policy audit: public land disposition policies and procedures
TRANSCRIPT
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
HR&A ADVISORSDRAFT FINAL: DECEMBER 22, 2010
1. OBJECTIVES & PRIORITIES
HR&A ADVISORSDRAFT FINAL: DECEMBER 22, 2010
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.
HR&A ADVISORSDRAFT FINAL: DECEMBER 22, 2010
1.1 Goals, Purpose and Topic
PUBLIC LAND DISPOSITION POLICIES AND PROCEDURESOBJECTIVES & PRIORITIES
, 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
HR&A ADVISORSDRAFT FINAL: DECEMBER 22, 2010
1.1 Goals, Purpose and Topic
PUBLIC LAND DISPOSITION POLICIES AND PROCEDURESOBJECTIVES & PRIORITIES
, p pMagnitude of crisis
Approx. 50,000 Parcels in PublicParcels in Public Ownership
HR&A ADVISORSDRAFT FINAL: DECEMBER 22, 2010
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).
PUBLIC LAND DISPOSITION POLICIES AND PROCEDURESOBJECTIVES & PRIORITIES
1.1 Goals, Purpose and Topic
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
HR&A ADVISORSDRAFT FINAL: DECEMBER 22, 2010
SOURCE: Wayne County Treasurer's public auction (October 2010)
PUBLIC LAND DISPOSITION POLICIES AND PROCEDURESOBJECTIVES & PRIORITIES
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
HR&A ADVISORSDRAFT FINAL: DECEMBER 22, 2010
PUBLIC LAND DISPOSITION POLICIES AND PROCEDURESOBJECTIVES & PRIORITIES
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
HR&A ADVISORSDRAFT FINAL: DECEMBER 22, 2010
PUBLIC LAND DISPOSITION POLICIES AND PROCEDURESOBJECTIVES & PRIORITIES
1.2 Systemic Challengesy gPrimary obstacle
A il bl P d tiAvailable Public Land
Productive Economic UsePublic Land Economic Use
HR&A ADVISORSDRAFT FINAL: DECEMBER 22, 2010
PUBLIC LAND DISPOSITION POLICIES AND PROCEDURESOBJECTIVES & PRIORITIES
1.2 Systemic Challengesy gNeed for vision
Comprehensive land development strategy must guide a coordinated public disposition process.p p
HR&A ADVISORSDRAFT FINAL: DECEMBER 22, 2010
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).
PUBLIC LAND DISPOSITION POLICIES AND PROCEDURESOBJECTIVES & PRIORITIES
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
HR&A ADVISORSDRAFT FINAL: DECEMBER 22, 2010
PUBLIC LAND DISPOSITION POLICIES AND PROCEDURESOBJECTIVES & PRIORITIES
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.
HR&A ADVISORSDRAFT FINAL: DECEMBER 22, 2010
PUBLIC LAND DISPOSITION POLICIES AND PROCEDURESOBJECTIVES & PRIORITIES
1.3 Role within TeamChallenges shape our role
112
Comprehensively define vision for public land use.
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
HR&A ADVISORSDRAFT FINAL: DECEMBER 22, 2010
3 Identify required roles to accomplish variety of parcel uses.
PUBLIC LAND DISPOSITION POLICIES AND PROCEDURESOBJECTIVES & PRIORITIES
1.3 Role within TeamChallenges shape our role
112
Comprehensively define vision for public land use.
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?
HR&A ADVISORSDRAFT FINAL: DECEMBER 22, 2010
2. METHODOLOGY
HR&A ADVISORSDRAFT FINAL: DECEMBER 22, 2010
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
HR&A ADVISORSDRAFT FINAL: DECEMBER 22, 2010
PUBLIC LAND DISPOSITION POLICIES AND PROCEDURESMETHODOLOGY
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)
HR&A ADVISORSDRAFT FINAL: DECEMBER 22, 2010
• Darryl Lattimer, Detroit Water and Sewerage Department (DWSD)
PUBLIC LAND DISPOSITION POLICIES AND PROCEDURESMETHODOLOGY
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
HR&A ADVISORSDRAFT FINAL: DECEMBER 22, 2010
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
PUBLIC LAND DISPOSITION POLICIES AND PROCEDURESMETHODOLOGY
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
HR&A ADVISORSDRAFT FINAL: DECEMBER 22, 2010
3. EXISTING CONDITIONS & TRENDS
HR&A ADVISORSDRAFT FINAL: DECEMBER 22, 2010
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
HR&A ADVISORSDRAFT FINAL: DECEMBER 22, 2010
6. Vast majority – 83% ‐‐ of vacant or improved public land is residential.
PUBLIC LAND DISPOSITION POLICIES AND PROCEDURESEXISTING CONDITIONS & TRENDS
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
HR&A ADVISORSDRAFT FINAL: DECEMBER 22, 2010
PUBLIC LAND DISPOSITION POLICIES AND PROCEDURESEXISTING CONDITIONS & TRENDS
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
DLBADetroit Land Bank
Authority
Tax Foreclosure
Agency Surplus
Targeted gAcquisition
HR&A ADVISORSDRAFT FINAL: DECEMBER 22, 2010
Contribution
PUBLIC LAND DISPOSITION POLICIES AND PROCEDURESEXISTING CONDITIONS & TRENDS
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
DLBADetroit Land Bank
Authority
Reduce Costs & Liability
GenerateGenerate Revenue
Large‐Scale Economic Development
HR&A ADVISORSDRAFT FINAL: DECEMBER 22, 2010
Community –scale Development
3.2 The Land Owners
PUBLIC LAND DISPOSITION POLICIES AND PROCEDURESEXISTING CONDITIONS & TRENDS
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
HR&A ADVISORSDRAFT FINAL: DECEMBER 22, 2010
PUBLIC LAND DISPOSITION POLICIES AND PROCEDURESEXISTING CONDITIONS & TRENDS
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/
DLBADetroit Land Bank
Authority
Public bid
Negotiated/Negotiated/ Competitive RFP
Programs (Side Lot; Garden for Growth; Project S d)
HR&A ADVISORSDRAFT FINAL: DECEMBER 22, 2010
Saved)
* County Land Bank has minimal land holdings for disposition
PUBLIC LAND DISPOSITION POLICIES AND PROCEDURESEXISTING CONDITIONS & TRENDS
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
HR&A ADVISORSDRAFT FINAL: DECEMBER 22, 2010
5. City can opt to acquire at no charge (P&DD)
PUBLIC LAND DISPOSITION POLICIES AND PROCEDURESEXISTING CONDITIONS & TRENDS
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.
DLBADetroit Land Bank
Authority
Min AuctionMin Auction Bids by Statute*
“Market” Value
Flexibility
HR&A ADVISORSDRAFT FINAL: DECEMBER 22, 2010
* Confirming statutory basis
PUBLIC LAND DISPOSITION POLICIES AND PROCEDURESEXISTING CONDITIONS & TRENDS
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
DLBADetroit Land Bank
Authority
Quiet Title
EminentEminent Domain for Econ Dev
Clearance of Liens
HR&A ADVISORSDRAFT FINAL: DECEMBER 22, 2010
PUBLIC LAND DISPOSITION POLICIES AND PROCEDURESEXISTING CONDITIONS & TRENDS
3.2 The Land OwnersDisposition approvals Disposition by City agencies – specifically P&DD – requires City Council approval.
Director/
DLBADetroit Land Bank
Authority
Director/Executive Approval
Board Approval
City Council l
HR&A ADVISORSDRAFT FINAL: DECEMBER 22, 2010
Approval
PUBLIC LAND DISPOSITION POLICIES AND PROCEDURESEXISTING CONDITIONS & TRENDS
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
DLBADetroit Land Bank
Authority
General Fund
Land Disposition
Tax Increment
Private Philanthropy
HR&A ADVISORSDRAFT FINAL: DECEMBER 22, 2010
Public Grants/ Programs
PUBLIC LAND DISPOSITION POLICIES AND PROCEDURESEXISTING CONDITIONS & TRENDS
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)
HR&A ADVISORSDRAFT FINAL: DECEMBER 22, 2010
PUBLIC LAND DISPOSITION POLICIES AND PROCEDURESEXISTING CONDITIONS & TRENDS
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
HR&A ADVISORSDRAFT FINAL: DECEMBER 22, 2010
PUBLIC LAND DISPOSITION POLICIES AND PROCEDURESEXISTING CONDITIONS & TRENDS
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
DLBADetroit Land Bank
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
HR&A ADVISORSDRAFT FINAL: DECEMBER 22, 2010
PUBLIC LAND DISPOSITION POLICIES AND PROCEDURESEXISTING CONDITIONS & TRENDS
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
HR&A ADVISORSDRAFT FINAL: DECEMBER 22, 2010
PUBLIC LAND DISPOSITION POLICIES AND PROCEDURESEXISTING CONDITIONS & TRENDS
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
HR&A ADVISORSDRAFT FINAL: DECEMBER 22, 2010
PUBLIC LAND DISPOSITION POLICIES AND PROCEDURESEXISTING CONDITIONS & TRENDS
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
HR&A ADVISORSDRAFT FINAL: DECEMBER 22, 2010
PUBLIC LAND DISPOSITION POLICIES AND PROCEDURESEXISTING CONDITIONS & TRENDS
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
HR&A ADVISORSDRAFT FINAL: DECEMBER 22, 2010
PUBLIC LAND DISPOSITION POLICIES AND PROCEDURESEXISTING CONDITIONS & TRENDS
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
HR&A ADVISORSDRAFT FINAL: DECEMBER 22, 2010
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).
PUBLIC LAND DISPOSITION POLICIES AND PROCEDURESEXISTING CONDITIONS & TRENDS
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
HR&A ADVISORSDRAFT FINAL: DECEMBER 22, 2010
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).
3.4 The Public Land
PUBLIC LAND DISPOSITION POLICIES AND PROCEDURESEXISTING CONDITIONS & TRENDS
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%,
HR&A ADVISORSDRAFT FINAL: DECEMBER 22, 2010
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).
PUBLIC LAND DISPOSITION POLICIES AND PROCEDURESEXISTING CONDITIONS & TRENDS
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
HR&A ADVISORSDRAFT FINAL: DECEMBER 22, 2010
Planning status
PUBLIC LAND DISPOSITION POLICIES AND PROCEDURESEXISTING CONDITIONS & TRENDS
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%
HR&A ADVISORSDRAFT FINAL: DECEMBER 22, 2010
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).
3.4 The Public Land
PUBLIC LAND DISPOSITION POLICIES AND PROCEDURESEXISTING CONDITIONS & TRENDS
The majority of the parcels are under 10,000 SF
HR&A ADVISORSDRAFT FINAL: DECEMBER 22, 2010
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).
3.4 The Public Land
PUBLIC LAND DISPOSITION POLICIES AND PROCEDURESEXISTING CONDITIONS & TRENDS
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%)
HR&A ADVISORSDRAFT FINAL: DECEMBER 22, 2010
0%
10%
510 ac
800 parc
275 acre
280 parc
200 acre
350 parc
625 a
325 parc
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).
3.4 The Public Land
PUBLIC LAND DISPOSITION POLICIES AND PROCEDURESEXISTING CONDITIONS & TRENDS
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%
HR&A ADVISORSDRAFT FINAL: DECEMBER 22, 2010
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
PUBLIC LAND DISPOSITION POLICIES AND PROCEDURESEXISTING CONDITIONS & TRENDS
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
HR&A ADVISORSDRAFT FINAL: DECEMBER 22, 2010
Improved Vacant Vacant Improved
3.4 The Public Land
PUBLIC LAND DISPOSITION POLICIES AND PROCEDURESEXISTING CONDITIONS & TRENDS
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
HR&A ADVISORSDRAFT FINAL: DECEMBER 22, 2010
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
PUBLIC LAND DISPOSITION POLICIES AND PROCEDURESEXISTING CONDITIONS & TRENDS
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)
HR&A ADVISORSDRAFT FINAL: DECEMBER 22, 2010
SOURCE: Detroit Planning and Development Department (P&DD), SEMCOG
3.4 The Public Land
PUBLIC LAND DISPOSITION POLICIES AND PROCEDURESEXISTING CONDITIONS & TRENDS
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
HR&A ADVISORSDRAFT FINAL: DECEMBER 22, 2010
0%
10% 485
630 parc
200 acre
150 parc
100 acre
150 parc
250 a
110 parc
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
PUBLIC LAND DISPOSITION POLICIES AND PROCEDURESEXISTING CONDITIONS & TRENDS
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%
HR&A ADVISORSDRAFT FINAL: DECEMBER 22, 2010
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
PUBLIC LAND DISPOSITION POLICIES AND PROCEDURESEXISTING CONDITIONS & TRENDS
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%
HR&A ADVISORSDRAFT FINAL: DECEMBER 22, 2010
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).
3.4 The Public Land
PUBLIC LAND DISPOSITION POLICIES AND PROCEDURESEXISTING CONDITIONS & TRENDS
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
HR&A ADVISORSDRAFT FINAL: DECEMBER 22, 2010
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
PUBLIC LAND DISPOSITION POLICIES AND PROCEDURESEXISTING CONDITIONS & TRENDS
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%
HR&A ADVISORSDRAFT FINAL: DECEMBER 22, 2010
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).
4. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS
HR&A ADVISORSDRAFT FINAL: DECEMBER 22, 2010
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
HR&A ADVISORSDRAFT FINAL: DECEMBER 22, 2010
PUBLIC LAND DISPOSITION POLICIES AND PROCEDURESPRELIMINARY FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS
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
HR&A ADVISORSDRAFT FINAL: DECEMBER 22, 2010
PUBLIC LAND DISPOSITION POLICIES AND PROCEDURESPRELIMINARY FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS
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
HR&A ADVISORSDRAFT FINAL: DECEMBER 22, 2010
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.
PUBLIC LAND DISPOSITION POLICIES AND PROCEDURESPRELIMINARY FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS
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
HR&A ADVISORSDRAFT FINAL: DECEMBER 22, 2010
PUBLIC LAND DISPOSITION POLICIES AND PROCEDURESPRELIMINARY FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS
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?
HR&A ADVISORSDRAFT FINAL: DECEMBER 22, 2010
What case studies offer advice for policy and procedure adjustments?
PUBLIC LAND DISPOSITION POLICIES AND PROCEDURESPRELIMINARY FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS
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?
HR&A ADVISORSDRAFT FINAL: DECEMBER 22, 2010
• What resources are necessary and available? • What do we do in the interim?