Land Bank: It’s Just the Beginning

Wednesday afternoon the Newburgh Community Land Bank held their monthly meeting.  Their Consulting Director, Madeline Fletcher, as well as their consultant from Pace’s Land Use Law center, Jessica Bacher, met with me prior to the meeting and they responded to some of the concerns I raised in my earlier post, as well as answering some additional questions.

Size of Land Bank

Fletcher pointed out that the land bank does indeed include the entire City of Newburgh.  Carefully reading the application submitted to ESDC supports this.  While it is true that a small section of the city was chosen as the “target area,” nothing prevents the land bank from operating city-wide.

The subject of the size of land banks came up during the board meeting.  Allan Aztrott brought up the possibility of collaborating with the county, although this remained a point of speculation.

Targeted Enforcement

In speaking to Fletcher and Bacher, I asked them what was meant by the commitment of the city, as described in the land bank application, “to concentrate its police and code enforcement efforts in this target area to ensure the success of the Land Bank’s operations.” They described that what usually happens is “passive” enforcement, where code enforcement responds to calls for help.  What  concentrated or targeted enforcement might entail is more proactive approaches to code enforcement.  The women explained that this has not happened yet, and that two consultants are completing a study of the city currently to make recommendations on code enforcement, and that this study will help shape future actions.  They did not give me an explanation of what targeted police enforcement would be.

Revenue Streams

While I bemoaned the lack of pursuing alternative revenue streams, such as collection of tax liens, Ms. Bacher provided the explanation that Newburgh actually does a very good job of servicing tax liens, and thus this would be an unlucrative option for the Land Bank to pursue.

Another potential source of diversified income would be rental money.  During the board meeting, a substantial portion of the discussion was focused on the HOGAR properties, which are now in foreclosure and subject to legal action by the city, Key Bank, and the county.  These are a few properties on Dubois Street that were rehabbed and put on the market with great fanfare a few years ago.  The city had invested several hundred thousand in a Restore grant at the time.  After the pending legal actions are settled, the land bank’s hope would be to possibly acquire the properties and, due to the soft market, use them as rentals.

Budget

In a follow-up email, I asked Ms. Fletcher if she could share a more itemized budget than the brief and confusing one in the ESDC application.  In our pre-board meeting, she did confirm that the land bank had indeed received a $100,000 grant from the Ford Foundation.  In my email, I had asked specifically for something that would breakdown what the separate in-kind contributions were from the various entities (city, Greater Newburgh Partnership, and St. Luke’s Cornwall Hospital.)

Ms. Fletcher responded that, “At this point, we do not have a better budget to offer. We are working on breaking things down further and will be happy to provide when we’ve firmed it up better.  We still have to figure out exactly what consulting we need, etc.  As we go, our expenditures will be more refined and we will firm up the budget.  At this point, we know roughly what resources have, we have to fine tune how they are allocated as our expenses become clearer.”

Cryptic Parting Remarks

As I left the table with Fletcher and Bacher just before 4 p.m., as our interview was concluded and the board meeting was about to begin, Allan Aztrott introduced himself to me and provided a one page summary of the hospital’s 2011 budget.  I’m not sure what I was supposed to do with this, and anyway, if you are interested in the hospital’s finances you can access their tax returns from the Foundation Center’s 990 Finder and/or an even more complete accounting statement from the NYS Attorney General’s Charities Bureau website (although both sites have the information posted for 2010, not 2011 yet.  Keep checking.)

Mr. Aztrott provided some pleasant facts about the hospital and then asked why the Newburgh Parking Tribunal had finally passed in Albany.  “I don’t know,” I said.  And he pointed out that it was the hospital’s lobbyist that lobbied for it.

Sure enough, you can look up the New York State Joint Commission on Public Ethics’ website, click on “view a filing,” and with a little effort you can find all the bills that the hospital and/or the Greater Newburgh Partnership has lobbied for, and the lobbyists they employ.

Mr. Aztrott also bragged that the hospital provided grant writing services to various city grants, including the Fire Department and FEMA-related.

Should this mean that the hospital owns the city and dictates public policy?

It is a delicate question.  The city council was distraught at Thursday night’s meeting when the subject of PILOTs came up.  Having gone to school in New Haven at Yale, I am familiar with the intricate relationship that can exist between a major nonprofit and its city, which in this case includes a PILOT.

But contributions can take many forms.  Is grantwriting ongoing?  How much, and can we attribute a dollar amount to that?  Certainly this is a contribution, which our anemic city budgets appreciate.

The fine line is somewhere around doing things that help our own neighborhood and interests, and doing things that are in the interest of the entire city.  That line is muddied when government is outsourced behind-the-scenes, or one interest is so powerful it becomes a strangling force on our council members and government.  Then democracy goes out the window, and some other form of human organization takes over.

 

The Look of Love is in Newburgh Land Bank’s Eye

I can hardly wait to hold you, feel my arms around you
How long I have waited
Waited just to love you, now that I have found you
Don’t ever go
Don’t ever go
I love you so

FIVE Thoughts on the Newburgh Community Land Bank (NCLB)

1. Is it big enough? 
 Probably not.

While the Land Bank promoters bragged that the Newburgh Community Land Bank was the only municipal-based land bank of the five that were approved by the New York’s Empire State Development Corporation earlier this year, this might not be something to be proud of.   According to land bank experts Dan Kildee and Amy Hovey from Michigan’s Center for Community Progress, larger land banks are better than smaller land banks as they allow for a greater diversity of holdings.  (Kildee and Hovey gave presentations April 14 and 15 of 2010 here in the City of Newburgh in conjunction with PACE’s Land Use Law Center.)  As Ms. Hovey explained in a recent email,

It is always best to have a diverse inventory of properties with the land bank jurisdiction.  The diversity allows the land bank to balance the properties/projects that provide a return with those that cost more than they can generate during the sale.  If a land bank only take[s] the properties that do not provide any revenue the land bank with not be sustainable.  (Emphasis mine.)

The NCLB does not seem to have learned this lesson yet.  Instead of encompassing the entire city, which after all is only about four square miles, the land bank is narrowed, according to its application, to include “to the North by Gidney Avenue and Clinton Street, to the East by Grand Street, to the South by Broadway, and to the West by Dubois Street.”

This is a minuscule area, where blighted properties tend to have similar problems–not much diversity here, although it is within the catchement area and includes the site of St. Luke’s Cornwall Hospital, whose CEO Allan Atzrott sits on the board of the NCLB.

The four land banks approved by ESDC other than Newburgh all contained at least a county, or a combination of cities and a county.  Newburgh should at a minimum expand the land bank to include the entire city, if not consider partnering with Orange County and/or neighboring towns.

Unfortunately, ESDC admitted it was impressed by “letters of support” the Newburgh Land Bank lined up (if you download their application, supporters run on for ten pages, although none speak with any depth as to what the land bank will do or how it will help.)  Does ESDC know as little about land banks as Newburgh?  And how did PACE’s representatives support this mote of a land bank?  Shouldn’t they know better?

2. Is it financially grounded?  Probably not.

One of the things that impressed me in the presentation in April 2010 by the Center for Community Progress was that land banks can be sustainable.  By having diverse projects, they can balance the gut rehabs that require so much more investment with other kinds of development projects.  Additionally, revenue can be made through the collecting funds on properties with tax liens, and other financial penalties; collection of rent, as well as sales of properties.

Looking at the NCLB’s application’s budget on pages 40-41, about half of the land banks revenues are grouped together into “Grants or In-kind services,” amounting to $220,000 of $450,000 total for the first year.  A footnote attempts to clarify that

* As of 3/28/2012 NCLB has secured $30,000 from the Ford Foundation, plus an additional $100,000 commitment from Ford Foundation, $80,000 Planning Fund from City of Newburgh.
** In-kind donation of professional services from the City of Newburgh, The Greater Newburgh Partnership and St. Luke’s Cornwall Hospital

The $220,000 amount does not include an “existing City of Newburgh grant” of $75,000.  But it is totally baffling what is going on here financially.  How much, exactly, is being provided by the city vs. the Greater Newburgh Partnership vs. St. Luke’s Cornwall Hospital? When does the $100,000 from the Ford Foundation kick in? Was the $80,000 from the “Planning Fund from City of Newburgh” approved by resolution by the city council?

What is clear from the budget is that the NCLB is relying on grants for funding.  This is unfortunate, because some of the other types of sources of revenue are what will help to make the land bank sustainable, such as collecting on tax liens.  This is, in a sense, a “Michigan model,” in that land banks there like the Flint and Genesee County land banks participate in those kind of revenue streams.  In contrast, I asked Steve Gawlik of ESDC whether any of the other New York land banks were making use of tax liens as part of their revenue stream, and he said no.

While it could be that these new land banks are simply getting started, in the long run, going after tax liens would help round out the revenue streams as well as improving the general property climate.  The “Foreclosing Governmental Unit” (FGU)–in this case, the City of Newburgh, would not necessarily be a competitor for such funds if they are not being zealously collected in the first place (a question for the city council.)

3. Does it have the interests of the whole city at heart?
  Probably not.

Well, since geographically it’s not even four chambers of a heart, barely a single chamber of the city, we must ask ourselves, whose interests are best represented in carving out this portion of a cardiac patient?

Maybe we could spread some of the love around?  Or at least some of the defibrillators.

4. It’s just like Habitat for Humanity!
  Right? Wrong.

Center for Community Progress’s  Hovey clarified by email the difference:

There are many differences between a land bank and a Habitat for Humanity
1. Habitat only deals with affordable housing.  Land Banks can be involved in a diversity of housing projects, as well as, commercial, industrial, recreational and agricultural projects.
2. Habitats do not hold property for long periods of time.  Land Banks are created to hold all types of properties tax free until which time the market is ready to absorb the property into the market.
3. Habitats are private nonprofits whose mission is to create affordable housing for low income families. Land Bank are mostly public entities that help a community meets it land use goals.  A Land Bank transaction [is] transparent and open to public comment.

5.  Is it sustainable?  Not yet.

But perhaps with some changes it could be!

Spot the difference

2011 MA Development Perkins Eastman rendering of Broadway front

 

2009 Robert Carchietta Perkins Eastman rendering of Broadway front

2011 MA Development Perkins Eastman rendering of Broadway side view

 

2009 Robert Carchietta Perkins Eastman rendering of Broadway side view

The 2011 images (the top ones) come from a submission by M.A. Development and Perkins Eastman in answer to a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) put out by the City of Newburgh.  To view information about all six respondents, click here.

The 2009 images (the bottom ones) come from a submission by Robert Carchietta and Perkins Eastman in answer to a Request for Qualifications issued by the City in 2009.

The contact person for M.A. Development, Mr. Henry, did not respond to a request for comment as to how his renderings appear to be the same as Mr. Carchietta’s, or whether Mr. Carchietta is in any way involved with his team.

Stephen Yates, Senior Associate and Director of Communications for Perkins Eastman, deferred to Mr. Henry, writing that “I will have to defer to Joseph Henry at M.A. Development on these questions, unfortunately we are not able to answer them.”

Mid-Broadway Business District on the agenda for Thursday

According to the Work Session tentative agenda, four developers for the Mid-Broadway Business District will give presentations Thursday night, not including M.A. Development.

Included in that tentative agenda is a memo from Planning Department Director Ed Lynch about the process of selecting four developers from the original six.

M.A. Development was dismissed for being overly ambitious, including the acquisition of properties surrounding the city’s proposed property.  Mr. Lynch writes,

The developer stated that if it was unable to acquire the 16+ privately owned properties at fair market value, the City needed to use its eminent domain powers.  The exercise of eminent domain powers without the benefit of an Urban Renewal Area designation has not been successful in New York State.  The creation of an Urban Renewal Area and the inclusion of privately owned properties was viewed as being undesirable.

Eminent domain was also one of the contentious issues when Carchietta’s lot (now named the Mid-Broadway Business District) was under consideration for the campus of SUNY Orange in 2006.  That year, the City hired Perkins Eastman to do its own site selection evaluation.

Who’s on the shortlist

Still in consideration is Vincent Cappelletti’s Newburgh Commercial Development Corporation, even though their submission was only two pages.  Cappelletti made a proposal in 2009, which was thrown out, along with Carchietta’s and Jerry Sanchez’s.

The other three developers who will be presenting are first place Wallison Corp. (Bronx) second place Poko Partners LLC (Port Chester NY)  with The Kretchmer Companies, LLC (New York City) and third place Mill Street Partners, LLC (New York City) with RECAP (Middletown) and CPC Resources, Inc. (New York City).

Additional information on these developers is available here.

 

8.5.11: Update on Perkins Eastman Renderings

I have been informed that architects generally retain intellectual property rights of their plans, and that a client will pay for a one-time use.  While it is impossible to know what happened in the case above, since the involved parties are declining comment, theoretically one possibility would be Perkins Eastman found a new developer, MA Development, after Mr. Carchietta’s attempt didn’t pan out, and simply recycled that work.  Thus, it may be the case that Mr. Carchietta has no connection to the 2011 proposal.