Where was land bank oversight?

Creation of the Pittsburgh land bank seven years ago was supposed to be the jump start the city needed to get abandoned properties back on the tax rolls and revitalize neighborhoods that were fighting a losing battle against blight. By almost every measure, the land bank has been an abysmal failure. City leaders must provide some answers to what went wrong and whether the program can survive.

An investigation by the Post-Gazette found that after spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on consultants, lawyers and experts, all it accomplished was the acquisition of a lone vacant lot in Larimer.

Successful in other Rust Belt cities, the program was supposed to acquire abandoned properties, clear away liens and delinquent taxes, then put them on the selling block -- and, thereby, return them to the city’s tax rolls. It never came close to a goal set in 2018 to build a portfolio of 50 properties, half of them vacant lots and half of them lots with residential or commercial buildings.

The program’s inability to gain traction is rooted in several missteps from inception. Although its board included elected officials and nonprofit leaders, there was no permanent executive director to lead the effort, although there were temporary directors who oversaw the program through an agreement with the URA. Only within the last few weeks has the land bank board hired an executive director and a manager. And after operating independently since its inception, the agency recently has been shifted to the domain of the Urban Redevelopment Authority.

Perhaps the biggest problem was the lack of agreement on the matter of unpaid taxes between the land bank and taxing bodies such as the county and the school district. Trying to market properties that still have tax liens is virtually futile. This issue has yet to be remedied.

All of this raises the questions: Where was the oversight and leadership of the land bank for the past seven years? Did no one raise a concern about the lack of progress in reaching its objectives?

A Post-Gazette investigation noted that even as the Pittsburgh land bank seemed to accomplish nothing, a similar land bank in the Mon Valley showed signs of success. The TriCOG — named for its three councils of government — reached agreements with 22 municipalities and six school districts to provide a funding stream. In its first five years, it took ownership of 39 houses, one building and seven vacant lots. This year alone, it has sold one of the lots and has deals for five of the homes.

Clearly the Pittsburgh land bank suffered from a lack of direction. A former executive director who took no salary and stepped down after just six months told the Post-Gazette that “there was no one really in charge,” and the program had no committed funding source. It still doesn’t.

The program now has a leader and has been taken into the URA fold. These are necessary steps forward that should be followed with transparent and achievable goals and reasonable, reliable funding. The battle against blight is a battle for a better future for Pittsburgh.