Land bank would establish path toward rehabbing abandoned properties
By Tim Rowland
Essex County supervisors on Monday petitioned the state to allow it to create a land bank, designed to resurrect dilapidated housing that would be rehabbed and sold to people of modest means.
The land bank could also buy housing that was too far gone for repair, demolish it and oversee construction of something new. Both avenues would accomplish the twin goals of eliminating blighted properties, while helping provide affordable housing to communities sorely in need of it.
“This helps a vulnerable population that needs a leg up,” said town of Essex Supervisor Ken Hughes, a member of a housing committee that has been studying the issue. “We called land banks around the state, and the more the task force looked, the more attractive it became.”
Don’t miss a thing
Sign up for our “Adk News Briefing” newsletter, a weekly look at the hottest Adirondack stories
The land bank will focus on property Essex County already owns by way of foreclosure for unpaid taxes. These properties are typically auctioned once a year, but it’s not uncommon for buyers to learn after the fact that, in terms of repairs, they have bitten off more than they can chew, and the properties wind up right back in foreclosure.
With input from supervisors and the Housing Assistance Program of Essex County, the land bank, if approved by the state, would be operated by PRIDE of Ticonderoga, which brings to the table 40 years of grant-writing and housing rehabilitation experience. Despite the name, the entirety of Essex County falls under the nonprofit’s coverage as well.
“We’re in the business of keeping houses affordable, so this wasn’t a big leap for us,” said PRIDE Executive Director Nicole Justice Green.
Along with overseeing rehab, PRIDE will counsel homebuyers on the responsibilities of homeownership and find programs that can help prospective homeowners with closing costs, down payments or other measures that can get them over a financial hump and into a home loan.
Although state approval of the land bank is not expected for several months, Essex County — as something of a dry run — is going ahead with the rehabilitation of a blighted house on Springfield Road in the Town of Jay, a project that will be paid for out of federal Covid-relief funds. The cost to refurbish it is estimated at $180,000, Hughes said.
Despite some significant problems, including a failed septic system that was leaking into the road, Green said the home is relatively solid and has not outlived its useful life.
A second house, this one in North Elba, has been identified as being a good candidate for land-bank repairs, and may become the first to actually be saved under the auspices of the new land bank.
For fixing up property, land banks have several advantages over county governments. Nonprofits are not bound by government procurement, wage and other mandates that can drive up the cost. Still, if the home is to be affordable, the selling price typically would not cover the land bank’s rehabilitation costs. The gap is closed by financial incentives land banks are privy to, as well as other programs open to nonprofits. Green said PRIDE potentially has more than a dozen funding options applicable to housing rehab.
Because of this, Hughes said county taxpayers would not be paying for affordable housing, an important point among supervisors.
The state has a finite number of open land-bank slots and is nearing capacity. They are gaining currency in the North Country, where a Franklin County land bank was recently approved.
Clinton County was in the process of establishing a land bank when Covid hit, said County Treasurer Kimberly Davis.
Davis said the Clinton County model gives towns the option of opting in or out, and includes a dedicated revenue stream drawn from a small fraction of the town’s sales tax revenue and proceeds from the county’s tax auction. She said work toward establishment of the land bank has resumed this year.
I am not sure rehabbing dilapidated structures for the purpose of low/modest income housing or (whatever that is) is the best use of money – at least with construction costs still sky high. The article mentions a project that cost $180k to rehab!! When I was working full time making a decent salary, it was all I could do to keep up with maintenance/repairs to my 90 year old, well-constructed vintage bungalow. In this construction environment, it is impossible.
Taking an OLD, run-down home, and modernizing it is very expensive. And you are left with a modernized OLD home – subject to entropy as all homes are. People of modest means cannot afford upkeep on an old home let alone a new one in this construction market. So what happens? The structure(s) deteriorate again – likely losing value and putting the owner under water. The cycle continues. I feel this is an expensive, temporary fix at best.
Obviously, the best solution is to significantly raise the income of a huge segment of the housing market in the North Country. But since that isn’t likely to happen, I would rather see our money spent on housing that is modern, yet easy to maintain, and environmentally sited. Clustered housing, common utility lines, and common sewer/septic management. Common maintenance fees can go a long way toward maintaining structures indefinitely. The money is always there and the maintenance takes place before it becomes a major repair. This is very similar to a condominium plan, yet people with limited incomes know what their income will need to be to afford the home/condo/apartment.
If federal/state/county funds are used to subsidize the housing, oversight of the maintenance theoretically can be managed and ensured. But wherever there is money changing hands, corruption inevitably appears. We have to vote wisely, not tribally.
So I don’t have an answer, but Reading $180k just to rehab an old structure and selling it to someone who may not be able to maintain it properly seems to be a non-starter.
I recommend that the comment-leaver “Boreas” attend the Lyceum lecture at the Whallonsburg Grange Hall, Essex, NY on 3/21/23, 7pm. Topic is: Building a Sustainable Future: Preserving What Exists” for a different perspective on the value of rehabbing existing buildings. I don’t know if the speaker, Erin Tobin, will address single family homes, but it could be useful to ask for her thoughts on rehab vs. new construction as Essex County seeks to increase home ownership opportunities.