3 Comments

The "round up surplus state land for housing" pitch goes back (at least) to the Weld era. The fact that each and every disposition requires approval from the Legislature is one of the principal reasons there appears to be an inexhaustible inventory of state property for redevelopment. This usually means a detailed plan for redevelopment that meets with local legislator, neighbor and municipal approval. These plans and the subsequent legislative approval take an enormous amount of time and money. So, this remains an great source of "low-hanging fruit" that is not really so low-hanging for each successive administration.

Expand full comment
author

This is really invaluable feedback. Will likely do another story looking at the cumbersome system for the sale of state land.

Expand full comment

DCAMM has another tool - the Asset Management Board - that was created about 30 years ago, which allowed a method of circumventing the standard disposition system through long-term ground leases. The state law on disposition is rooted in the scandal-motivated reforms that created the Division of Capital Planning and Operations, now DCAMM. There is no constituency (other than the Governor while in office) for greater flexibility and speed in the disposition process. This kind of efficiency serves a diffuse population with improved government, but getting more efficiency would reduce the vast number of veto points that stakeholders want to retain.

Expand full comment