Andria Morales, Law& Public Policy Scholar, JD Anticipated May 2021
The changes reflected in the October 2019 Land Bank legislation represented a long-sought acknowledgement of the need for structural changes and policies that prioritize fair and transparent property distribution. Everyone can agree that the elimination of the Vacant Property Review Committee is a good thing, as is the establishment of a uniform timeline for review of expressions of interest in properties. At the very least, we can expect to receive an answer within a reasonable period of time, and we can hope that a land sale will make its way through the disposition process without interference from public officials who have forgotten to put the interests of their constituents before those of their friends. Yet, for an agency that faces a tall order to win back the trust of Philadelphians, the process by which the new policies were adopted left much to be desired.
During a community meeting to review the Land Bank’s 2019 draft strategic plan and status report in June, constituents voiced their concern over the absence of revised land disposition policies that the report indicated were forthcoming. Stakeholders who worried that the new policies would be submitted to City Council without opportunity for public comment were assured that their fears were for naught. The draft legislation that was submitted for public comment at a hearing on October 1, however, did not contain a copy of the disposition policies. Instead, it contained a scoring criterion for evaluation of bids for competitive land sales that raised a number of new concerns.
The weighted criteria are: 30% for economic opportunity and inclusion; 20% for public purpose and social impact; 25% for development team experience and capacity; 20% for financial feasibility; and 5% for offer price. At first glance, these qualitative considerations seem like a helpful framework for ensuring that lands don’t just go to the highest bidder, contributing to the development of more market-rate-plus housing that threatens to displace long time residents. But, what do “public purpose” and “social impact” mean? Does a high-end condo with a beer garden on the first floor serve a “public purpose”? How exactly does a real estate developer make a “social impact,” (aside from gentrification)? Though constituents raised these concerns at the public hearing, the terms remained undefined in the final legislation.
Another disappointing surprise appeared in the final version of the Land Bank bill that passed through City Council after the public hearing: an addendum titled “Land Bank Disposition Policies.” Wasn’t there an assurance from the Land Bank Board that those policies would be made available for public comment? Shouldn’t the qualitative scoring criteria for evaluation of competitive land sales have been included in the disposition policies, instead of becoming enshrined in the Philadelphia Code where they will be more difficult to amend? It’s hard to understand why the disposition policies were pushed through the legislative process without a more thoughtful and thorough public engagement process, and perhaps we will never know. If the Land Bank was not already shrouded in a cloud of mistrust, expediency might be a valid excuse. But to gain much-needed credibility, excuses will not do.
Sometimes, when you find yourself in the doghouse, it is best to do some soul searching. Why does Philadelphia have a Land Bank? What’s the purpose of the agency? The Land Bank’s stated mission is “to return vacant and underutilized publicly-owned property to productive use.” That basic, fundamental purpose must be what guides public policy. Since 2015, the Land Bank has acquired and transferred hundreds of vacant and surplus properties into its control, now holding some 2,200 plots of land. It has disposed only 132. 42% of the properties in the Land Bank’s holdings are side yards. Since 2016, it has disposed only nine. What’s going on?
The Land Bank’s consolidation with the Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority under the umbrella of the Philadelphia Housing Development Corporation seems to signal what the Land Bank has been demonstrating all along—that it thinks its mission is to broker housing deals. While no one can disagree that affordable housing is a much-needed ingredient in combatting gentrification, displacement, and homelessness, another missing ingredient is a mechanism for helping longtime residents build equity in their neighborhoods.
Giving existing homeowners a simple way to acquire adjacent vacant property can return land to productive use and help restore trust in the mission of the Land Bank. If you want to save the Land Bank while making a media splash, take a page out of the Detroit Land Bank’s book and sell side lots for $100. They made headlines earlier this month for selling more than 13,000 side lots to residents. At that rate, you can save the Land Bank, make lots of Philadelphians happy, and add money to the City’s bank account. It’s a win-win.