Pocket park land transfer bill

Summary#

SB-1212 would create a new Michigan law allowing the State Administrative Board to convey (transfer) about 2.13 acres of state-owned land in Detroit, known as the pocket park parcel of the former Michigan State Fairgrounds. Its stated aim is to authorize that transfer under set conditions. The bill is introduced and is not law.

  • The Board may transfer all or part of the parcel, using several sale or transfer methods, including competitive bidding, auction, a negotiated exchange, sale to a local government, or transfer to the State Land Bank Authority.
  • The Department of Technology, Management, and Budget (DTMB) would handle steps needed for a transfer and maintain the property, and pay related expenses, until it is transferred.
  • A sale at fair market value would require an independent appraisal. A negotiated exchange may take account of likely economic impact, including jobs or investment.
  • A local government may be offered the property below fair market value, but then it must use the property exclusively for defined public uses. The deed must include that restriction.
  • The bill sets conditions for resale, mineral development, and certain historic or cultural resources, and allows the state to take the property back if specified restrictions are violated.
  • Net sale revenue would go to the state’s general fund.

What it means for you#

  • State government: The State Administrative Board may transfer the parcel; the bill does not require it to do so. DTMB would manage the transfer and the property until transfer.
  • Local governments: Certain listed local government units could be offered the property, including below fair market value. The definition lists townships, villages, counties, school districts, intermediate school districts, and community college districts; it does not list cities.
  • A local government buying below fair market value: It must use the property exclusively for public use, as defined in the bill. That includes uses such as public education, parks, public health, and public transportation, but not for-profit use or use closed to the public. Any fees or conditions for public access must apply equally to everyone.
  • That local government if it later plans to transfer the land within 30 years: It must first offer it to the state, which may buy it back at the original sale price. If the state declines and the local government sells to someone else, the local government must pay the state the difference between the two sale prices. The public-use restriction remains.
  • Future owners: If oil, gas, or minerals are developed, the owner or successor must pay the state half of the gross revenue. Other deed restrictions cover specified antiquities and, if the state used the property as a monument, memorial, burial ground, park, or protected wildlife habitat, require it to be maintained for that purpose in perpetuity.
  • The public: The bill does not require the property to be sold or require every transfer to preserve public access. Its public-use condition applies to a below-market sale to a local government.

Money#

No publicly available information on a cost estimate.

  • DTMB must cover due-diligence and property-maintenance expenses until transfer. Sale-related costs, including staff, studies, legal costs, and environmental remediation, may be deducted before net revenue is deposited in the general fund.
  • A fair-market-value sale requires an independent appraisal. The bill gives no estimate for appraisal, maintenance, sale, or other costs.
  • A qualifying mineral-development payment would go to the general fund.

What is unclear#

  • The bill does not set a transfer date or require the Board to choose a particular transfer method.
  • It does not explain how DTMB would compare competing proposals or measure the economic impact used in a negotiated exchange.
  • It does not specify how a below-market offer to local governments would be made in every case; notice to each unit is optional.
  • The supplied materials do not include current law governing state property sales, so what sale or transfer options already exist cannot be verified here.
  • The bill calls the parcel a “pocket park” but does not establish whether it was used by the state as a park. That matters because the bill’s perpetual maintenance condition applies if the state used it as a park or for one of the other listed purposes.

Case for#

  • The bill could allow the state to dispose of a specific parcel while setting rules for how it may be transferred.
  • Several sale methods could give the state ways to seek value, including an appraisal-based sale or a negotiated exchange.
  • A below-market transfer could make the parcel available for public use by an eligible local government.
  • The resale rules could limit a local government’s ability to obtain a discounted public asset and then sell it at a profit without returning some value to the state.

Case against#

  • The bill does not require a sale, public bidding, or a particular way to choose among transfer methods.
  • The bill lets DTMB consider predicted economic impact in a negotiated exchange but does not set a method for measuring that impact.
  • The below-market public-use option is limited to the local governments listed in the bill’s definition, which does not include cities.
  • Some protections apply only in specific cases. For example, the public-use restriction applies to a below-market sale to a local government, not necessarily to other kinds of transfer.
  • The state could face maintenance and transaction costs before a transfer, but the bill provides no cost estimate.