🏚️🏛️ The Will County Land Bank: Solving Blight or Growing Government?
“We’re from the government, and we’re here to help your real estate.”
That isn’t exactly what was said during the recent Will County Executive Committee discussion on creating a Land Bank.
But it isn’t entirely inaccurate either.
The proposal would create a new entity tasked with acquiring, rehabilitating, and redeploying certain distressed properties throughout Will County.
Supporters say it is a long-overdue tool.
Critics worry it could become another layer of government with broad powers, uncertain costs, and unclear long-term limits.
As usual, the truth probably lies somewhere in between.
One thing is certain:
The discussion raises important questions about housing policy, government growth, taxpayer resources, accountability, and whether the proposed solution is proportional to the problem it seeks to solve.
🏠 What Problem Is The County Trying To Solve?
During the Executive Committee discussion, Will County Treasurer Tim Brophy explained that the Land Bank is intended to address properties that have effectively failed the marketplace.
These aren’t simply homes where someone missed a tax payment.
These are properties that may have:
🔹 Environmental contamination
🔹 Years of unpaid taxes
🔹 Ownership disputes
🔹 Title defects
🔹 Demolition costs
🔹 Negative equity
🔹 Multiple failed tax sales
Mr. Brophy’s argument was straightforward:
Some properties become so burdened with problems that no private investor wants them.
Think of it like trying to sell a car worth $5,000 that needs:
🚗 A $4,000 transmission
🚗 A $3,000 engine
🚗 A missing title
🚗 Three years of unpaid parking tickets
Suddenly the asset becomes a liability.
Nobody wants it.
The market walks away.
The property sits.
The neighborhood suffers.
This is the central argument in favor of the Land Bank.
And frankly, it’s a reasonable one.
🔨 How Is This Different From A Tax Sale?
Will County currently auctions approximately 3,000 properties annually through the Treasurer’s tax sale process.
The process is fairly simple:
Property owner fails to pay taxes.
↓
Tax sale occurs.
↓
Investors decide whether the property is worth acquiring.
↓
Property eventually returns to productive use.
For many properties, this works.
The proposed Land Bank is intended to address situations where it doesn’t.
Instead of merely auctioning a property, the Land Bank may:
✅ Clear title issues
✅ Extinguish back taxes
✅ Address environmental concerns
✅ Assemble redevelopment opportunities
✅ Transfer property to new owners
In theory:
🏚️ Problem Property
↓
🏦 Land Bank Intervention
↓
🏠 Productive Property
That’s the sales pitch.
And again, it isn’t an unreasonable one.
🎣 The Fishing Pole Analogy
Supporters of the Land Bank often describe it as a new tool.
And that’s fair.
But tools have a funny way of changing how problems get solved.
Imagine a fisherman who buys a new fishing pole.
At first, it’s just another tool in the garage.
Then he buys a tackle box.
Then a fish finder.
Then a bigger boat.
Then a trailer.
Then a storage shed for all the gear.
Eventually, what started as “just a tool” becomes an entirely new operation.
That doesn’t mean the fishing pole was a bad idea.
It simply means that new tools often create new responsibilities.
Taxpayers should ask:
Is this truly just another tool, or is it the beginning of a larger governmental function?
🤔 The Most Important Question Nobody Answered
How many properties actually fit this description?
Mr. Brophy referenced approximately 3,000 tax-sale properties annually.
But that isn’t the number taxpayers need.
The real question is:
👉 How many properties have truly failed the market?
How many:
• Receive no bids?
• Have negative equity?
• Have environmental problems?
• Have title defects?
• Have failed multiple tax sales?
20?
50?
100?
500?
Nobody appeared to provide that number.
And that number matters.
If the answer is 20 properties, taxpayers may reasonably ask whether a 20-plus-member board, ARPA funding, audits, FOIA compliance, legal review, and ongoing administration are proportional to the problem.
If the answer is several hundred properties that have repeatedly failed the marketplace, the argument for the Land Bank becomes considerably stronger.
And without that number, taxpayers cannot determine whether the proposed solution is proportional to the problem.
Before creating a new governmental entity, it seems reasonable to first quantify the size of the problem.
📜 HB 4571: The Bigger Picture
The Land Bank discussion did not occur in isolation.
Separately, the Illinois General Assembly passed HB 4571, which expands certain county authorities related to affordable housing and redevelopment initiatives.
To be clear:
HB 4571 did not create the Will County Land Bank.
However, it is part of a broader trend of expanding and formalizing the role counties may play in housing and redevelopment policy.
The legislation authorizes counties to:
🏘️ Acquire property
🏘️ Transfer property
💲 Lease property below market value
💲 Sell property below market value
🏗️ Offer grants and loans
🚧 Provide infrastructure improvements
🏦 Coordinate with land banks and land trusts
Supporters describe these as optional tools.
Critics describe them as an expansion of government authority.
The truth may be both.
🏛️ “It’s Just A Choice”
One argument repeatedly offered by supporters is:
“The county doesn’t have to use these powers.”
That may be true.
But history shows that once government creates a tool, there is often pressure to use it.
Boards seek projects.
Programs seek funding.
Grants create opportunities.
Optional authority frequently becomes active authority.
That doesn’t mean the authority is inappropriate—it simply means taxpayers should carefully evaluate both the benefits and long-term costs before the tool is placed in the toolbox.
Optional authority is still authority.
And optional programs still require resources when activated.
Imagine a county creates:
📋 A new board
📅 New meetings
📂 New FOIA obligations
🔍 New audits
⚖️ New legal review
📈 New reporting requirements
🏗️ New redevelopment programs
Those functions don’t become free simply because participation is voluntary.
Supporters often frame the Land Bank as a choice.
But taxpayers should recognize what that choice entails:
A new governmental structure.
Additional oversight.
Additional administrative responsibilities.
Additional demands on public resources.
The question isn’t whether participation is mandatory.
The question is:
👉 What are the costs of exercising the option?
And are those costs justified?
🚪 The Spare Bedroom Analogy
Imagine building an addition onto your house and then telling your spouse:
“Don’t worry. We don’t have to use the room.”
The room still exists.
It still requires maintenance.
It still increases the size of the house.
Government authority works much the same way.
Even when optional, new authority creates the potential for future activity, future programs, future staffing, and future costs.
The question isn’t whether the room will be used tomorrow.
The question is whether taxpayers understand they just built the room.
🏛️ Is Government Growing?
Let’s be honest.
The debate is not whether additional governmental functions are being created.
They clearly are.
The real debate is whether those additional functions are justified by the problem being addressed.
Supporters may correctly point out that counties already possessed some authority in many of these areas.
Critics, however, note that the proposal creates a new entity, a new governing structure, new administrative responsibilities, and a formalized role in redevelopment that did not previously exist in this form.
The proposal creates:
📋 A new governmental entity
👥 A governing board potentially exceeding twenty members
📂 New FOIA obligations
🔍 New audits
📈 New reporting requirements
⚖️ New administrative functions
📅 Additional meetings and oversight
Supporters may argue the expansion is justified.
That’s a legitimate debate.
The better question is:
👉 Is the expansion worth it?
🍔 The Government Hamburger Analogy
Imagine you own a restaurant.
A few burgers occasionally come out burnt.
You have two options.
Option A
Fix the grill.
Option B
Create a Burger Oversight Authority.
👔 Appoint a board.
📋 Draft policies.
📈 Create reports.
📅 Hold quarterly meetings.
📚 Publish annual studies.
The question isn’t whether the Authority can improve burgers.
The question is whether fixing the grill would have been simpler.
Likewise:
If distressed properties are the problem, should we:
A) Create a new governmental entity?
Or
B) Remove the barriers causing the problem?
⚖️ Enter The Tyler Case
The discussion becomes even more interesting when we consider the Supreme Court’s decision in Tyler v. Hennepin County.
The Court ruled that government may collect what it is owed in taxes, but it cannot keep a homeowner’s remaining equity after a tax foreclosure sale.
That was a major victory for property rights.
However, it also highlights an important distinction.
Tyler addressed the problem of government taking too much.
The Land Bank proposal attempts to address a different problem:
What happens when a property becomes so burdened by taxes, environmental concerns, title defects, and redevelopment costs that nobody wants it?
That question deserves discussion as well.
💰 “It Won’t Cost Taxpayers Anything”
This statement deserves scrutiny.
The proposal’s initial funding is approximately $1 million in ARPA funds.
Supporters often emphasize that taxpayers are not directly funding the Land Bank through a new tax levy.
However, taxpayers should remember that ARPA funds originated from federal taxpayers, and administrative support, legal review, public meetings, audits, and oversight still consume public resources regardless of the funding source.
Supporters argue:
“No local tax increase is required.”
That may be true.
But:
💵 ARPA funds are taxpayer dollars.
💵 Federal grants are taxpayer dollars.
💵 Staff time is taxpayer funded.
💵 Legal review is taxpayer funded.
💵 Audits are taxpayer funded.
💵 Meeting administration is taxpayer funded.
Government resources are never free.
The better question is:
👉 What is the total public cost over five years?
And if the Land Bank proves successful and expands, what is the cost over ten years?
No clear answer was provided.
🎯 The Question That Changes Everything
Suppose the Land Bank spends public resources to:
✅ Clear title
✅ Remove tax burdens
✅ Resolve environmental issues
✅ Demolish unsafe structures
The property becomes valuable.
Now what?
Who gets to buy it?
🏷️ Highest bidder?
🏷️ Public auction?
🏷️ Selected developer?
🏷️ Preferred nonprofit?
🏷️ Government entity?
This matters.
Because once public resources create value, taxpayers deserve to understand how opportunities are allocated.
This isn’t necessarily corruption.
It’s accountability.
There is a difference.
🎰 The Casino Chip Question
Imagine a casino chip lying on a table.
By itself, it isn’t worth much.
Now imagine taxpayers spend money to:
🎯 Clean it.
🎯 Authenticate it.
🎯 Verify ownership.
🎯 Resolve legal disputes.
Suddenly that chip has value again.
The natural question becomes:
Who gets the chip?
If public resources are used to create value, taxpayers deserve to know how that value is distributed.
Not because anyone is doing anything wrong.
But because transparency is how trust is built.
🏙️ Lessons From Detroit And Elsewhere
Land banks have produced successes.
That’s true.
But critics point out something else.
Many land banks begin with a narrow mission:
“Let’s address blighted properties.”
Years later they become involved in housing policy, economic development, incentive programs, neighborhood planning, and property management.
In other words:
📈 Mission creep.
The concern isn’t that Will County becomes Detroit tomorrow.
The concern is whether a narrowly focused tool gradually evolves into a broader redevelopment authority.
History suggests taxpayers should at least ask the question.
🎯 The AIM Initiative: What Taxpayers Should Ask Next
At AIM, we generally believe that government works best when it is limited, accountable, transparent, and focused on its core responsibilities.
From that perspective, the creation of a new governmental entity, a new governing board, additional administrative functions, and expanded involvement in housing and redevelopment should receive careful scrutiny.
That does not mean the Land Bank cannot produce positive outcomes.
It does mean that taxpayers should demand clear evidence that the problem is significant enough to justify the additional governmental structure and resources required to address it.
The burden of proof should not fall on taxpayers to demonstrate why a new layer of government is unnecessary.
The burden should fall on government to demonstrate why it is necessary.
Before supporting this proposal, taxpayers should ask:
📊 How many properties truly qualify?
📊 What percentage of the 3,000 annual tax-sale properties would realistically become Land Bank candidates?
💰 What is the five-year operating budget?
💰 What happens when ARPA funds run out?
🏗️ Who decides which properties enter the program?
🏗️ Who receives redeveloped properties?
⚖️ Will competitive bidding be required?
⚖️ What prevents mission creep?
🏠 If rising taxes and housing costs are the real crisis facing many families, how much of that problem is solved by a Land Bank?
📣 Final Thought
The Land Bank may help solve certain property problems.
However, creating a new governmental entity should never be viewed as a cost-free solution.
Every board, commission, authority, district, and program consumes time, resources, attention, and taxpayer dollars—whether directly or indirectly.
The challenge for taxpayers is not determining whether the intentions are good.
Most public initiatives begin with good intentions.
The challenge is determining whether the solution remains focused, effective, transparent, and proportional over time.
If government believes a Land Bank is necessary, taxpayers deserve to know:
• How large is the problem?
• How much will it cost?
• Who benefits?
• How will success be measured?
• What prevents mission creep?
And perhaps most importantly:
Could the underlying problem be addressed with less government rather than more?
Government is often very good at creating new tools.
Taxpayers should be just as interested in knowing when those tools are no longer needed.
Those aren’t anti-government questions.
They are exactly the questions taxpayers should ask whenever government proposes building something new.
Government should never be judged solely by its intentions.
It should also be judged by:
✔️ Results
✔️ Cost
✔️ Transparency
✔️ Accountability
Those are taxpayer expectations.
And taxpayers deserve answers.
📚 Sources
• Will County Executive Committee Meeting – Resolution 26-4979 (Land Bank Establishment)
• Illinois HB 4571 – County Affordable Housing Authority legislation
• Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023)
• Center for Community Progress – Land Bank Policy Resources
• Detroit Land Bank Authority public reports and redevelopment programs
• Public discussions and county materials regarding land bank governance, ARPA funding, redevelopment objectives, and tax sale processes
This article is intended to encourage discussion and accountability. It is not an allegation of wrongdoing by any individual or entity.