City leaders hear plan to explore community land trust to preserve affordable homeownership

Lisa Pinkney, executive director of the Footprint Foundation, and Jason Webb, community and technical assistance principal at Grounded Solutions Network, briefed council members and community partners on plans to explore a community land trust (CLT) to lock in long‑term affordable homeownership in Chattanooga.

Pinkney said Footprint has committed $4,000,000 over five years to the foundation’s “Buzz” cohort and related work to develop an economic‑stability strategy, and that a core recommendation from that community co‑creation process was to study a CLT as a tool for housing affordability. "We made a commitment of $4,000,000 over 5 years to the buzz community," Pinkney said (SEG 023). She emphasized the presentation was informational and that further public engagement sessions — including meetings with faith leaders and a public session at the library — are planned (SEG 068–069; SEG 069–070).

Webb gave CLT basics and national context, explaining the dual‑ownership model in which the homeowner owns the dwelling and the CLT retains ownership of the land under a long ground lease. "The individual will own the home; the community land trust owns the land," Webb said (SEG 170–171). He described how a 99‑year ground lease sets resale restrictions that limit appreciation to a fixed formula (he used a 2% example) so a share of equity remains in the property to keep it affordable for subsequent buyers (SEG 172–179; SEG 244–248).

Webb cited national scale and outcomes: he said there are more than 350 CLTs in the U.S. and over 30,000 units built with the model, and he described lower default rates in CLT portfolios during past foreclosure crises. "When the national average of mortgages and default at that time was hovering around 5%, in the community land trust, we were at point 00.5% in defaults," Webb said (SEG 537–541).

Presenters walked the council through concrete examples showing how CLTs can protect public subsidy dollars and extend affordability to multiple families. Webb described a historical case in which a low‑income buyer eventually left the property with a modest cash payoff while preserving substantial value for future buyers; he estimated total transaction benefits in one example at about $91,300 (SEG 281–287; SEG 335–337). He also outlined common CLT partnerships — donated municipal land, developer partnerships, modular construction, philanthropic leverage — and said the model is flexible enough to include rental, retail or community uses in addition to owner‑occupied homes (SEG 616–636; SEG 866–874).

Council members asked practical questions about legal protections, taxation and appraisal. In response to whether the 99‑year ground lease restarts at resale, Webb said a new 99‑year lease is typically issued at each sale (SEG 481–489). On property assessments and appraisals, he said appraisal guidance from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac instructs appraisers not to treat CLT homes as direct comparables, and that taxation of CLT land often depends on state law and assessor practice; assessors can sometimes tax the restricted resale value if the legislature allows (SEG 581–591; SEG 684–693).

Presenters said the local effort is finishing an education and feasibility phase and expects a program design phase of roughly 6–12 months; they encouraged council members to stay engaged and to direct constituents to upcoming outreach sessions (SEG 446–453; SEG 1104–1109). Pinkney identified partner organizations already involved or consulted, including CNE (for possible staffing support), Enterprise (partnership announced earlier that week) and local housing staff (she and Webb met with the mayor and city housing staff that morning) (SEG 656–664; SEG 990–993; SEG 786–789).

The council also handled routine business: with a quorum present, an unnamed councilmember moved and another seconded approval of minutes from a prior strategic planning meeting; the chair stated the minutes would stand barring objection (SEG 1139–1146). The meeting adjourned after announcements about future presentations and board appointments (SEG 1150–1161; SEG 1171–1172).

Next steps cited by presenters include broader community engagement for phase 2 (design and membership development), outreach to assessors and appraisers about local valuation practice, continued technical work with Grounded Solutions Network and follow‑up meetings with municipal staff and community stakeholders. Presenters and council members repeatedly emphasized this is a learning and design process, not a finalized policy or city commitment to transfer assets (SEG 779–786; SEG 1104–1109).