is basically triage at this point, 1/3 of a national historic district has been demolished, mostly in the past 10 years, and COJ (well...and SPAR) did that, not tarpon. We need to fix the big problem first and then worry about individual bad apples like tarpon later. Something will need to be done about them eventually, but for now let's stop worrying about punishing people and let go of the false notion that the city is ever going to collect any of these fines ($100k in fines on a $2k vacant lot, they really think they're ever going to see any of that money anyway?) and get the situation stabilized.

So, before we give COJ even more power, perhaps we need to work on harnessing the power they already have and so badly abuse?

Good point.   

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on November 16, 2013, 12:10:02 PM

Quote from: thelakelander on November 16, 2013, 12:01:51 PM
Here's a pretty interesting look at how a few places are using federal funds to stablize certain areas of town. I guess Jax is currently utilizing a strategy similar to Detroit, except we don't see the importance of following the rules for some reason.

QuoteWhat Chicago can learn from other locales, and vice versa

Chicago is not alone in thinking about how to use NSP dollars to create affordable rentals and stabilize neighborhoods.

A spokesman for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, which administers the NSP, said funds are being applied differently in cities and counties across the country, according to each place's temperament. Some places – such as Detroit and Cuyahoga County, in Ohio – use demolition as a primary strategy for stabilizing communities. Other locales started off with a strategy that emphasized homeownership and have since shifted to more rental approaches.

In Milwaukee, for example, there is strong demand for affordable rental apartments. Between 400 and 500 rental units were created in Milwaukee using money from the second round of NSP, said Maria Prioletta, the city's redevelopment manager. She said because more units are at stake than with single-family home transactions, rehabbing apartments allows the city to have a strategic impact on particular neighborhoods.

Ditto for Pinellas County, Florida, which comprises St. Petersburg and Clearwater and has endured a large number of foreclosures in the past few years.

Anthony Jones, the county's community development director, said the housing crisis showed that homeownership isn't necessarily good for everyone, especially people of modest means.  So he and his colleagues have worked to acquire and rehab rental units as part of their evolving approach to using NSP funds.

When asked if he had any advice for Chicago as it embarks down this new path of creating rentals in concentrated areas, Jones said Chicago should consider putting properties in land trusts, which can impose rental price restrictions beyond the limits required by the NSP, and for longer periods of time.

Maybe, said Ludwig, but land trusts can also serve as a deterrent to potential investors. And, she said, rents are already low in the Chicago neighborhoods where the NSP is focused.

http://www.chicagonsp.org/news/1510

The difference between those examples and what we've done is that using NSP funds for demolition is generally considered appropriate by HUD in areas suffering population loss, it's something of a last resort. We've actually had a growing, not shrinking, population, and given our local conditions it was really a gross misuse of funds that could have positively impacted the community.

Furthermore, and I don't think this can be understated.

The demolitions which are occurring with land bank activities are for homes purchased with NSP funds. 

In Jacksonville, we use NSP funds to demolish a house without any compensation to the owner and often AGAINST the owners wishes (see the two demos on east 2nd Street for a recent example).  Then a significant demo lien a placed on that empty lot to further harm the owner and poison the land on which the historic property once sat.

People want to live in neighborhoods like Springfield. Seems like COJ is using a tool that is meant to help as an obstacle instead. Thus, the answer is a simple one. Use federal funds to facilitate growth and redevelopment instead of killing it. This starts and ends with COJ's policies, IMO.

Quote from: sheclown on November 16, 2013, 12:29:18 PM
So, before we give COJ even more power, perhaps we need to work on harnessing the power they already have and so badly abuse?

Good point.   

Well...it's probably easier to fix than all that, one individual at COJ has caused most of the problem. That's at least partially fixable by going back and taking out the vastly expanded definition of what constitutes an "emergency" that literally defines it as whatever Kim Scott feels like it is. The revised definitions slipped through when SPAR's board member was on the HPC, MCCD's lawyer was simultaneously serving as the HPC's general counsel, and SPAR (the alleged preservation group) was pushing HPC and MCCD for wholesale demolitions. What could possibly go wrong?

Whatever has to be done to correct the incest problem clearly needs to be done, or no amount of land banking, fine waivers, or anything else is going to fix it. With each demolition it becomes an increasingly uphill battle for the neighborhood to come back, and it needs to stop. This is largely a one-person-problem, which is the easiest kind to fix if the city really wanted to.

The second problem is that COJ is causing much of the blight it complains of with bad policy decisions. They've already permanently blighted 1/3 of the housing stock with demolitions, and they're blighting another 1/3 or so of it with aggressive fines and liens that continue to accrue until the owners (direct quote) "restore or demolish" the entire property. Which isn't happening because they can't get financing with the fines and liens, they can't sell it to someone else who'd fix it up because they can't sell clear of the fines and liens, and really what's the point anyway, even if they fixed it up they're still going to owe more in fines than it's worth.

I understand the theory of fining someone to make them do what you want, and I'd imagine the roadways are at least marginally safer because of traffic fines. But it backfires when you go as absolutely bonkers with it as COJ does, they assess fines that quickly exceed the value of the entire house, which forces the owners to throw in the towel and walk because they have no other option. COJ's policies manage to turn what generally starts off as simple code citations into a permanent blight on the neighborhood.

Both of these issues need fixing. The first one is really a no-brainer, one-person-problems are the easiest to fix, and changing the definition of a word in the municipal code requires little work. The second issue, the fines, requires rational thought and will on the part of the city, and so far that's been quite a challenge. But land banking isn't the answer, you want these properties to be marketable again, not continuing to languish in a land bank, that's the same problem we already have now.

Why can't COJ waive fines? Is the expected collection money being committed elsewhere?

Quote from: thelakelander on November 16, 2013, 02:19:04 PM
Why can't COJ waive fines? Is the expected collection money being committed elsewhere?

Pie-in-the-sky thinking is the issue. The fines total over a hundred million dollars, and the city gets greedy just looking at the numbers. The problem is when you dig into it most of that balance is comprised of rolling fines that have been running, and while there may be a $400k fine floating out there on paper, it's secured by a $2k vacant lot or a $20k vacant house. In reality it's uncollectible. But getting them to let go of what they think looks like a pot of money on paper is still incredibly difficult.

In meetings they'll argue with you about well what if even only 10% is collectible, look how much money that is. Except it isn't. I'd be surprised if 1% of the outstanding rolling fines assessed in Springfield were actually collectible, and that's only if the city actually went around and started foreclosing on its liens, but then you'd have to reduce the figure by the cost of the foreclosure suit, which would be pointless because the first mortgagee would eventually wind up getting it anyway, and even if there was no mortgage and COJ took it at the auction they'd still have to pay the existing tax certificate holders when they tried to sell it. A tax deed doesn't wipe out their fines, but a foreclosure judgment wouldn't wipe out existing tax certificates either and the certificate holders would just sit and wait, a real catch 22. I've thought about this and I'm 100% sure that COJ would actually wind up losing money if they ever tried to collect these. But if you ask MCCD, they think they've brought in $100mm+ to the city.

I believe -- only 1 fine has been paid

So....this is why Land banking (southern-style) may not work for Springfield?

1.) Lack of trust in COJ's ability to take property -- even when the property is neglected and the owner is absent.  No faith that the system wouldn't be corrupted, abused, or just flawed by lack of checks and balances (see recent federal fund issues & lack of code enforcement oversight).

2.) Lack of need for land banking -- blighted structures can be "rescued" by dissembling current poor policies ie. rolling fines, arbitrary and vague condemnation practices.   

3.) Proper and wise use of CDBG money and NSP funding can do much to restore Springfield, if used as it is designed and with proper transparency.

Is anyone FOR  land banking?

In a perfect world, my preference would be for the remaining un-rehabbed homes to get into the hands of people who will rehab them.  I can't see where letting them sit any longer, un-rehabbed, would be beneficial. That said, whatever it takes to save them, I'm for it.  :-)

Lake, thanks for the link to this video:



It does look like Chicago is making the most of its NSP money.

I like the land banking idea, at least on paper.

Is there anything that states these NSP Funds must be administered by COJ? Would it be possible a current not-for-profit or a group of community members to form their own NFP specifically to administer the use of these funds under the direction/supervision of the City? COJ would then be responsible for final approval of money use, but the overall planning and day to day operations would be coordinated by this new community-based agency. In turn, they could use the land banking idea on a short term basis (i.e. No property may sit in land bank for more than 24/36 months) to get the most "in need" properties developed. It would also be beneficial if such an agency/community board oversaw these rolling fines, because they could issue them on a case by case basis instead of across the board (because, let's face it, Joe Blow who is rebuilding his house on weekends should not be held to the same level of responsibility as a licensed contractor who purchases several properties in an attempt to "flip" them). COJ would benefit because the ultimate goal of the agency would be to get the properties back in the black side of the tax rolls ($5m/yr in new tax money is better than $100m maybe sorta possibly money sometime in the future).

Yes. The emergency services homeless coalition does this with the federal grants for homeless services. The same system could be used for not just the nsp but also the CDBG monies. In fact I believe Pensacola handles their funds this way.

http://escambia.communityos.org/sys/profile.taf?profiletype=service&textonly=&recordid=174767&_UserReference=AC1E020147190F8460F4761A58734DE42A4E

Quote from: sheclown on November 16, 2013, 03:19:57 PM
So....this is why Land banking (southern-style) may not work for Springfield?

1.) Lack of trust in COJ's ability to take property -- even when the property is neglected and the owner is absent.  No faith that the system wouldn't be corrupted, abused, or just flawed by lack of checks and balances (see recent federal fund issues & lack of code enforcement oversight).

2.) Lack of need for land banking -- blighted structures can be "rescued" by dissembling current poor policies ie. rolling fines, arbitrary and vague condemnation practices.   

3.) Proper and wise use of CDBG money and NSP funding can do much to restore Springfield, if used as it is designed and with proper transparency.

Is anyone FOR  land banking?

How many times have heard the likes of Kimberly Scott say that Jacksonville is not in the real-estate business?  How many times have we heard a Council member say the same thing?  Or that they are not in the repair business?  And yet, we know what the ordinances say and allow for, apparently more than the people charged with enforcing them do.  The problem is that our leadership has allowed the minions, like Kimberly Scott, to interpret the ordinances anyway they wished and have been allowing it to go on for years. 

Even the Office of General Council seems to be guilty of the same thing.  Remember when we were doing the mothballing ordinances, how often did we hear that Municipal Code Compliance would not agree to this or that?  A hired employee like Kimberly Scott can dictate to Jason Teal how an ordinance should be written?  She has enough power to prevent it from being written the way it should have been?  Then of course, she gets to ignore it after it is passed?

It appears that unless the ordinances involved are radically changed and changed so that the abuse of power we so often see is prevented no matter who is in the various positions nothing we do will work in the end.

This is why we need a land bank ordinance.  We need to get the power over the fate of the historic houses out of the hands of employees who care more about their own egos than what is right and into the hands of people who truly care what happens to Jacksonville.

It was Warren Jones who said "the city isn't in the business of rehabbing private property". Right there at a city council meeting.

So...all of this CDBG money spent on rehabbing private property? 

No wonder we are in the mess we're in.

Or another point.  Why shouldn't the city be in the business of rehabbing property?  What's wrong with that?

It goes against our decades old strategy of being in business to destroy property.

^ha!

i think people should be aware that the COJ does assist in rehabs for low income homeowners.

back to landbanking though...typically a land bank is run by an entity that is completely separate from the local government. atlanta, cleveland, and genevese co, michigan have pretty well known land banks. michigan's real estate laws are very much geared toward the problems of shrinking populations and abandoned/vacant properties, so it is extremely friendly toward land banks and getting these problem properties into the hands of land banks quickly by being able to entinguish various title issues. we can't do the same here in florida.

Quote from: strider on November 18, 2013, 07:22:27 AM
How many times have heard the likes of Kimberly Scott say that Jacksonville is not in the real-estate business?  How many times have we heard a Council member say the same thing? 

So why does COJ own lots in Springfield? I don't believe they are for sale either.

Speaking of land banking, the DIA's new CEO Aundre Wallace was the executive director of the Detroit Landbank Authority before accepting the DIA position.

(http://detroitlandbank.org/assets/splash.jpg)
Title image from: http://detroitlandbank.org/

perhaps it is time to re-visit this idea including all homes targeted in the bombing-houses-for-blight plan.

"COJ will have hell to pay regarding the NSP funds.  It is not in the fact that historic houses were demolished, but rather that they did not follow the guidelines for using the funds." 

Its really more fundamental than that. What the City was found lacking is the capacity to follow the guidelines. "Lack of capacity" is a technical term. The HUD Administrator "will" approve a jurisdiction's application for CDBG entitlement funds if after review of the application, several boxes are ticked:  the last box is "capacity to administer" the programs.  The City's future applications for these substantial federal funds is hanging by a thread owing to systemic administrative abuses perpetrated by Code Compliance and Neighborhood Planning Division.

Pardon my Newbie mistakes. This is a reply to Sheclown's previous question of where the $26 million of NSP1 funds all went to. And btw, after adding misc. funds, the NSP1 grant was actually $28 million.

Partly its a 25% overhead (10% off the top for City Admin and 16% for Non-Profits); so working backward, deduct $7 million from $28 and you're at $21 million. And then there were the funds expended to finance ownership subsidies and purchase property and that puts you most of the way there. The simpler calculus is that approximately 100 fewer dwellings were left after $28 million was spent and replacement was not correlated with removal: the process is random. Limited demolitions might make some kind of sense in JAX, which is, after all, increasing in population, if there were a premeditated plan to replace what was removed so that a neighborhood is left better than it started.  Instead there is diminishment and failure to leverage investments for synergistic effect.

Quote from: whislert on July 27, 2014, 11:33:11 AM
"COJ will have hell to pay regarding the NSP funds.  It is not in the fact that historic houses were demolished, but rather that they did not follow the guidelines for using the funds." 

Its really more fundamental than that. What the City was found lacking is the capacity to follow the guidelines. "Lack of capacity" is a technical term. The HUD Administrator "will" approve a jurisdiction's application for CDBG entitlement funds if after review of the application, several boxes are ticked:  the last box is "capacity to administer" the programs.  The City's future applications for these substantial federal funds is hanging by a thread owing to systemic administrative abuses perpetrated by Code Compliance and Neighborhood Planning Division.

what like this?

QuoteCapacity

The ability, capability, or fitness to do something; a legal right, power, or competency to perform some act. An ability to comprehend both the nature and consequences of one's acts.

Capacity relates to soundness of mind and to an intelligent understanding and perception of one's actions. It is the power either to create or to enter into a legal relation under the same conditions or circumstances as a person of sound mind or normal intelligence would have the power to create or to enter.

A person of normal intelligence and sound mind has the capacity to dispose of his or her property by will as he or she sees fit.

A capacity defense is used in both criminal and civil actions to describe a lack of fundamental ability to be accountable for one's action that nullifies the element of intent when intent is essential to the action, thereby relieving a person of responsibility for it.

An individual under duress lacks the capacity to contract; a child under the age of seven accused of committing a crime lacks criminal capacity.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/capacity

There you go being all literal. Sheesh. I tell you, these southern manners. All polite and genteel on the outside and then they go spoutin' Webster's damn dictionary at you like somehow there are boundaries that need mindin'. 'Bout to spin a California boy's head in circles.