Massachusetts Smart Growth Alliance

The Surplus Land Disposition Bill proposes a new, expedited process for disposing of surplus state real property based on smart growth land use policies, providing properties no longer needed for state purposes to be used for municipal purposes, or for economic development, affordable housing, and other uses.

Land Use Partnership Act / Community Preservation Act /  Smart Growth Trust Fund / Surplus Land Disposition

For nearly three years, the Alliance has worked in partnership with other stakeholders across the Commonwealth to advocate for an expedited surplus land disposition policy that balances the needs of both the state and municipalities while advancing smart growth principles.  The result of this work was legislation filed by Senator Karen Spilka (SB57) and Representative Jeffrey Sanchez (HB55) addressing the disposition of surplus land. In 2009, a new bill, filed by Governor Patrick was filed. The Alliance strongly supports this bill.

The following points are important elements of the bill:

• Creation of a Surplus Land Coordination Committee to help guide the disposition process in a thoughtful and deliberative manner, with a variety of perspectives represented on the committee.

•  A professional smart growth review for parcels of significant size or value, to help determine the most appropriate use or uses for the land.

• Consistent and predictable time frames for the disposition of parcels that are truly surplus to the state’s needs.

• A right of first refusal that allows municipalities to purchase surplus parcels for less than the appraised value.

• Directing funding toward the Smart Growth Housing Trust Fund created by MGL Chapter 40R, a critical state program meant to increase the supply of mixed-income housing in the Commonwealth. 

 The Alliance has also advocated for the following provisions to be included in the bill:

• SB57 and HB55 allow for a municipality to assign its right of first refusal to a community development corporation (CDC), affordable housing non-profit, or conservation organization, while the Governor’s bill contains no provision for such assignment.  We think that assignability of a municipality’s right of first refusal is critical since it provides municipalities an opportunity to compete for property which they might otherwise not be able to develop or maintain on their own.  By bringing an experienced third-party developer or land manager on board, the municipality may be able to bid higher for the project, which is especially important in cases where the parcel is to be awarded to the highest bidder.

• Unlike the Governor’s bill, which provides for hearings on surplus land parcels greater than two acres, SB57 and HB55 require hearings for parcels over two acres and/or valued at $1 million dollars or more, or if requested by the municipality.  We believe this distinction is critical, since many important parcels may be smaller than two acres, but significantly valuable.  Further, it gives municipalities the opportunity to have a hearing on parcels that may be of significant importance to them, regardless of their size and/or value.

• Similarly related is the smart growth review, which in the Governor’s bill, is completed only for parcels over two acres.  However, SB57 and HB55 require such review for parcels over two acres and/or valued at $1 million dollars or more.  Smart growth review is equally critical for smaller but valuable parcels as it is for larger parcels.  One additional difference related to smart growth review is that SB57 and HB55 provide the committee with an additional 15 days to complete their review than that provided for by the Governor’s bill.  We think that the 75 day review period contained in SB57 and HB55 is the proper amount of time necessary in order to conduct a complete and thorough smart growth review, and any shorter time period should not be considered.

• Both the Governor’s bill and SB57 and HB55 provide for municipalities to receive a share of proceeds from the sale of surplus land, ranging from 15% to 25%.  Under the Governor’s bill, 25% of proceeds go to the municipality only if G.L. c. 40R or 43D has been adopted.  We believe that greater flexibility is needed in determining when municipalities may be eligible for the 25% of proceeds.  Inevitably, there will be situations in which G.L. c. 40R or 43D do not achieve the committee’s designated use for a particular parcel, but a change in municipal zoning would achieve that goal.  Therefore, we ask that the committee increase the flexibility of methods by which municipalities may be eligible to receive 25% of net cash proceeds from the sale of surplus land