In the Rust Belt there is a program called 'land banking' that empowers a city to buy a large amount of foreclosed or otherwise unwanted and unsellable properties from private hands and repurpose them for productive uses -either civic or commercial.

What would be the opposite of that?

That would be what is happening locally. Private owners of desirable and sellable properties are being forced to maintain ownership of their properties and not being allowed to sell them because of aspirationial (currently unrealistic) zoning that makes them unsellable.

Cities certainly have the right and the power to zone land and to develop long term land use master plans. But should cities be able to prevent land owners from selling their land for years or even decades by unreasonable zoning?

Did the last master plan update make anything better for landowners or developers or taxpayers?

Should cities pay landowners or suspend their property taxes to incentivize them to retain their property while the area awaits the growth that would support the aspirational zoning?

Should aspirational (currently unrealistic) zoning have a time limit after which it is revisited?

Should cities require a landowner to post fiscals when a plan for use is filed, or only after the development permit is issued?

When such a property finally does sell, should the city further penalize the long-suffering property owner with clawback property taxes that look back five years?

Should cities buy specific properties designated as premiere future development properties to properly serve both the landowner now and the growth of the city later?

How do we achieve any of these remedies?

Click HERE to read about the "Action Plan".

Please click the PayPal link below to add your financial support to "Better Zoning" via PayPal. For more information on financial support, click here.

If you have questions about your contribution, or prefer another method to contribute, please contact us at 512-563-4081.

Back to Tri-County Consultants