Residents oppose county land bank

Supporters say establishing the agency could help revitalize and stabilize neighborhoods.

Several residents voiced opposition to a proposed county land bank characterizing it as another unnecessary layer of government and a “land grab” during a Greene County Board of Commissioners public hearing.

About 40 people attended the second hearing on the Greene County Land Reutilization Corporation in the Greene County Administration building Wednesday evening. Most were residents who urged the county commissioners to walk away from the land bank idea.

Ohio law allows counties with populations over 60,000 to create land banks and gives local governments the power to take control of vacant properties, erase any liens attached to the building or land, and pool properties to market them as a larger piece that could be used for redevelopment.

County commissioners are considering the potential land bank during a time when the state is spending millions of dollars to help fund county land banks. On Wednesday, the Ohio Housing Finance Agency announced $191 million would be divided between 18 county land banks. The Montgomery County Land Reutilization Corporation was awarded $8.18 million.

John Broughton, a former Beavercreek mayor, told commissioners he was opposed to the proposed land bank. Broughton said he fought the eminent domain issue when it came up while he was on Beavercreek City Council.

“It’s wrong on so many levels,” he said. “No matter how you paint this, it’s a land grab.”

The draft plan limits the land bank by taking away its ability to borrow money and the authority to exercise eminent domain. Draft regulations for the land bank include a sunset provision that indicates the land bank will terminate five years from the date it was created.

Even though the land bank would have limited powers, many residents were concerned these regulations and limitations could be changed by future commissioners.

Auston Hensley, a Beavercreek resident, said he understood some officials may want the land bank to take advantage of federal and state dollars, but the corporation is unnecessary and duplicates some of the functions of the local community improvement corporations.

“We can be sure this corporation will have hired employees, and procured equipment all at the taxpayers’ expense,” he said. “We don’t know if there will be any grant money forthcoming in the future. Therefore, more unelected officials are making decisions for us. We have no say, but it’s costing us money.”

A few local government employees said they supported the land bank, which could help revitalize and stabilize neighborhoods.

“The key to the redevelopment of many, if not all, of these blighted vacant non-productive tax delinquent properties that have been forgotten by individuals and written off by the private sector is the removal of all tax delinquencies, fines and assessments,” said Missy Frost, the Fairborn community development coordinator. “The Greene County Land Revitalization Corporation is the only guaranteed tool a community has to accomplish this task and return the property to a productive use in our neighborhoods, community, county and state.”

Ronda Painter, a zoning inspector for four rural townships, said she was glad the county was considering an alternative for blighted properties to be turned over to people who are willing to maintain them and pay the taxes.

“Some of them have been mowed by townships at taxpayers’ expense for years, and we never hope to recover (the cost) because the owners are dead or long gone,” she said.

About the Author