Power is a right many in Detroit’s Black community have sought for generations. That pursuit is active in the corridors of City Hall. Council members spent a full year seeking changes to Detroit’s contract with the Land Bank Authority. They discovered their authority is limited. The renewal of a three-year agreement arrived from Mayor Mike Duggan’s administration. The body realized there is only a choice to vote yes or no. Council Member Latisha Johnson said, “This really puts the city council in a position where it feels like we have no power whatsoever.”
Johnson delivered that comment last week during a Planning and Economic Development committee meeting. She expressed frustration over the city council’s limited capacity to change the agreement. She said, “It really feels like there’s not much that (the City Council) can do as it relates to any amendments or changes to programs or operations as it relates to the disposition of land in the city of Detroit.” That statement resonated. Advocates hoped council members would push for modifications. Legislative Policy Division member Marcel Hurt indicated that they cannot revise the memorandum.
He explained that the only action available is an up or down vote. The contract at hand is a memorandum of understanding that defines services between the land bank and the city. It also declares a blight emergency in Detroit. Council members believed their influence could shape this document. They learned they can only accept or reject it. They spent a year deliberating ways to hold the Land Bank Authority accountable. The mayor’s submission arrived without room for further input. This outcome triggered disappointment across the council.
Johnson expected collaborative discussions in committee sessions. She felt “shut down” when a conversation was attempted last week. She acknowledged that council priorities were never formally set forth in writing. Legislative Policy Division Director David Whitaker spoke on that matter. He said council priorities were never formally agreed on. The council voted unanimously to send the contract back to committee. They intend to negotiate with Mayor Duggan and the land bank. It is unclear how long this step will take to finalize.
Council Member Gabriela Santiago-Romero said, “The key word here is negotiation, and we’ve been trying.” She mentioned that her office submitted recommendations that were not accepted. The frustration among members is growing. Council President Mary Sheffield requested a report on what it would take to dissolve the land bank. Whitaker noted that the mayor’s agreement would be required. The land bank would also need six months’ notice to wind down operations. Sheffield commented, “I understand they provided some value but I would like to see most of the land bank’s operations phase back into the city of Detroit.”
Sheffield added, “It operates in some regards as a city department, but there’s no transparency or accountability.” The first agreement between these entities was established in 2013, then amended in 2015, and renewed in 2020. The land bank continued its work even when the agreement expired in December 2023, based on powers granted under state law. Council President Pro Tem James Tate explained that the council is split on whether to amend the contract or delay until Duggan’s successor takes office in 2026. That second route would leave the land bank operating without a contract for another year.
Tate noted that the council lacks consensus on what needs to be changed. That hinders efforts to propose clear amendments. The mayor’s office and the land bank already settled on a document. Tate said there is an opportunity to press for adjustments. Council members aim to craft one coordinated statement with recommendations. They hope that alignment will strengthen their stance. Each council member has different priorities. Mary Waters is a leading voice who has focused on the Occupied Buy Back program and its impact on longtime residents.
Waters introduced amendments last November. Those proposals addressed potential flaws in the Occupied Buy Back program. That program attempts to sell land bank homes to individuals who remained in properties following foreclosure. It is also designed for those who experienced real estate or landlord fraud, or anyone with a strong connection to a land bank property. Waters discovered cases where residents had their homes sold from underneath them. She wanted clearer notification practices. She sought a first right for occupants to purchase before any auction took place.
Waters declared, “Let me just say: Member Waters is not happy with this. We’ve been going through this stuff – and I want to call it something else – for months, only to find out we can’t make the changes that we’re recommending. Why in the ‘you know what’ did we not know this before?” That statement underlined the council’s frustration. She and Council President Mary Sheffield both advocated for limits on the land bank’s role in housing initiatives. Sheffield suggested that the city’s Housing and Revitalization Department manage the buy back program.
Sheffield suggested that the land bank focus on clearing titles and performing tasks that the city cannot manage. She asserted that the city’s Housing and Revitalization Department should handle the buy back program. Council Member Scott Benson offered a different perspective. He expressed support for the land bank’s work. He said it is crucial for returning property to productive use. He noted that no municipality can handle a portfolio of properties at Detroit’s scale. He said, “When people talk about how terrible they are, they need to remember that there are close to 60,000 parcels of property that have been returned to productive use.”
Benson said, “No municipality has the ability to manage a portfolio of lonely, unwanted properties at the scale of Detroit. When people talk about how terrible they are, they need to remember that there are close to 60,000 parcels of property that have been returned to productive use.” Waters responded with a warning that residents deserve protection. She said colleagues can “kiss up to the land bank.” That phrase signaled her frustration. Benson indicated he is not overly friendly with the land bank. He helped create a “rule” to tear down land bank homes if residents file a complaint with his office.
Residents who participated in Tuesday’s council meeting raised multiple concerns about the land bank. They cited slow demolition efforts and properties passed over for neighbors in favor of outside investors. Detroiters For Tax Justice emailed proposals to council members. Those proposals included a two-year renewal instead of three years, improved archiving of board meetings, and council power to choose land bank board members. Critics believe the land bank partners with private investors, acquiring property for development projects that align with the Duggan administration’s goals.
Several residents used Tuesday’s public comment period to voice similar complaints. Catherine Montgomery described how outside investors sometimes acquire land bank properties that neighbors hoped to purchase. Those same neighbors end up maintaining the lots. Montgomery suggested that the land bank is sluggish in tearing down dangerous structures. Richard Clay, another speaker, said the land bank is used to “steal property” from Black Detroiters and transfer it to white developers. He stated, “All of these residents today and you can’t find two of them to support the land bank getting a new (memorandum of understanding)? The signs could not be clearer. The residents have spoken. The City Council needs to make a stand.”
That sentiment spotlighted the tension facing council members. They can vote to accept the contract and maintain a working relationship with the land bank. They can also reject the contract and force the land bank to operate without formal terms. Council President Mary Sheffield proposed dismantling the land bank, with city departments taking over critical programs. Other members seek targeted modifications to the current memorandum of understanding. They hope for better protections for residents, faster demolition of vacant structures, and policies that prevent displacement.
Detroiters For Tax Justice pressed for regular renewal of the agreement every two years. They also want transparent recordkeeping of board meetings and a system granting council authority to choose board members. Critics see these measures as essential for accountability. The land bank has four board seats appointed by Mayor Duggan and one by the Michigan State Housing Development Authority. Community advocates question whether that structure reflects the people’s interest. Council members wrestle with how to ensure that city priorities guide land-related decisions.
This debate underscores a broader issue of self-determination for Detroit’s Black community. Elected representatives tried to shape a contract that controls thousands of properties. They discovered that state law grants the land bank sweeping authority. The council must decide whether to approve or deny an agreement that sets the terms for blight removal and property disposition. These are vital matters for neighborhoods seeking stability and fair access to land. Council Member James Tate mentioned that negotiations remain possible. Others wonder if the best strategy is to wait until the next mayor takes office. Many Detroiters are watching closely. They want clarity, equity, and a responsive structure that preserves their stake in the city. This is a defining moment for local governance.
About Post Author
