Detroit residents press council on Land Bank; council sends MOU to formal review

Dozens of Detroit residents used the Planning & Economic Development committee’s public comment period to press elected officials for changes to how the Detroit Land Bank Authority manages city-owned and bank-held properties, saying the agency’s long contract terms and sales practices favor investors over neighbors.

Speakers at the Jan. 16 meeting urged council members to dissolve the DLBA, shorten the term of any contract from 10 years to two, and require greater transparency and local appointment power. Adam Barrett of Detroiters for Tax Justice said the DLBA “should be dissolved entirely and its assets put in trust for black reparations,” and argued the council should make appointments to the DLBA board rather than the mayor. Several callers said the agency fails to maintain properties, refuses offers from adjacent homeowners, and prioritizes bulk sales to investors.

The public comments came before a long committee discussion about a proposed city-DLBA memorandum of understanding that the administration presented to council. Committee members described a split on the council over whether and how to change the MOU before the next mayor takes office. After discussion, the committee voted to send the MOU (line item 8.7) to the formal council meeting without a committee recommendation so the full council can deliberate. A separate waters-authored resolution on a DLBA buyback program (line item 8.4) was sent to formal with a recommendation to approve; another memorandum from Member Waters (8.6) was received and filed.

Council members and staff cautioned that state law constrains some changes: committee staff and attorneys told members the DLBA’s appointment structure and certain authorities are governed by state statute, and that the city and DLBA have been operating under the terms of the prior MOU by mutual agreement since that MOU expired on Dec. 31, 2023. Committee counsel said that if either party withdraws from the prior terms, the DLBA may continue to operate under state law authorities absent a current city-DLBA agreement.

Councilmembers said they want a clearer, council-driven list of amendments to negotiate with the administration and the DLBA — and some members said they would refuse to approve a 10-year contract. Member Leticia Johnson said she would take responsibility for convening the council-led effort to develop a single amended proposal that reflects council priorities. Member Mary Waters said she planned to vote against the current MOU as presented and asked the law department to provide the legal citations explaining what council can and cannot modify in the agreement.

The committee’s action does not change current DLBA operations because the agency continues to exercise powers under state law and staff said the parties have informally honored the prior MOU’s terms. The committee vote forwards the matter to the full council for review and decision.

The council chair said staff will convene council members’ offices to compile proposed amendments and return the council’s consolidated positions as a formal request for negotiation. The timeline and any final contractual changes will depend on those negotiations and on whether the full council or the administration modifies the MOU when it returns for formal consideration.