allows City residents to take immediate ownership of LRA-owned parcels adjacent to their property for just $125 if the resident agrees to continually maintain the lot. The City will give away the land itself for free. The $125 covers the title transfer and lien, should the new owner fail to maintain his/her new property. After 24 months of regular maintenance, the lien will be lifted and the property granted free and clear to the new owner.

The city has no interest in paying to maintain these lots. Why not do whatever it takes to get them off the books and into private hands? This effort is similar to the Kansas City’s Land Bank Side Lot Program, where resident landowners may purchase adjacent vacant lots from the city for prices ranging from as little as $1 for lots under 2,500 square feet, to $.08 per square foot for lots between 6,000 and 6,500 square feet. The program has had some success. The city sold 50 side lots in 2014, 63 in 2015, and 9 so far in 2016.

The comparative strengths of the KC program, according to the Land Bank’s executive director, Ted Anderson, are that it does not require the program management of Mow to Own, and that liability insurance is less of an issue for the city because the buyers own the land outright. Furthermore, selling the land outright means there is less need to oversee the diligence of dozens of different people mowing city land.

The incentive to buy city land will still be affected by the distortionary effect taxes have on behavior. I know of one landowner in Kansas City whose office building, due to street layout, abuts a sizeable greenspace that is otherwise inaccessible. He maintains the space by cutting the grass. He’s aware of the Side Lot program, but he has no interest in assuming the additional property tax, especially when he currently has the option of enjoying the green space without being taxed on it. Saint Louis should expect to see cases like this on occasion, but to the extent that the Mow to Own program can relieve the city of unproductive property, it will be a step in the right direction. 

The post St Louis Rolls Out Mow to Own Program appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The City of Saint Louis has an agency, the Land Reutilization Authority (LRA), which manages more than 10,000 of these vacant and abandoned properties. The LRA has an enormous responsibility. Its actions, past and present, can play a major role in determining the future of this city. In a 2011 Show-Me Institute Policy Study called “Standstill: How City Agencies Have Hindered Development In Saint Louis While Waiting For Large-Scale Miracles,” then-policy analyst Audrey Spalding examined the actions and decisions the LRA makes that heavily affect the city of Saint Louis. The study found that the LRA was not fulfilling the responsibilities of the organization as created and defined in Missouri statute.

The LRA has the ability to increase private investment in Saint Louis neighborhoods, which can help create a better Saint Louis. But it cannot do that if it does not sell properties.

By building on the work presented in “Standstill,” this case study will provide insight into how the LRA has changed over the last couple of years and whether it has started to achieve the original goals tasked to it more than 40 years ago.

Read the case study:

See also the Show-Me Institute’s previous research on land banks:

• Standstill: Is Saint Louis Hindering Development by Waiting for Large-Scale Miracles? — April 19, 2011
• Land Banking: An Old Idea With A Poor Track Record — March 26, 2012
• Kansas City Land Bank Proposal: Learning From Failures Of The Saint Louis Land Bank— March 05, 2012
• Land Banking Is No Miracle — February 29, 2012
• Land Bank Recommendations — February 28, 2012
• Legislators Should Seriously Consider the Failings of the Saint Louis Land Bank before Creating a Kansas City Land Bank — February 08, 2012
• What a Difference a Year Makes: Saint Louis City’s Land Bank, the LRA — October 03, 2011
• Why Is There So Much Vacant Land in Saint Louis? — February 22, 2011
• Paper Questions City Landholding Policy — February 21, 2011

The post Promoting Private Land Ownership In Saint Louis: A Data Update On The Land Reutilization Authority appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Given the building’s current state, it is exciting that the LRA has found a positive future for the property. The owners of CBI donated the property to the LRA with the understanding that once the current environmental clean-up is complete, the land will be given to the Herbert Hoover Boys and Girls Club.

The LRA is not responsible for the site’s clean-up, but it is responsible for what happens to the property after that. While the president of the Boys and Girls Club, Flint Fowler, said he looks forward to the Club’s expansion, some locals are wary of the property’s future. Loletta Zasaretii, a resident of the neighborhood, said she would rather see jobs created on the property instead of  “just another ball field.” Although many share Zasaretti’s desire for more jobs in North Saint Louis, the LRA is making the right decision because it is not holding onto the property.

The LRA may not be solving all of the neighborhood’s problems by handing the property over to the Herbert Hoover Boys and Girls Club, a non-profit, tax–exempt organization. But it is definitely moving in the right direction toward improving Saint Louis. Along with making the property more attractive and safer, the Boys and Girls Club — rather than the city — would be responsible for the land’s upkeep. Most importantly, the LRA deserves credit for getting the property off the city’s balance sheet and back into private ownership and productive use. Why can’t the LRA do this same thing with the thousands of other properties it owns?

The post More Like This. . .Please? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Cassandra Griffin pleaded with the board to let her buy a small lot right next to her house. She has been maintaining the lot for years because the owner neglected the property and Griffin wanted the neighborhood to look nice. She continued maintaining the lot when the LRA acquired it earlier this year. Her offer was lower than the city’s estimated value of $1,454 — but she explained that she has already spent close to $4,000 on upkeep.

The LRA should be happy to give this small plot of land to a woman who is proud of her neighborhood and wants to keep it in good shape. Instead, one of the board members remarked that the LRA has only owned this property for about a year, and it is big enough to build on so someone else might want to buy it. Is that a good reason to turn down a buyer?

Here is a picture of Griffin’s home and the empty lot she wants to purchase (from Google Maps):

The LRA’s mission is to put abandoned, tax-delinquent properties back into productive use. No one else has attempted to purchase this property. How long is the LRA going to hold onto it? If Griffin stopped maintaining the property, the city would spend taxpayer dollars on upkeep when they could let her own the property now, maintain it herself, and pay taxes on that land. The city could wait years before someone comes along who wants to build on this property (more likely, they may never come). Time is money.

The post Time Is Money appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In addition to testifying and providing suggested changes to the legislation, I have also written here repeatedly about the pitfalls of creating a land bank, in light of the 40 years of failure we have experienced in Saint Louis City. If legislators — despite the evidence that land banking can lead to abuses of political power and poor decision making — still want to pass the land bank legislation, perhaps they should consider recent land banking news from other states:

The Columbus, Ohio land bank is asking the State of Ohio for money.

The fiscal note for the land banking bills (H.B. 1659 and S.B. 795), reports that passing the legislation will not cost the state money. However, the legislation itself mentions possible funding from the state several times. Columbus, Ohio provides a good example of what could occur if the Kansas City legislation is passed. The new land bank is requesting $8.2 million from the State of Ohio. A newly established Kansas City land bank could make a similar request.

The Saginaw, Mich. land bank bought a hotel, used it for police training exercises and now plans to spend up to $400,000 to demolish the hotel and build an “aesthetically pleasing parking lot.”

Regular Show-Me Daily readers know that we are not a fan of government development bets. Well, land banking takes that practice to the next level. Instead of government officials attempting to pick winners and losers by awarding tax subsidies, land banks can purchase and attempt to redevelop property. What could possibly go wrong?

Consider the case of Saginaw, Mich. In December, the Saginaw land bank purchased a hotel for $235,000. Since then, refrigerators and microwaves have been looted, and the sheriff’s department has conducted “emergency response exercises” there. The building is riddled with black mold, and the county is paying $15,000 per month for utility costs at the vacant hotel.

Government officials say that investors aren’t interested in the property, so the next step is to demolish the building and build a parking lot. The demolition is estimated to cost another $300,000 to $400,000.

The Missouri land bank legislation is modeled on Michigan’s land bank law. If legislators pass S.B. 795 or H.B. 1659, a Kansas City land bank would have the powers to make similar development bets with taxpayer money.

The Missouri Legislature passed land banking legislation in 1971, and it has been an abysmal failure. The Saint Louis land bank holds more property than ever, and pays more than $1 million every year just to mow the grass on its properties. Why repeat past mistakes?

The post Land Banking is Expensive appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

More than 40 years ago, Saint Louis City set up a land bank in response to the exodus of its residents, and the vacant property they left behind. When the land bank was created, the hope was that it could return vacant property back to private, productive use.

Instead, the land bank has adopted policies which have compounded the vacancy crises. Most troubling is the land bank’s policy of giving area aldermen an inordinate amount of influence over whether someone can purchase property. Offers from residents are rejected simply because their local alderman does not express his approval of the sale.

Offers to buy vacant land bank property are often from neighborhood residents. The properties are generally in a state of disrepair, and the bidder is planning to repair the property in an attempt to make his or her neighborhood a better place to live. If the resident does not have the blessing of his local alderman, the offer is typically rejected.

Consider the case of 2925 Union, a rundown, 1-story brick building in Saint Louis that received offers from four different buyers. The Saint Louis land bank said no to all four offers. When the area alderman showed up at a land bank meeting and told the land bank to sell the property to another buyer, it did.

Tragically, this policy of deferring to area officials will be written into law if Philadelphia’s land bank ordinance is adopted. In its current form, Philadelphia’s ordinance forbids the land bank from entering into a transaction if the district council person expresses disapproval. This policy will almost certainly thwart development byresidents who do not have their councilman’s approval, even if the resident plans to put the property to productive use.

Our fear is not unfounded. This happens frequently in Saint Louis. The former deputy mayor for development told us that “the sort of working arrangement we have with the aldermen is that if they don’t want to do something, we don’t want to do it.”

In order to quickly get land back into private, productive use, a land bank should accept reasonable purchase offers, even if politicians oppose them.

Philadelphia should also heed Saint Louis’s failed attempts to hold property for future development. Show-Me Institute research revealed that between 2003 and 2010, the Saint Louis land bank rejected nearly half of all purchase offers. The most common reason for rejection was that the property was being held for future development. Unfortunately, the hoped-for future developments rarely materialize.

In Philadelphia, the land bank proposal establishes goals that may undermine efforts to return the land to productive use. The goals include otherwise laudable priorities, such as encouraging “affordable or mixed-income housing that is accessible or visitable” and “community facilities that provide needed services and enrichment opportunities; side- and rear-yards; urban agriculture; and community open space.” These goals may have the unintended consequence of providing a reason for the land bank to reject purchase offers that do not fit the land bank’s vision. Again, our fears are grounded in experience – this public policy failure has occurred repeatedly in Saint Louis.

To be clear, Saint Louis’s adverse policies are not written into law, and can be suspended at any time. Indeed, it appears that in response to the Show-Me Institute’s research the land bank bank’s rejection rate was cut nearly in half. But in Philadelphia, these poor policies will be written into law.

Bruce Stahl is a research assistant and Audrey Spalding is a policy analyst at the Show-Me Institute, which promotes market solutions for Missouri public policy.

The post Don’t Bank on It: When it Comes to Vacant Property, Learn from Saint Louis’ Failures appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Unfortunately, Porter fails to consider the 40-year-old land bank in her home state. Saint Louis has had a land bank, also known as the Land Reutilization Authority (LRA), since 1972. The LRA owns about 10,000 parcels, making it the largest land holder in the City of Saint Louis. The Saint Louis land bank’s track record should be considered before creating a similar entity in Kansas City.

Show-Me Institute research has found that for eight years, from 2003 through 2010, the Saint Louis land bank authority rejected almost half of all formal offers to purchase its property. The most frequent reason for rejection was that the property was being “held for future development.” Sadly, the hoped-for future development rarely materializes, and in just eight years, the Saint Louis land bank has turned down offers to purchase more than 2,200 different parcels.

Porter also fails to mention that there already is a government entity that deals with vacant land in Kansas City. The Jackson County Land Trust currently takes ownership of tax-delinquent properties that fail to sell at tax auction, and works to sell them.

There does not appear to be any evidence that the Jackson County Land Trust is doing a poor job of getting vacant property back into private, productive use. In fact, it seems to be doing quite well. During the past decade, in the course of acquiring property by default and trying to sell it, the land trust has added about 140 parcels to its inventory. The Saint Louis land bank has added 800.

However, the land bank bill, Missouri House Bill 1659, would be a land and money grab: All land trust properties in Kansas City would be transferred to the land bank, and it could take on an unlimited amount of debt.

Though Porter warns against private speculators, this bill would allow the Kansas City land bank to act as a speculator. The city would establish priorities for vacant land and use those to determine when to sell property. While this may sound innocuous, that is how Saint Louis was able to turn down so many offers to buy vacant property.

Consider this line from a letter of rejection from the Saint Louis land bank: “…her intended use is as rental property, and the alderman has indicated verbally that he will only support the sale to an owner occupant…” Years later, the property remains vacant, and the LRA still owns the land.

This bill would also let a Kansas City land bank bid directly against people who want to purchase vacant property. That certainly would go against the ostensible goal of alleviating vacancy in the city. The land bank would, when bidding against private buyers, be working directly to keep property vacant, and in government ownership.

HB 1659 creates an unnecessary expansion of government power. No strong evidence has been provided to show that the Jackson County Land Trust has failed, nor that a land bank could do a better job of getting vacant, city-owned property back into private, productive use. In fact, if Saint Louis is any example, the contrary will occur.

Audrey Spalding is a policy analyst at the Show-Me Institute, which promotes market solutions for Missouri public policy.

The post Land Banking Is No Miracle appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Some might say that the agreement is a validation of the city’s strategy to hold property for development. But even though political points may be gained by trumpeting development before it occurs, development of these parcels has not actually happened.  As one writer put it, “…until development occurs on a large portion of the land, the strategy will only have proven that after three decades, the city has found someone else to mow the yard.”

Indeed, while the prospect of selling 1,200 city-owned properties is great news for the city and its residents, this single development will not remake Saint Louis, even if successful. The city has dug itself into an incredible vacancy hole that would require almost another nine developments like the NorthSide one — just to take care of the vacant property that the Saint Louis land bank, also known as the Land Reutilization Authority (LRA), owns. And this proposed development took years to come about.

According to St. Louis Magazine, the NorthSide development was in the works since at least 2003, and no comparable large-scale development has taken place in Saint Louis. If we are pinning our hopes on more developments like NorthSide, we have to wait another 40 years. How much land will the city have amassed by then?

As part of the Show-Me Institute’s review of the operations of the LRA, we collected a great deal of data to see how frequently the agency was accepting and rejecting offers to buy its vacant property. We found that the LRA rejected formal offers to purchase more than 2,200 different parcels between the years 2003 and 2010. That is certainly a larger number than the 1,200 parcels being discussed as part of the NorthSide deal.

Some may be curious as to whether offers in recent years to purchase LRA property were rejected in the NorthSide footprint.

The map below shows all offers to purchase LRA property, with larger marks indicating higher-value offers. Between 2003 and 2010, offers to purchase more than 300 different properties within the NorthSide boundary were rejected.

However, to make the situation complicated, offers to purchase more than 280 properties in the area were accepted. While some offers were rejected because the agency was holding the property for “planned unified development,” others were accepted.

What I find more troubling is the city’s bad (but recently abandoned) habit of holding property off of its public for-sale list. Up until the publication of Show-Me Institute research, almost half of LRA property was not advertised for sale. This was due in part to agency staff members and area aldermen designating property as “Class C,” meaning that it was not “suitable for public or private use.” In practice, that designation made it more difficult, if not impossible in some cases, for people to purchase vacant property. Below is a map showing parcels not advertised for sale in red, with LRA parcels advertised for sale in green. The NorthSide boundary is included for reference.

We only have records for formal, written offers to purchase LRA property. It is impossible to know how many would-be buyers were discouraged from buying property in the NorthSide footprint as a result of the LRA’s practices.

The post NorthSide Development is Complicated, But No Validation of Land Banking appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The problem is, the LRA seems to have done more to thwart development than to encourage it. During the past four decades, the LRA has accumulated a larger and larger inventory of vacant properties in Saint Louis, while rejecting many offers from private individuals and small businesses to purchase selected properties from the agency.

The agency’s most frequently stated reason for turning down so many offers has been that the property in question is “being held for future development” — as if some unknown savior will come along at a future date to undertake a massive development that will require scores of vacant parcels in a single swoop.

In acting in this way, the agency has ignored a basic rule of thumb: When you are in a hole, stop digging. The LRA’s holdings of vacant properties have climbed from 2,000 in the early 1970s to more than 9,000 today. It has turned the derelict status of much of the city’s housing stock into an unchanging and seemingly permanent condition. Remarkably, more than half of the parcels that are now owned by the LRA have been in the agency’s possession for well over a decade.

If you want to know the full story of how this happened, I urge you to visit showmeinstitute.org and read our study of the LRA, “Standstill: Is St. Louis Hindering Development by Waiting for Large-Scale Miracles?” It illustrates the fallacy that a public agency can work miracles by substituting its judgment for the far more detailed knowledge of the marketplace.

The LRA now works in relative obscurity, seldom attracting much attention. Still, though, it wields the same extraordinary powers originally granted to it by the Missouri legislature 40 years ago. We believe that a review of both the practices of the LRA and the authorizing statute are in order.

The LRA’s actions spring from the same impulse that has led to the abuse of eminent domain laws: a lack of regard for the rights and interests of small landowners, and the assumption that government officials know better than private citizens how best to use or dispose of their property. Action by the Legislature is needed to help address this problem, with a view toward reversing the LRA’s longstanding practice of hoarding land and toward establishing standards for disposal of property that will ensure its availability for private use.

To better serve the public interest, the LRA should stop trying to pick winners and losers in the market for vacant land. It should accelerate the sale of tax-delinquent properties to private individuals and businesses who are willing to purchase it.

By making it more difficult for people to buy land in the city, the government discourages city living. It is little wonder that the city is still hemorrhaging residents.

Brenda Talent is the executive director for the Show-Me Institute, an independent think tank promoting free-market solutions for Missouri public policy.

The post Saint Louis Agency May Be Hindering Development by Hoarding Vacant Land appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

2925 Union Blvd. Photo by Thomas Duda.

A week ago, the Saint Louis Land Reutilization Authority (LRA), an agency that owns more than 9,000 city parcels, considered another offer to purchase 2925 Union. This time, however, the area alderman showed up to tell the commission what decisions he thought it should make.

Saint Louis aldermen have an incredible amount of influence over the sale (or not) of vacant city property. Aldermen are frequently asked to provide a “letter of support” when an individual tries to purchase LRA property. But if aldermen oppose the sale of a property, they do not have to do so in any sort of verifiable, public way. In some cases, the absence of an alderman’s letter of support is all that is needed.

LRA commissioners take the absence of such a letter very seriously. City officials have been careful to say that the lack of such a letter doesn’t necessarily kill a sale, but an alderman’s input seems significant in practice.

As former Commissioner Howard Hayes said to a would-be buyer at the LRA’s May 2010 meeting: “We put a lot of weight on that judgment.”

Of course, the LRA doesn’t have to consider the input of an area alderman. The agency’s authority was established under state law, and the LRA law does not suggest that the agency consider the input of any political officials. Saint Louis government has implemented this practice by choice.

At the March 2011 meeting, Ward 1 Alderman Quincy Troupe spoke at length about offers to purchase vacant city property in his ward. Troupe, who spoke before anyone else at that day’s LRA meeting, recommended that the agency take certain actions on offers to purchase property in his ward.

In the case of 2925 Union, Troupe recommended that the agency sell. And, later in the meeting, the commission voted to offer a sale.

This blog post isn’t intended to protest the sale of 2925 Union. I am happy that it sold, especially if it will result in new development for the city. However, I question allowing aldermen to comment on, if not affect, the sale of LRA property. Nothing magical happens when aldermen are elected that enables them to foretell whether a proposed development project will be successful. If the LRA allows aldermen to have significant input on offers to purchase property, then the agency is awarding a great deal of power to the aldermen out of courtesy.

I wonder, what does it take to get the support of the alderman? A visionary redevelopment plan? Friendship? Money? The aldermen may all have pure motives, but the LRA’s approval process seems to leave the door wide open for under-the-table deals.

Furthermore, some agencies similar to the LRA do not invite comment from elected officials on offers to purchase property. The Genesee County Land Bank in Flint, Mich., does not request approval of an offer by city councilmen. When I spoke to Genesee County Land Bank Executive Director Doug Weiland, he wondered if such a practice could get “political.”

It certainly seems like it could.

The post Is It Redevelopment? Or Is It Politics? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Audrey Spalding on ‘St. Louis on the Air’ Thursday at 11:00 a.m. appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Yet my research shows that the LRA frequently does not sell its property to people who want to buy it.

Although his post is peppered with a few unsubstantiated negative comments about the Show-Me Institute, Alex raises some good questions. I think others may have similar questions, so I will answer Alex’s questions here.

Furthermore, the Show-Me Institute is the only organization that has done the legwork to collect data on the LRA’s actions, so we are able to answer almost any question about the LRA’s operations. You ask the question, and I will be happy to do the necessary query writing to answer it for you! So, fire away in the comments section.

(more…)

The post Facts Are Facts: The City Has Refused to Sell a Great Deal of Its Property appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

KMOV reporter Craig Cheatham has also looked into this issue and you can watch his investigation tonight at 10 p.m.

Ultimately, this research leads to the question of whether holding property is really the best development policy for Saint Louis. It isn’t the case that all of the LRA’s rejections involve people who try to buy properties without sufficient funds — only about a quarter of the LRA’s rejections cite “insufficient financial resources” as the reason for rejection. Instead, the most frequent reason for rejection is that the property in question is “being held for future development.” Yet, in its rejection letters to would-be buyers, and in its minutes, the LRA does not state what that future development is or when it will take place.

From 2003 through 2010, the LRA has rejected roughly one out of every two offers it has considered. This doesn’t mean that the agency has accepted the other offers. In fact, the LRA has accepted fewer than 25 percent of the offers it has considered, meaning that the agency rejects two offers for every offer it accepts. The rest are counter-offers, which frequently do not result in a sale.

So, why not let more people who are trying to buy LRA property purchase it?

Moving properties off of the LRA’s rolls will, at minimum, mean that the city will spend less in taxpayer funds maintaining these properties, and can collect more property tax revenue. Furthermore, rejecting an offer today in favor of a hoped-for offer in the future entails taking on a great deal of risk. It is likely that the hoped-for development will take years, if not decades, to materialize … or may never come about at all.

Otis Williams, deputy director of development at the Saint Louis Development Corporation (which oversees the LRA), made a revealing comment when talking to Milhaven today (after my appearance). Milhaven asked what was so bad about selling LRA property, even if it isn’t developed. After all, LRA properties are vacant. In the case of a privately held vacant property, at least the city would no longer be paying to maintain it (cutting the grass on these properties alone costs about $1 million per year). Williams responded:

When we sell it, it is a real estate transaction, at that point, and they own it. Unless they don’t pay the taxes, or we pursue them in court through right of reentry … once you sell it, you’ve pretty much lost control.

If the city were to focus on encouraging all development, not just development that matched its overarching plan, there wouldn’t be concern about losing control of a particular property. However, Williams’ statement makes sense in light of the fact that the city focuses on encouraging only its notion of the right kinds of development.

Does this top-down development approach work? It doesn’t seem to. The LRA owns more property today than it has in the past, and is still trying to control exactly who can buy property and what they can do with it. Perhaps it is time to take a different approach.

The post Why Not Sell City-Owned Vacant Property? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Full Study, Policy Brief, and Supporting Research

The post Paper Questions City Landholding Policy appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Consider 4634 Cottage Ave., pictured below in August 2010. Until 1999, it was in private ownership following its construction in 1906. A sign reading “Private Property NO TRESPASSING” hangs ironically on one of the building’s boarded door openings, a vestige of the structure’s past life as an income-producing property.

Today, the multi-family dwelling is in a perpetual state of decay because of its status a property owned by the Land Reutilization Authority (LRA).

Private owners in a free market have vastly different incentives than do government agencies to ensure the health and vibrancy of assets under their control.

This month’s meeting of the LRA Commission will be held on Wednesday, Oct. 27, at 8:30 a.m. in the board room of St. Louis Development Corporation, on the 12th floor of 1015 Locust St. in downtown St. Louis.

The post Suffocating Neighborhoods, Parcel by Parcel appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

With vacancy pervasive throughout our community, St. Louisans may often logically conclude that said emptiness is the direct consequence of the stark reality that persons simply do not want to live here in the same numbers that they once did. In fact, it would be difficult to argue that losing nearly two-thirds of the city’s peak population would have a negligible impact on the appearance of the city’s landscape.

But does so much property necessarily remain vacant from a lack of market demand for single-family homes, larger yards, and new business locations, or could vacancy be the product of market distortion by a governmental agency?

At the urging of a colleague, I attended my first ever hearing of the St. Louis Land Reutilization Authority (LRA) on Wednesday morning, looking for an answer.

Within moments of its commencement, the meeting shattered every expectation that I had for a body with the following statutory mandate (emphasis and link added):

The land reutilization authority is hereby created to foster the public purpose of returning land which is in a nonrevenue generating nontax producing status, to effective utilization in order to provide housing, new industry, and jobs for the citizens of any city operating under the provisions of sections 92.700 to 92.920 and new tax revenues for said city.

Instead of operating in a manner consistent with its above-enumerated legislative intent, the LRA appeared to operate according to a morass of opaque cultural practices that stand divorced from any legislative language. Indeed, the insistence by the assembled commissioners that prospective buyers of tax-foreclosed properties have the express written support of the alderman representing the ward that is home to the vacant property struck me as patently absurd. (After all, the word “alderman” does not appear in Chapter 92 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri.) Five people attempted to purchase property from the LRA this month without a letter of support from their alderman. Of those five, four offers were rejected, because the LRA purportedly treats a lack of aldermanic support as a reason to reject a prospective buyer’s offer.

After witnessing Wednesday’s proceedings and perusing the many purchase offers on the LRA agenda, I can say with great certainty that much of the vacancy subject to the LRA’s jurisdiction in St. Louis city is not a consequence of a lack of private demand for property; rather, much of it derives from government legitimation and infringements on the free market.

The post Vacancy, Legitimated appeared first on Show-Me Institute.