Land bank SB 284: multiple counties and eminent domain —Barbara Stratton

Received 5 March 2012 on Keep an eye on the Land Bank Authority. -jsq

There is no direct reference to a regional land bank authority. However, the bill [GA SB 284 -jsq] allows for "Intergovernmental contract" defined as "a contract as authorized pursuant to Article IX, Section III, Paragraph I of the Constitution of GA and paragraph (5) of Code Section 36-34-2 and entered into by counties, consolidated governments, and municipal corporations pursuant to this article." Section 48-4-103 further lists that a land bank may be created by two or more counties, which spells regional to me. Therefore regional land bank authorities can be established if this bill is passed.

The bill also allows for public/private partnerships which co-mingle government and private enterprise. Under Section 48-4-106 which enumerates the powers of a land bank, Lines 307 - 315 state

"(20)To fix, charge, and collect rents, fees, and charges for the use of real property of the land bank and for services provided by the land bank: (21) To grant or acquire a license, easement, lease, as lessor or lessee, or option with respect to real property of the land bank: (22)To enter into partnerships, joint ventures, and other collaborative relationships with municipalities and other public and private entities for the ownership, management, development, and disposition or real property: (23) To hold title to real property for purposes of establishing contracts with nonprofit community land trusts, including, but not limited to, long-term contracts:

If we endorse co-mingling of government and private enterprise we are encouraging crony capitalism and good old boy systems, not to mention following in the footsteps of Nazi Germany and the USSR.

Here is an article from the Georgia Taxpayer Alliance referencing SB 284 after it failed to pass in 2011. Read the article and the comment below the article.

The original 2011 version of SB 284 was reduced from 23 pages to 17 pages before it was submitted for the 2012 session. Among the removed sections were two separate entries referencing when a land bank enters a bid for tax lien sales and/or lien foreclosure sales the bid will be accepted regardless of any third party bids. That would mean any fair market and/or higher bid, which would allow a property owner to receive the remaining equity value above taxes, fees, and liens would be ignored. These directives were removed from the current version, but I believe they illustrate the true nature of some lobby interests for desired land bank authority powers. Banks would certainly be among such lobby interests. Many already steal owner equities and convert them to profit margins for them and their cronies by using insider information and under advertising public auction properties. These extremes were sacrificed to present a more acceptable version, but I submit the real prize was salvaged in the remaining increased land bank powers and authorization of regional land bank authorities.

-Barbara Stratton