Land Banks: Commissioner Ann Jones Guider's Obsession

Last week, Commissioner Guider once again expressed her support for a concept called "Land Banks". Other commissioners expressed their concern over the issue asking why should the government be involved in real estate brokering and speculation. You can read the Seninel article HERE>>>.

While Commissioner Guider calls herself a "conservative" the land bank concept is deemed by many as being "progressive" or even "socialist."

Do we trust government to determine what the best use of private property should be?

Last year after Guider took her trip to a seminar hosted by the Center for Community Progress in Boston, I wrote an opnion column on the issue. Here it is. Let me know what you think about the issue.

*************************************************

The unattributed article (Sentinel March 10, 2011) "Guider to attend forum on threat of foreclosures" announced that District 4 Commissioner Ann Jones Guider would attend a seminar hosted by the Center for Community Progress in Boston where she would learn to “thwart the threat that foreclosures and business closings pose to Douglas County." 

Upon her return it was reported "Commissioner advocates land bank for abandoned properties.” Guider mentioned that proposed Georgia Senate Bill 284 would "clarify existing land bank law and add new features."

Land banks are entities formed by government officials to receive abandoned and tax delinquent properties. SB-284 would have completely changed the current Georgia Land Bank Act. Land banks could acquire not only abandoned and tax delinquent properties but could seize any private property "for the public good" and states “All powers granted shall be broadly interpreted to effectuate the intent and purposes and not as a limitation of powers.” 

This bill would dangerously increase the power of government and destroy private property rights in Georgia. 

The United States Supreme Court decision of 2005 in Kelo v. City of New London exposed just how abusive the government's use of eminent domain power can be. In that case, the city of New London, Connecticut sought to use its power of eminent domain to seize the properties of Susette Kelo and others and turn them over to a developer to increase the city's tax revenue. The plan claimed 3,169 new jobs would be created and an additional $1.2 million a year would be generated in new tax revenue by "repurposing" those properties. The Court held that the general benefits from economic growth qualified such redevelopment plans as a permissible "public use" under the Fifth Amendment. This was completely contrary to the government's historic use of eminent domain, which before had been limited to such projects as roads, courthouses, schools and the like.

Under SB-284 land banks would not have eminent domain powers because land banks would be so powerful, eminent domain was not needed!

Stung by public furor over the Court’s decision, the state legislature scrambled to pass the Landowner's Bill of Rights and Private Property Protection Act which restricted the use of eminent domain powers for the sole purpose of economic development. Douglas County Commissioners signed a resolution denouncing the Kelo decision.

Proposed Senate Bill 284 took a giant step backward in the fight for the protection of private property rights. If it had passed, a land bank could deem your property to be “underutilized,” seize it and turn it over to someone else for free, with the gift of a public bond for redevelopment! If your property did not fit the development plans of city councils and commissioners, it could be seized. In fact, your property could be seized for the good of the land bank itself!

Politicians, mortgage companies, developers, speculators, and many opportunistic home buyers all had a hand in the collapse of the real estate market. However, even with the uncertainty and risks of a free market, I trust free market solutions far more than the master plans, grand schemes and pipe dreams of politicians. In time, the real estate market will recover, but only if the free market is allowed to work. Government resources and time would be better spent on the services required of it by law, like public safety and patching potholes in the roads. It should avoid speculative real estate ventures and social engineering and stick to basics.

Private ownership of property has been a foundation of our nation. It is one of our most treasured constitutional rights. This system has worked well for more than 200 years, so why do politicians now suddenly believe there is a need for them to become landlords and real estate speculators?

As a final sad note about the Kelo case, the city of New London eventually agreed to move Susette Kelo's house to a new location and pay additional compensation to her and the other property owners. The so-called developer was unable to obtain financing and had to abandon the project. What was once a viable waterfront neighborhood became a morass of empty, vacant lots.

The same tragedy could happen in Douglas County and across the nation if this land bank scheme becomes law.

James Bell