OUR OPINION: Land-Office Business | Philadelphia Public Record

The proposal to establish a ?land bank? for Philadelphia is the best idea in a long time for one of the most-pressing problems facing this city: blighted and abandoned real estate.

The problem is so large, no one has even been able to measure it yet. But it is believed there are about 40,000 parcels of land here which are in violation of code, are unused or are vacant. Many have been in this condition for decades. Scattered thickly across many neighborhoods, they drag down the value of good real estate nearby. Their patchwork distribution prevents rational redevelopment plans for countless blocks.

On the whole, though, Philadelphia is a valuable city. Better organized, much of this ?lost land? can return to the marketplace and become a source of new wealth.

Enter the land bank. By consolidating public decision-making in one agency whose sole mission is to clean up and repurpose abandoned properties, it can move swiftly to bring obsolete 19th-century neighborhoods into the 21st century.

Land banks are a tested idea. They have produced results in cities with bigger problems than Philadelphia?s. They give us models to learn from and to follow. The best land banks in other states are run as much like businesses as possible. Their goal is to streamline procedures so difficult properties become easy to acquire. They are user-friendly, not bureaucrat-friendly. Their rules are simple, not cumbersome. They keep to a minimum the number of people a prospective land-owner must please.

The Land Bank Bill now being studied in City Council has strong support. One key piece, though, has triggered some kick-back. This is the provision that would give a District Council Member the power to veto any transaction, even if it met all standard conditions.

Council Members understandably want a say in how their communities repurpose publicly owned land. They should concentrate their concern on drafting good overall policies for the land bank. The last thing a parcel of distressed land needs is a new brake on its redevelopment. It is not Council business to delve into the acquisition of a 16-foot side lot.

An exception could be made for Council to double-check developments of unusual size and scope. A proper place to do this is the board of directors of the land bank. A Council Member with valid concerns about a proposal should be able to take it to the board; if those concerns are valid, they can persuade a majority to overturn the land bank?s executive. But the burden should be on the elected official to prove that case, not on the executive to defend a decision which was made by the book.

Source: http://www.phillyrecord.com/2012/08/our-opinion-land-office-business/

rob roy gaslight justin timberlake michael dyer bachmann bachmann iowa caucus results