Testimony to Pittsburgh City Council
City Land Bank Legislation #2014-0025
Aggie Brose – Chairperson, Board of Directors
Mayor Peduto, members of Council, fellow community members, thank you for this very important opportunity to discuss an issue so vital to the future of our neighborhoods and our city – the ability to take control of our shared destiny and repurpose blighted land for community benefit. Councilwoman Gross’s Land Banking legislation is a huge positive step to taking control of that destiny.
Many, throughout the city, have held land banking community meetings. We’ve had the privilege to participate in several of them. It seems clear that everyone agrees that a land bank can be a good thing, but it’s also clear that neighborhoods’ voices – especially those with the large areas of blight and to most directly impacted by the proposed land bank - must be adequately represented in its creation and operation.
We are encouraged that City Council is listening. Several members are working on amendments that, we understand, will make it more equitable and representative of those most impacted. PCRG’s members and staff stand ready to work for and support such amendments. Councilwoman Gross, in particular has been very responsive these concerns and is working with fellow Council members to make the bill the best it can to serve our neighborhoods.
With your help, we believe that land banks can have a positive transformative effect on Pittsburgh and create a system that, finally addresses the cancer of blight and creates positive disposition decisions to activate our perspective neighborhood plans and visions. As we stated in our February 4 letter to Council, however, it is vitally important that any city land bank ensure that the following community concerns be adequately addressed and protected:
1) Communities must be empowered through land banking, and this should be reflected through a significant public participation processes within the authorizing legislation, the crafting of the land bank’s policies and procedures, and ongoing input around the acquisition and disposition of land in each respective neighborhood. Scale of acquisition and disposition should also be addressed as larger projects have much larger impacts on the community.
2) While we agree that community plans must be considered by the land bank, a parallel effort to formalize and standardize the process for the creation, adoption, and alignment of such plans with public investment priorities should be undertaken. In the interim, standards for how the current universe of existing community plans of various ages, levels of detail and community participation would be treated by the Land Bank should be created.
3) Non-displacement should be of the highest priority for the Land Bank, with a further eye towards homeownership preservation. The language in the state and local proposed ordinance address the need for occupant - both tenant and owner-occupant - protections. Understanding that there is already a system in place for hardship payment plans, that same system should be honored and referenced by this legislation to provide enough of a safety net for those who have fallen on hard times. We suggest referencing or utilizing the City’s Federally-mandated Foley settlement language within the legislation.
4) After preventing displacement, the improper or self-serving disposition of land is of utmost concern. This could have serious adverse consequences for our communities – especially our most fragile ones. While it is important for the Land Bank to be flexible and nimble, it must also be thoughtful, measured, equitable, and careful.
5) While it is acknowledged that the overall process itself will – and, indeed, must - change, it is important to include the intent to preserve a system whereby CDCs can continue to tag and assemble land to engage in revitalization and redevelopment projects in line with neighborhood-identified priorities.
6) The seating of the Land Bank’s board – permanent and interim – must be sensitive to those communities with the largest amounts of blighted, vacant, and/or tax-delinquent properties. It is important to flush out the process for Council and Mayoral appointments, and community seats, possibly setting criteria such as Council members with districts with the most land eligible for tax collection or foreclosure processes under a land bank have a greater number of appointments to the board, or community members from area with the most amount of vacant land/houses, etc. One suggestion is to follow a similar selection methodology as that used for the Citizens’ Police Review Board, wherein neighborhoods most affected by incidents are given priority over others.
7) Communities who would be the most directly impacted by land bank activities – i.e., those with the most blighted and abandoned property – should have representation commiserate with the land bank’s impact on their respective communities. This will to ensure that substantial, substantive ongoing community input is built in to the administration of the Land Bank. Additionally, representation by groups from the environmental, transit, and ped/bike communities should also be represented as land banking has positive benefits beyond blight and abandonment.
We are excited to see the very real prospect of land banking occurring in the city, and support City Council’s efforts to improve inclusivity and equitability through the amendment process. We also stand ready as a resource to policy makers and community members on an issue so vital to our city’s future. Thank you for your time.
1901 Centre Ave. ∙ Suite 200 ∙ Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Phone: (412) 391-6732 ∙ Fax: (412) 391-6737 Web: www.pcrg.org
Page 2 of 2