Michigan State Land Bank Authority Holdings, Historical Redlining, and Social Equity

Abstract

Land bank programs aid in rejuvenating and revitalizing communities. Historical redlining has been shown to have negative long term economic, health, and environmental justice outcomes for poorly graded neighborhoods. This article shows that the State Land Bank Authority of Michigan (SLBA) holds parcels disproportionately in historically redlined neighborhoods. Further, the data reveals that the SLBA holds parcels in neighborhoods across all historical redlined categories with higher social vulnerability and lower mortality rates, in many cases also with higher minority representation. The potential policy impact is that the SLBA, and possibly other land banks following suitable research, can serve as effective channels to reach the most at-risk populations.

Introduction

Land Bank initiatives represent a prominent component of urban rejuvenation strategies in the United States; they were initially established primarily to effectively manage dilapidated and abandoned properties. The overarching purpose of these land banks is to catalyze urban revitalization efforts and restore neglected real estate properties (Alexander, 2015; Silva, 2010). Sasu et al. (2022) provides a detailed literature review on land banking. Land bank programs not only offer potential to facilitate the disposition of abandoned properties but also to stabilize property pricing in those neighborhoods (Fujii, 2015; Negro, 2012; Nelson & Ayers, 2012). Part of the reason for this is that they limit speculation because land banks tend to sell only to market participants willing to improve the property (Hummel, 2015). Prior literature has noted that the nation’s first land bank in St. Louis has holdings disproportionately in redlined neighborhoods (Clark & Miles, 2021).

While we present a more detailed explanation of redlining below, most readers are likely familiar with Home Owners Loan Corporation (HOLC) maps that essentially graded parcels along racial lines, with minority neighborhoods frequently receiving the lowest grades. Aaronson et al. (2021) demonstrate that redlined communities exhibit persistent negative externalities in home ownership, credit scores, and home values relative to boundary neighborhoods with higher ratings. Literature further acknowledges that environmental justice, or the notion that socio-economically disadvantaged communities disproportionately bear the cost of environmental contamination, impacts historically redlined communities at greater rates (Clark & Miles, 2021). Health outcomes for historically redlined communities have zalso been shown to be worse, accompanied by higher foreclosure rates (McClure et al., 2019; Swope et al., 2022). Housing values in historically redlined areas also remain statistically lower than their peer properties (Howell & Korver-Glenn, 2021), likely in part due to lower location efficiency (Gabe et al., 2022).

This article explores how land bank holdings, and in the specific case of the Michigan State Land Bank Authority (SLBA), impact the most at-risk populations. Therefore, policies around economic development for these parcels have the potential to act as positive agents of change not just for urban rejuvenation (Fujii, 2015; Nelson & Ayers, 2012) but also as potential vehicles to facilitate environmental justice (Robinson & McIntosh, 2022). Data reveals that the SLBA disproportionately holds lower rated parcels. Perhaps more importantly, across both the higher rated A and B and the lower rated C and D parcels, the land bank holdings demonstrate statistically significant lower life expectancy, higher minority representation, and higher social vulnerability compared to non-land bank holdings. While Aaronson et. al (2021) show the overall negative externalities of redlined neighborhoods, our findings show they are even worse in land bank held redlined properties. Perhaps the findings in Park et al. (2022) of lower residential satisfaction via X (formerly Twitter) text mining data are supported by these trends. Silva (2010) presents strong argument for the potential economic development with land banking; this paper empirically demonstrates, through an examination of the SLBA property inventory, that these programs provide a pathway, not only for economic development, but directly into our most at-risk populations.

The policy implications are that since the most at-risk populations are found in land bank holdings, social, environmental, and climate justice initiatives may yield outsized impact when working in partnership with land banks.

Land Bank Background

Land banks are public entities empowered to return properties that often have unique challenges to productive reuse. These properties are primarily tax-reverted, abandoned, blighted, or obsolete. 17 states have enabling legislation granting unique statutory powers to land banks and there are currently over 250 state, county, regional, and municipal land banks across the nation. Among other functions, land banks can hold title, clear title, and sell or lease property in the accomplishment of their individual missions over short or long-term periods. In practice, they can serve not just as a repository but as a tool for strategic local redevelopment.

While multiple factors account for property entering the tax-foreclosure process, the question also arises: what influences help explain the physical distribution of these parcels? By comparing Home Owners’ Loan Corporation (HOLC) maps created in the 1930s and 40s with present-day spatial data, we can begin to explore the geographic relationship between these historic maps and the parcels held in contemporary land bank inventory and see how land banks are uniquely positioned to address issues of inequity in housing.

Successful land bank initiatives have been shown to improve residential conditions. Whitaker and Fitzpatrick (2016) argue that land banks aid in preserving the value of nearby homes, mitigating detrimental consequences of vacant or dilapidated properties. Additionally, they found that demolition programs led to a 3.4% increase in the sale prices of nearby properties. In contrast, Park et al. (2022) find Twitter (now X) comments showed dissatisfaction with the land bank process for nearby residents. However, their evaluation used Twitter (X) comments as indirect measures and may or may not reflect the local population in these areas due to the constraints of the sample. Evaluating the effects of land bank activities, Bozgo et al. (2006) found that the Side Lot Transfer Program yielded positive outcomes by enabling the sale of vacant land to neighboring residents. Notably, this study also demonstrated purchasers of vacant lots typically utilized or invested resources in the land, effectively reducing the number of vacant lots with adverse impacts on the surrounding area. The requirement to invest and rehabilitate land bank properties is typical.

The State Land Bank and Its Function

Legislation enabling the creation of land banks in Michigan was passed in 2003 (Act 258-2003-1) and went into effect on 5 Jan 2004. Since its creation, the SLBA has worked to create positive economic impact in Michigan communities by recycling land to productive use. There are currently 51 county land banks, one city land bank (Detroit), and the State Land Bank Authority. The tax foreclosure process in Michigan spans three years, with parcels passing through multiple stages and often end up in a land bank as the owner of last resort. While most SLBA parcels were acquired by tax foreclosure, there are also sites of environmental concern (former industrial/manufacturing or federally designated Superfund facilities that are being held for environmental remediation and monitoring) and state surplus properties (specifically former correctional facilities) in the inventory. By statute, the SLBA can acquire, assemble, and dispose of property, perform expedited quiet title actions¹, borrow money, issue bonds, accept grants and donations, renovate structures, and partner with government agencies and private, public, and non-profit entities. It cannot levy taxes or special assessments, exercise power of eminent domain or condemn property, or be associated with a casino in any way.

Role of Land Banks—Act 381, Other Tools

From the Ohio border to the Upper Peninsula, tens of thousands of parcels have passed through the SLBA's inventory. Parcels owned by land banks in Michigan are overwhelmingly situated in areas of historic disinvestment and offer a unique opportunity to address the pressing issues of equity in housing and homeownership. While many land banks have traditionally operated as a mere repository for land, there is a movement to make them more dynamic. As an economic development tool, land banks can acquire and assemble property for strategic disposition, utilize expedited quiet title powers, and help with redevelopment structuring and financing via the Brownfield Redevelopment Financing Act (Act 381 of 1996). Statutory language in Act 381 specifically deems any site owned or under the control of a land bank as a brownfield, even if the land is not a known site of environmental concern. This means that any eligible activities conducted on a brownfield site can also be done on any land bank parcel regardless of its condition, and expenditures can be recouped using tax increment financing (TIF). TIF is a tool that “capture(s) [a defined percentage of] property tax revenue from incremental increases in value in a determined area… to develop the area or finance a specific project” Krogulecki (2016).

The model of “Land Bank 2.0” is a purposeful move from reactive (often inactive) land holding to the proactive repurposing of land. Utilizing land banks in conjunction with other redevelopment tools (especially Act 381) will help lessen the widespread continuing crisis in attainable workforce housing while also addressing the still present effects of social and environmental injustices. As evidenced by a 2018 study, every dollar invested by land banks in neighborhoods has a demonstrable positive multiplier effect on surrounding parcels. With the recent passing of Senate Bill 129, Michigan has moved to clarify and codify these linkages between brownfield activities and land banks.

Examples of Projects

To meet the critical need for both affordable and attainable housing across the state, the SLBA advises and partners with municipalities and developers around the state who want to build new housing, and strongly encourages both rehab and new construction projects to occur strategically on land-bank owned parcels. Staff of the SLBA have spoken to almost 50 cities, townships, and counties about this linkage of land banking and Act 381, with over a dozen municipalities actively working on projects.

The City of Muskegon, a heavily redlined community with over 173,000 residents, enacted a scattered site Act 381 plan that has resulted in the construction of over 100 homes on city-owned residential lots. There are approximately 150 lots still in the plan (60 city-owned and 90 county land bank-owned) with an eye to continued development of attainable housing units priced at $180,000 and under (December 2022 median home price in the city was $179,900). TIF funds from the Act 381 plan bridge the gap between actual construction costs and what purchasers can realistically afford in an undervalued market. City officials indicate that this will help to combat the generational poverty found in redlined communities and it has grown in importance as interest rate hikes push potential homeowners out of the market. Incremental development of in-fill housing, scaled to and aligned with local needs, is an effective operational policy with holistic benefits to individual homeowners, the surrounding neighborhood, and entire communities.

Next, Lakeshore Habitat for Humanity and its partner Jubilee Ministries have employed land banking tools for a mixed-income community called Vista Green. Located in the city of Holland, 10 affordable homes were built and sold to buyers with an income of 30-80% of area median income (AMI). Additional townhouses were constructed and marketed to purchasers within 80-120% of AMI. These parcels were under site control of the State Land Bank, thus qualifying them for TIF under Act 381. This was done both to defray about ½ of the project’s infrastructure costs (road, water, and sewer), which was a significant barrier to its viability, and to cover the gap between the cost of building and what potential homeowners were able to afford (Habitat for Humanity caps monthly payments at 30% of the resident’s income).

Finally, a 46 single-family unit project in Ypsilanti known as Dorsey Estates, named for local housing advocate Mattie Dorsey, is being constructed on a designated brownfield site (EGLE Part 201 site 81000933). The city-owned land had multiple challenges that made development unfeasible, including grade issues, contaminated fill, and hydrologic concerns. Renovare Development, in cooperation with the city and, crucially, the county Brownfield Redevelopment Authority (BRA), put together an Act 381 brownfield plan to capture only local taxes to cover not only the extra-ordinary remediation and infrastructure costs, but also to cover the gap between construction costs and the actual sales price of the units. Half of the units were set aside for those making 40-80% AMI and the remaining were priced below market value. In addition, dollars from the federal American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) and local Land Bank Revolving Fund were leveraged to make the project a reality. Representatives of the city and private developer indicate that this model will be used on additional projects in the county, adding at least 80 more units.

These three examples are but a few of the many projects at various stages of completion to be found around Michigan, from Gladwin, Newaygo, and Ottawa counties to the city of Flint. Ongoing efforts to educate elected officials, policy makers, and practitioners in the developer ecosystem will ensure that more communities can benefit from the lessons learned on these projects.

Redlining Background

The Home Owners Loan Corporation (HOLC) was created in 1933 as a part of President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal. It was designed to mitigate the effects of foreclosure on mortgage lenders and borrowers. HOLC worked directly with lenders, and at its peak owned almost 1/6^th of mortgage debt in urban areas. HOLC created maps that utilized a grading system for neighborhood “security” in an attempt to delineate areas with perceived economic and social risks for mortgage lenders (Figures 1 and 2).

Figure 1. HOLC map legend.

Figure 2. HOLC map legend.

Graded from A (“best” areas, symbolized in green) to D (“worst” areas, symbolized in red), factors taken into account included quality of housing, history of sales and rent values, and the racial and ethnic identity and class of residents. As seen in Aaronson et al. (2021), the 1937 Federal Appraisal Manual explains the grading system as “Grade A = ‘homogeneous,’ in demand during ‘good times or bad’; Grade B = ‘like a 1935 automobile-still good, but not what the people are buying today who can afford a new one’; Grade C = becoming obsolete, ‘expiring restrictions or lack of them’ and ‘infiltration of a lower grade population.’; Grade D = ‘those neighborhoods in which the things that are now taking place in the C neighborhoods, have already happened.’”

According to the 1938 US Department of Housing and Urban Development underwriting manual, ratings for specific locations were to be lowered specifically due to “racial aspects” [Paragraph 904], especially if there were no deed restrictions in place against “undesirable encroachment” [Paragraph 980(1)].² Thousands of neighborhood reports were written using guidelines found in Federal Housing Administration’s Underwriting Manuals. The February 1938 version details how to rate borrowers based on racial and social characteristics, type of employment (not only their annual income), and even by age.

Nationally, discriminatory, racist, and bigoted language was repeatedly used to define these areas. The Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis reveals specific language used to generate the appraisal-based definitions for these HOLC definitions:

“For example, to describe an A-graded area in Chicago, Illinois, the HOLC agents stated ‘The buffer of the Illinois-Central (IC) Main [railroad] Line prevents any undesirable infiltration [by minority residents].’ By contrast, in a B-graded area in Decatur, Illinois, the area description file notes a particular subsection as “probably the worst part of [the] area, with [the] Polish and laboring class predominating.” Similarly, when describing a C graded area in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, it was noted that the “Infiltration of Jewish into [the] area have depressed values.” As for a D graded area in Tacoma, Washington, the description of the map states that “This might be classed as a ‘low yellow’ area if not for the presence of the number of Negroes and low class Foreign families who reside in the area.” (Mendez-Carbajo, 2021, Page 2).

As a case example for Michigan, two contrasting neighborhoods in Pontiac are shown below (Figures 3 and 4). The better-rated area (“Pioneer Highlands”) was graded ‘A’ not only due to the presence of amenities but also the absence of “Foreign-born, Negro”, and “Relief families” (italics added).

Figure 3. Pontiac A-1.

Figure 4. Pontiac D-5.

Conversely, the unnamed D-5 neighborhood received a ‘D' because of its proximity to the city dump, “houses in poor condition”, and the racial and ethnic composition of the neighborhood. In the ‘Clarifying Remarks’ section, it is stated in no uncertain terms that this is a “Negro area. Old. Obsolete” (italics added).

The term ‘redlining’ was coined in the 1960s and used as shorthand for the creation of these so-called ‘hazardous’ areas and the attendant negative outcomes for residents. Outside investment in these areas slowed to a trickle or disappeared completely. The National Community Reinvestment Coalition observes that “Most of the neighborhoods (74%) that the HOLC graded as… ‘Hazardous’ eight decades ago are low-to-moderate income (LMI) today. Additionally, most of the HOLC graded ‘Hazardous’ areas (nearly 64%) are minority neighborhoods now.“³ The home values in neighborhoods of color continue to be undervalued (Howell & Korver-Glenn, 2021)

Also worth noting was the building of interstate highways through redlined areas. Redlined neighborhoods were specifically targeted by the Federal Highway Administration as corridors for freeway construction. Neighborhoods with a D rating from the HOLC were three times more likely than neighborhoods with an A rating to have an Interstate highway constructed through them (Nall & O’Keefe, 2018). The Federal Highway Administration’s own Underwriting Manual from 1938 even suggested that the construction of high-speed roads would serve as barriers to protect white neighborhoods from “racial incursion”. Officials used highways to “separate black and white neighborhoods, reinforcing residential segregation” (Ware, 2021).

Data Description and Land Bank Parcels

Location data (latitude and longitude) for State Land Bank Authority parcels, as well as data for 8 county land banks, was overlayed on digitized and geo-rectified HOLC maps (Nelson and Ayers, 2023).⁴ The results show that in urban areas, 81-99% of SLBA parcels are in locations that were graded ‘C’ or ‘D’ by the HOLC.

Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) data were collected from the United States Center for Disease Control, United States level.⁵ As the goal of the paper is to demonstrate that SLBA parcels encompass the most at risk populations for policy makers, SVI’s composite index is ideal to capture those risks. Data for the percentage of minority residents (% minority) and life expectancy were extracted from the 2018 American Community Survey.⁶

This article will focus on the data from three cities: Detroit, Flint, and Grand Rapids. This article will focus on the data from three cities: Detroit, Flint, and Grand Rapids. Mean parcel size for these areas were Detroit 4400 SF, Flint 5793 SF and grand rapids 6316 SF.

Table 1 shows descriptive statistics for the sample. By a wide margin, Detroit had the largest number of properties in this study at just over 69,000. 59,303 of those parcels, or 86%, fall within ‘C’ and ‘D’ neighborhoods. Next, the SLBA had 88 properties in the city of Flint. 80 of those, an eye-opening 91%, are located within ‘C’ and ‘D’ areas. This is second only to Saginaw’s 99% rate (329 of 330 parcels). Finally, 85% of Grand Rapids properties, 91 of 107 parcels, were in redlined areas.

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics.

Detroit
HOLC Grade	Total Parcels	% SLBA	SVI	% minority	Life expectancy
A	900	1%	0.3	46.88	78.04
B	8879	13%	0.4	42.25	77.1
C	36201	52%	0.66	59.18	73.45
D	23102	34%	0.8	67.02	72.68
Total	69,082	100
Grand Rapids
A	0	0%	0.23	16.78	82.05
B	16	15%	0.412	28.63	78.67
C	58	54%	0.56	29.95	77.97
D	33	31%	0.71	41.18	76.68
Total	107	100
Flint
A	0	0%	0.53	36.9	76.38
B	8	9%	0.77	63.1	75.18
C	41	46%	0.78	58.55	72.63
D	39	45%	0.81	49.86	72.17
Total	88	100

This table shows descriptive statistics for HOLC parcels in the listed cities, the percentage of parcels held by the Michigan State Land Bank (SLBA), social vulnerability (SVI), percentage minority, and life expectancy.

Table 1 further shows the citywide means for the Social Vulnerability Index, percentage of minority residents (% minority), and the total life expectancy. Figures 5, 6 and 7 show graphical representations of these parcel maps in Detroit, Grand Rapids, and Flint respectively.

Figure 5. Detroit. This figure shows the A rated parcels (Green), B rated parcels (Blue), C rated parcels (Yellow), and D rated parcels (Red) in Detroit. The black dots represent parcels held by the Michigan State Land Bank (SLBA).

Figure 6. Grand Rapids. This figure shows the A rated parcels (Green), B rated parcels (Blue), C rated parcels (Yellow), and D rated parcels (Red) in Grand Rapids. The black dots represent parcels held by the Michigan State Land Bank (SLBA).

Figure 7. Flint.

While this article focuses on three cities in Michigan, and urban areas dominate the conversation on redlining, it is important to recognize that rural communities are also deeply affected by housing inequities. A University of New Hampshire report even contends that “rural blacks are even more ‘ghettoized’ than blacks living in metro areas,” (Lichter & Parisi, 2008). Policy and practice pushed minorities to the literal and figurative outskirts of both metro and nonmetro communities.

Although rural areas are not within the scope of this paper, a quick look yields potential items of interest for future research. SLBA data for eight of Michigan’s most rural counties (Keweenaw, Ontonagon, Baraga, Oscoda, Montmorency, Lake, Missaukee, and Ogemaw per US Census Bureau) show 290 parcels in these areas. While there are no HOLC maps for these counties, census tract-level examination of Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) from the US Center for Disease Control shows that 267 of 290 properties (92%) are in areas where the SVI is above average (between 0.7453 and 0.868). Note that the SVI is normalized by State such that the mean county level score across a State will be 0.50.

HOLC Neighborhoods with SLBA Parcels vs Non-SLBA Parcels

Negative environmental factors that persist in the land, water, and air can be detrimental to human health for generations (Mizutani, 2018). Health issues tied to both industrialization and deindustrialization continues to adversely affect redlined communities (McClure et al., 2019). Ranging from former industrial plants to unregulated dumps, Brownfields and other designated locations are sites of known environmental hazard. Looking at point data from the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE), sites of environmental concern in the parts of Detroit, Flint, and Grand Rapids that were graded by HOLC are in C and D areas over 90% of the time.

According to a 2020 report from National Community Reinvestment Coalition, “the history of redlining, segregation and disinvestment not only reduced minority wealth, it impacted health and longevity…. On average, life expectancy is lower by 3.6 years in redlined communities, when compared to the communities that existed at the same time but were high[ly] graded by the HOLC.”⁷

Tables 2-4 show differences in Detroit, Grand Rapids, and Flint, respectively for HOLC neighborhoods containing SLBA held parcels versus neighborhoods without any SLBA held parcels.

Table 2. Detroit SLBA-Non-SLBA Parcels.

Detroit
HOLC Neighborhood	N	SVI	% Minority	Life Expectancy
AB	41	0.37	43.72	77.40
CD	152	0.75**	67.02**	72.81**
t-test p-value		0.000	0.015	0.000
Non-SLBA AB	22	0.12	18.46	80.33
SLBA AB	19	0.79***	72.97***	74.00***
t-test p-value		0.031	0.932	0.049
Non-SLBA CD	36	0.38	23.43	75.96
SLBA CD	116	0.81***	73.78***	72.32***
t-test p-value		0.000	0.000	0.000

This table shows differences in all social vulnerability (SVI), percentage minority, and life expectancy across higher rated HOLC parcels (AB) vs lower rated HOLC parcels (CD). The table also compares AB parcels owned by the Michigan State Land Bank (SLBA) to AB parcels owned by the market, repeated the analysis for CD parcels. A difference of means test was used for statistically significant differences. *, **, and *** represent statistical significance at the 90%, 95% and 99% levels.

Table 3. Grand Rapids SLBA-Non-SLBA Parcels.

Grand Rapids
HOLC Neighborhood	N	SVI	% minority	Life expectancy
AB	16	0.35	24.93	79.73
CD	28	0.60***	32.36	77.70**
t-test p-value		0.010	0.218	0.037
Non-SLBA AB	15	0.32	22.38	79.84
SLBA AB	1	0.82	63.10	78.01
t-test p-value		n/a	n/a	n/a
Non-SLBA CD	13	0.52	24.08	78.64
SLBA CD	15	0.67***	39.53***	76.88***
t-test p-value		0.002	0.008	0.001

This table shows differences in all social vulnerability (SVI), percentage minority, and life expectancy across higher rated HOLC parcels (AB) vs lower rated HOLC parcels (CD). The table also compares AB parcels owned by the Michigan State Land Bank (SLBA) to AB parcels owned by the market, repeated the analysis for CD parcels. A difference of means test was used for statistically significant differences. *, **, and *** represent statistical significance at the 90%, 95% and 99% levels.

Table 4. Flint SLBA-Non-SLBA Parcels.

Flint
HOLC Neighborhood	N	SVI	% minority	Life expectancy
AB	4	0.71	56.55	75.48
CD	24	0.79	54.57	72.42
t-test		0.403	0.891	0.136
Non-SLBA AB	3	0.66	46.63	76.41
SLBA AB	1	0.86	86.30	72.68
t-test		n/a	n/a	n/a
Non-SLBA CD	4	0.78	56.48	75.51
SLBA CD	20	0.80	54.19	71.80
t-test		0.490	0.967	0.047

This table shows differences in all social vulnerability (SVI), percentage minority, and life expectancy across higher rated HOLC parcels (AB) vs lower rated HOLC parcels (CD). The table also compares AB parcels owned by the Michigan State Land Bank (SLBA) to AB parcels owned by the market, repeated the analysis for CD parcels. A difference of means test was used for statistically significant differences. *, **, and *** represent statistical significance at the 90%, 95% and 99% levels.

Consistent with the academic literature, the Detroit samples shows higher social vulnerability, higher percentages of minority residents and lower life expectancy at statistically significant levels in Detroit between AB and CD HOLC rated parcels. Importantly, when comparing the non-SLBA AB parcels to the SLBA AB parcels, we observe statistical differences in economic and health-related outcomes. The SLBA owned parcels demonstrate stark deficits in each of these areas relative to market owned parcels. Similarly, the SLBA CD parcels compared to the non-SLBA parcels reveal statistical significance across each category.

Similar to the Detroit sample, the Grand Rapids sample shows higher social vulnerability and lower life expectancy at statistically significant levels between AB and CD HOLC rated parcels. However, no statistical difference in the minority population were observed. Given that only one AB rated parcel was held by the SLBA, a statistical analysis may not be performed. However, the ratings across the three categories are worse than in the market-owned examples.

The Grand Rapids SLBA CD parcels compared to the non-SLBA parcels do reveal statistical significance across each category. We observe higher social vulnerability, higher minority representation and lower life expectancy in the SLBA held CD parcels.

Flint, which was already largely minority populated at the time HOLC grades were designated, has only 4 AB parcels compared to 24 CD parcels. Of the three major Michigan studies analyzed, Flint was the only one to not show differences between AB and non-AB parcels. With only 1 SLBA AB parcel held compared to 3 market owned, no statistical tests were run. However, descriptive statistics do show worse outcomes.

When comparing the CD SLBA parcels to the non-SLBA parcels in Flint, it is important to note that 83% of the CD parcels are held by the SLBA and only four remain without any land bank holdings. Although no statistical significance between the two samples were found, this may be due to a) the low sample size and b) that 86% of the entire city was graded CD. Although no statistical significance was found, the SLBA holds nominally higher SVI and low mortality rate parcels, potentially still speaking to the reach of the land bank in these at-risk communities.

Conclusion

Prior literature has demonstrated that lower-graded HOLC neighborhoods experience long-term deleterious impacts through foreclosure (McClure et al., 2019), health (Mizutani, 2018), and environmental justice outcomes (Clark & Miles, 2021; Heck, 2021). Prior literature has also revealed the potentially positive outcomes that state and municipal land banks may have on improving and revitalizing neighborhoods (Fujii, 2015; Nelson & Ayers 2012; Sasu et al., 2022).

This article demonstrated that the State Land Bank Authority of Michigan has extensive reach to our most at risk communities. The data first revealed that the SLBA holds a disproportionate number of parcels in historically redlined communities; this alone puts it in a position to have positive policy impact. However, the data further revealed that within every category of historical HOLC ratings, A, B, C and D, the SLBA held parcels were in neighborhoods with higher social vulnerability and lower mortality rates.

The policy implications are that targeting the holdings of the SLBA in these particular neighborhoods may have outsized positive impact on programs supporting social and health outcomes for at risk communities.

Although it is highly likely that other state and municipal land banks have similar characteristics, the verification of such is an opportunity for future research. Further, while this article presents a channel for effective policy making, future research may examine whether such targeted policies do have more meaningful outcomes.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 Quiet title actions are court proceedings that establish ownership when there are, or maybe be, conflicting or unclear interests in a property; the action “quiets” all other potential claimants providing clear title.

2 https://www.huduser.gov/portal/publications/Federal-Housing-Administration-Underwriting-Manual.html, accessed Sep 2023.

3 https://www.ncrc.org/holc-health/, accessed Sep, 2023.

4 Not Even Past: Social Vulnerability and the Legacy of Redlining (richmond.edu) Accessed Sep, 2023.

5 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry/Geospatial Research, Analysis, and Services Program. CDC/ATSDR Social Vulnerability Index, 2018; accessed through Nelson and Ayers (2023).

6 U.S. Census Bureau. (2018). American Community Survey, accessed through Nelson and Ayers (2023).

7 https://www.ncrc.org/holc-health/, accessed Sep, 2023.