AN ACT TO CREATE THE "MISSISSIPPI LAND BANK ACT" TO PROMOTE RETURNING BLIGHTED OR ABANDONED PROPERTIES TO COMMERCE THROUGH THE CREATION OF LAND BANKS BY LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, ACTING INDIVIDUALLY OR COOPERATIVELY WITH OTHER LOCAL GOVERNMENTS; TO PROVIDE FOR THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF LAND BANKS; TO AUTHORIZE LAND BANKS TO ACQUIRE, DEVELOP, AND DISPOSE OF PROPERTY; TO AUTHORIZE LAND BANKS TO PERFORM RELATED FUNCTIONS, SUCH AS MANAGING PROPERTY OWNED BY THE LAND BANK, QUIETING AND CONFIRMING TITLE TO PROPERTY, ESTABLISHING REDEVELOPMENT AND FINANCING STRUCTURES (INCLUDING THOSE TO FACILITATE TAX CREDITS AND SUBSIDIARY ENTITIES), FINANCING REDEVELOPMENT, ISSUING BONDS, AND ACCEPTING TAX FORFEITED PROPERTIES FROM THE SECRETARY OF STATE; AND FOR RELATED PURPOSES.
SB 2679 creates the Mississippi Land Bank Act, authorizing municipalities and counties to establish land banks, either individually or through interlocal agreements, to address vacant, abandoned, and tax-forfeited properties. The bill is aimed at returning blighted property to productive use by allowing land banks to acquire, manage, rehabilitate, assemble, and dispose of property, clear title, and structure redevelopment projects. It also permits land banks to work with public and private partners, use tax credit financing tools, form subsidiary entities, and issue revenue bonds to support redevelopment.
The bill gives land banks broad operational authority, including the ability to borrow money, contract for services, lease or sell property, undertake demolition and rehabilitation, and accept transfers of tax lands from the Secretary of State or property from sponsoring governments. It also creates a framework for governance, requiring boards of five to eleven members, public reporting, audits, ethics rules, open meetings, and public records compliance. Land bank property and operations are exempt from state and local taxation, but land banks are prohibited from using eminent domain.
The bill would change state law by creating a new statutory chapter that overrides conflicting property-acquisition and disposition laws where necessary. It also adds special procedures for quieting and confirming title, limits later possession claims by prior interest holders to damages actions, and sets a three-year repose period for those claims. In addition, it authorizes the Governor to create a temporary land bank after a natural disaster, with property later transferring to local government if a permanent land bank is not established.
The general sentiment reflected in the bill’s passage history appears supportive, with the Senate approving the measure twice by substantial margins after amendment. The bill’s findings emphasize economic redevelopment, neighborhood stabilization, and recovery of lost tax revenue, suggesting a policy consensus around using land banks as a blight-remediation tool. No committee transcript is available, so the record does not show detailed debate, but the vote totals indicate broad support with some opposition.
The main points of contention likely involve the breadth of land bank powers and the bill’s effects on property rights and local control. Potential concerns include the ability to bypass some local restrictions, the tax exemption for land bank property and bonds, the handling of quiet-title actions and extinguished interests, and the extent to which land banks can dispose of property with limited constraints. The emergency-disaster provision and the broad preemption language may also draw scrutiny from those concerned about oversight, accountability, or impacts on existing landowners and local governments.
The bill would create a new Mississippi Land Bank Act in state law, establishing land banks as public entities and political subdivisions with authority to acquire, manage, improve, and dispose of vacant or abandoned property. It would also authorize land banks to receive tax-forfeited property, issue revenue bonds, use redevelopment financing tools, and operate under special rules for title clearing, ethics, public records, reporting, and dissolution. Where the act conflicts with other state property laws, the act would control.
The available voting history suggests the bill was generally well received in the Senate, passing as amended by notable margins. The bill’s stated purpose—redeveloping blighted property, restoring land to commerce, and strengthening local economies—reflects a broadly pro-redevelopment policy approach. Because no committee transcripts are provided, there is no direct record of floor or committee arguments, but the votes indicate more support than opposition overall.
Likely areas of contention include the scope of authority granted to land banks, especially their ability to operate with broad discretion, preempt local restrictions, and dispose of property. The bill’s tax exemptions, bonding authority, and special quiet-title procedures may raise concerns among property owners, local officials, and fiscal watchdogs about accountability, due process, and revenue impacts. The emergency-disaster land bank provision and the ability to form subsidiary entities may also be debated as to whether they provide needed flexibility or too much autonomy.