City of New Haven images
New Haven is one step closer to having a quasi-public nonprofit charged with buying, fixing up, and selling blighted properties before megalandlords get there first, now that the Elicker Administration has formally submitted plans for a new city Land Bank.
Details for that public-private real estate venture are included in a proposed ordinance that city Economic Development Administrator Mike Piscitelli submitted to the Board of Alders on March 28.
The legislative item is listed as a communication on the agenda for Monday’s latest full Board of Alders meeting. It will next head to the City Plan Commission and an aldermanic committee among other public boards for review before returning to the full Board of Alders for a potential final vote.
The ordinance, if approved by the alders, would establish a “New Haven Land Bank Authority pursuant to Public Act 19 – 175 codified as Connecticut General Statute 7 – 148p to be called the New Haven Land Bank, Inc.,” according to the proposal’s title.
Translation: It would create a private nonprofit which would exist to acquire, maintain, remediate, develop, and dispose of real estate that the quasi-public authority deems as having public significance.
The Elicker Administration first pitched creating a land bank with federal pandemic-relief aid in January 2022 to have a private outfit that can try to buy blighted and foreclosed properties more quickly than city government is currently able to do. The proposal also comes eight months after the Board of Alders signed off last August on allocating a total of $5 million in American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds towards creating such a land bank.
According to documents submitted to the alders as part of this proposal, the to-be-created authority’s board would consist of seven members, including the mayor, the city’s economic development administrator, the directors of the City Plan Department and the Livable City Initiative (LCI), and three appointees by the president of the Board of Alders, including one alder.
The entity will also be staffed by one executive director and two project managers.
“Current market demand for vacant and blighted properties may not always lead to productive end use as many properties have broader strategic importance to the economic and social wellbeing of the community,” Piscitelli wrote in a March 28 cover letter to the alders about this proposal. This proposed new land bank would help towards that end.
Click here and here to read the proposed land bank’s submitted documents in full.
A slideshow presentation included in the submission states that the Hartford and Waterbury already have land banks up and running. The Elicker Administrations’ proposal sets out a three-year $5 million budget for this authority: $2.5 million would be used for purchases and sales, $500,000 for property maintenance and legal and operating fees, and $329,000 per year for staff salaries and benefits.
The proposal states that the city hopes to win Board of Alders approval for this project by May and launch the land bank in July.
Land banks can be useful tools to promote housing affordability and other goals. But before this land bank acquires any property, the city really needs to figure out want it wants to do with the dozens, if not hundreds, of properties it already owns that are not not being used for municipal purpose.
Many of these are sliver lots that cannot, in themselves, be developed. The city offers these lots to abutting property owners, who can use them for side yards, driveways, etc. This is fine, particularly in neighborhoods where lots are tiny. But if the neighbors are uninterested, the city should offer them to other parties. Some could be converted to community gardens or other green spaces. Others would be bought by investors, and put back on the tax rolls. The proceeds from the sales could go to the Land Bank.
Many of the parcels the city owns are full sized lots, with or without buildings on them. In some cases, it will make sense to use the property for affordable housing. In others, selling the property makes the most sense. But before the city acquires any more properties, it should figure out what it wants to do with the properties it already has.
A case in point. The city recently bought four properties on Dixwell Avenue. Two will be transferred, at cost, to Beulah Land for affordable housing - no problem. The city wants to memorialize the former Monterey Jazz Club, which again is fine. But the city has no apparent plan for doing this. Nor does it appear to have any plans for the decrepit building next door.