Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Bank topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances land‑bank measure aimed at repurposing abandoned properties; administration seeks more time
Summary
CB65 to create a Prince George's County land bank authority advanced out of committee (7–0–3) after sponsors argued it provides infrastructure to reuse roughly 3,000 abandoned properties; the administration asked for more time to resolve operational and overlap questions.
Council considered CB65, a bill to establish a county land bank authority charged with acquiring, managing, maintaining and repurposing blighted, abandoned and distressed properties in accordance with Maryland law. Staff overview by Reina Hightower pointed committee members to the bill text and accompanying fiscal and policy analyses.
The Office of Law (Denora Hernandez) found the bill to be in proper legislative form with no legal impediments. Administration representative Secunda Skinner said the executive branch was unable to meet in depth with sponsors on the voluminous draft and declined to support the bill at that time, requesting more time and stakeholder meetings to clarify operations and overlaps with existing redevelopment authority programs.
Sponsor Council Member Blaguey said the authority would create the board infrastructure needed to transfer tax‑forfeited or abandoned properties to nonprofit affordable‑housing developers and cited an example where a property moved to Habitat for Humanity resulted in new home occupancy. She and other supporters noted the county has about "3,000 abandoned properties" and argued the land bank is a tool to address blight and expand affordable housing options.
Several council members raised implementation questions about staffing, maintenance obligations, and how the land bank would align or avoid duplicating the county redevelopment authority's powers. Agency staff asked how the new authority would be staffed and funded, and whether the county would assume additional upkeep responsibilities for seized property.
After debate a motion by Council Member Blaguey, seconded by Council Member Burrows, to report CB65 favorable passed with a roll-call result recorded as 7 yes, 0 no, 3 abstentions. Several members explained abstentions as tied to outstanding operational questions that need to be resolved prior to full council consideration.
What happens next: CB65 will be reported to the full council; sponsors indicated a willingness to work with the administration and redevelopment authority to clarify responsibilities and implementation.
