Massachusetts Government Land Bank

Massachusetts Government Land Bank
Name	Massachusetts Government Land Bank
Type	Public-benefit corporation
Jurisdiction	Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Formed	21st century
Headquarters	Boston, Massachusetts
Chief executive	Executive Director
Parent agency	Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Massachusetts Government Land Bank is a proposed or emerging public entity in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts designed to acquire, manage, and dispose of vacant, abandoned, or tax-delinquent real property. Modeled on land banking practices used in cities such as Detroit, Cleveland, Baltimore, and states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, the mechanism seeks to coordinate with agencies including the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (Massachusetts), Massachusetts Department of Revenue, Massachusetts Housing Partnership, and municipal treasurers. Proponents compare it to instruments used by the Federal Housing Administration, United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, and regional authorities such as the Metropolitan Area Planning Council and Boston Planning & Development Agency to address blight, housing affordability, and equitable redevelopment.

Overview

A Massachusetts land bank would operate similarly to the Genesee County Land Bank Authority, the Cuyahoga Land Bank, and the Detroit Land Bank Authority as a quasi-governmental corporation under enabling legislation akin to the Model Land Bank Act and statutes like those in Ohio Revised Code, Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, and municipal ordinances in Cleveland and New Orleans. It would interface with state actors such as the Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development, Massachusetts Executive Office of Economic Development, and local entities including Boston City Council, Cambridge City Council, Springfield, Massachusetts, and Worcester, Massachusetts. The structure would reflect precedents from the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, and academic analyses from Harvard Kennedy School and the Urban Institute.

Legal Authority and Governance

Legal authority would derive from enabling statutes passed by the Massachusetts General Court and signed by the Governor of Massachusetts under powers similar to those authorized for the Massachusetts Port Authority and the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority. Governance models reference boards used by the Minneapolis Land Bank concept, the Buffalo Urban Renewal Agency, and the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development. Statutory provisions would address eminent domain parallels to cases adjudicated by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, procurement rules similar to the Office of the Inspector General (Massachusetts), and transparency obligations aligned with the Public Records Law (Massachusetts). Oversight might include audits by the Office of the State Auditor (Massachusetts), reporting to committees of the Massachusetts House of Representatives and the Massachusetts Senate such as the Joint Committee on Housing, and compliance with federal statutes like the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Functions and Programs

Core functions would include acquisition strategies modeled after the Genesee County Land Bank Authority and programs comparable to the Vacant Property Recovery Program (Detroit), the Cleveland Land Revitalization Program, and the Philadelphia Land Bank. Programs could offer rehabilitation partnerships with the Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency, community land trusts like Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative and Urban Land Conservancy, and tax incentive coordination similar to the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit administered by the Internal Revenue Service. Other initiatives might mirror the Homeowner Assistance Fund, workforce development linkages with MassHire, historic preservation consultation with the Massachusetts Historical Commission, and environmental remediation aligned with the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection and the Environmental Protection Agency brownfields program.

Funding and Financial Mechanisms

Funding mechanisms would draw on models such as tax increment financing used by the Boston Redevelopment Authority (predecessor to BPDA), bond issuance like municipal bonds issued by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, grants from entities such as the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and philanthropic support from foundations like the Ford Foundation, MacArthur Foundation, and Kresge Foundation. Revenue sources could include proceeds from property dispositions, revenue from leasing to organizations like Habitat for Humanity, lien extinguishment provisions reminiscent of the Cuyahoga Land Bank, and participation in programs administered by the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center. Financial controls would align with standards from the Government Accounting Standards Board and audit practices applied by the Comptroller of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Property Acquisition, Management, and Disposal

Acquisition pathways would include tax foreclosures administered by county registries such as the Suffolk County Registry of Deeds, donations facilitated through nonprofit partners like Local Initiatives Support Corporation (Massachusetts), and strategic purchases as practiced by the Detroit Land Bank Authority. Management protocols would incorporate asset management strategies used by the New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services, parcel-level data systems similar to Assessors’ databases in Boston, and cadastral coordination with municipal planning departments including the Somerville Office of Strategic Planning and Community Development. Disposal tools would range from conveyance to community land trusts, resale under affordability covenants enforced by entities like the Massachusetts Housing Partnership, and selective demolition guided by the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation.

Impact, Outcomes, and Criticism

Advocates cite outcomes observed in Cleveland, Detroit, and Baltimore including reduced vacancy, increased property tax base, and expanded affordable housing inventory; research from Brookings Institution, Urban Institute, and Lincoln Institute of Land Policy supports targeted land banking benefits. Critics reference concerns raised around displacement in Oakland, contested foreclosures addressed in Shelby County (judicial decisions), and governance risks noted in studies by the Harvard Kennedy School. Equity-oriented groups such as Massachusetts Affordable Housing Alliance and Alternatives for Community and Environment emphasize community control, while legal scholars from Boston College Law School and Harvard Law School highlight due process and eminent domain limitations.

Implementation by Municipality (Examples)

Municipal approaches vary: Boston could adapt programs through the Boston Planning & Development Agency and Boston Land Bank proposals; Springfield might coordinate with the Springfield Redevelopment Authority; Worcester could leverage the Worcester Redevelopment Authority; Lowell and Lawrence, Massachusetts have distinct strategies involving their respective planning boards and registries. Smaller cities like Holyoke, Pittsfield, and New Bedford might pursue targeted pilots with nonprofit partners such as Community Economic Development Assistance Corporation and Massachusetts Association of Community Development Corporations to address industrial brownfields and residential vacancy.

Category:Public benefit corporations of Massachusetts