Land banks, often hailed as a solution for revitalizing communities by managing tax-delinquent and vacant properties, may seem like a promising tool. However, for rural areas like Chariton County, Missouri, their implementation could introduce significant challenges that outweigh their potential benefits. Senate Bill 388, sponsored by State Senator Rusty Black, proposes to establish land banks in Missouri counties, but this legislation raises critical concerns, particularly about the issue of land hoarding.
Land Hoarding: A Major Threat to Local Development
One of the primary risks posed by land banks is their potential to hoard properties. Under SB 388, land banks would have the authority to acquire properties through tax foreclosures, donations, or purchases, exempting these properties from taxes during their ownership. While this exemption might allow land banks to hold properties without financial pressure, it creates an incentive to retain them for long periods without clear plans for development or sale.
In a small, rural community like Chariton County, where every parcel of land plays a vital role in the local economy, such hoarding could severely restrict opportunities for growth. Local residents, entrepreneurs, and small developers may find themselves unable to access properties they need for new businesses, housing, or agricultural expansion because the land bank is holding them in limbo. Instead of fostering development, this practice could stall progress and prevent new residents from moving in and contributing to the community.
The Catch-22 for Chariton County
Chariton County faces a challenge common to many rural areas: attracting and retaining residents. Encouraging people to settle in the area requires available land for homes, businesses, and farms. However, if large portions of the county’s tax-delinquent properties are absorbed by a land bank, the supply of developable land may dwindle. Land banks often prioritize long-term planning, but in doing so, they can inadvertently block immediate opportunities for local growth and development.
For a community striving to attract new residents, this creates a Catch-22: the very tool designed to combat blight and boost development could become a roadblock, keeping properties out of reach for the people who want to invest in Chariton County’s future.
The Financial Impact of Land Hoarding
Land hoarding doesn’t just hinder development—it also drains local resources. Under SB 388, properties held by land banks would be exempt from taxes. For Chariton County, which relies on property taxes to fund schools, emergency services, and public infrastructure, this could lead to significant revenue losses. The longer properties sit idle in the land bank’s inventory, the greater the financial burden on the county and its taxpayers.
Additionally, maintaining these properties can be costly. Land banks are responsible for keeping their holdings compliant with local laws and ordinances, which often means paying for maintenance, repairs, or even demolition. These costs, combined with lost tax revenue, could strain Chariton County’s limited budget.
Missed Opportunities for Local Residents
One of the most troubling aspects of SB 388 is how it could limit opportunities for local residents to acquire and develop land. Unlike private buyers, who typically have immediate plans to improve or utilize a property, land banks are often slow-moving entities that prioritize strategic redevelopment. This approach may work in urban areas with significant blight and high demand for redevelopment, but in rural communities like Chariton County, it risks sidelining local developers and individuals who could bring immediate benefits to the area.
Instead of allowing local residents and small developers to purchase and revitalize properties, SB 388 could funnel these opportunities into the hands of a centralized entity with little accountability to the community. The result is a loss of autonomy and a missed chance to empower Chariton County’s citizens to take charge of their own future.
A One-Size-Fits-All Solution for a Unique Community
While land banks can be effective in addressing urban blight, their application in rural Missouri is far from ideal. Chariton County’s challenges are not the same as those faced by large cities. The county doesn’t have an overwhelming surplus of abandoned properties requiring centralized management. Instead, it needs policies that make land more accessible to local residents and encourage small-scale, community-driven development.
Senate Bill 388, while well-intentioned, could be detrimental to Chariton County. The risk of land hoarding by a land bank undermines the county’s efforts to attract new residents and foster local development. By removing properties from the tax rolls and keeping them out of the hands of local buyers, a land bank could stifle the very growth it is meant to encourage.
For Chariton County, the focus should remain on empowering its residents and ensuring that land is accessible for immediate, meaningful use. Land banks may have a place in addressing urban challenges, but for rural communities like Chariton County, they could become more of a hindrance than a help.
