Louisiana House Bill HB1037

Louisiana 2010 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/29/10
• Refer: 3/29/10

Caption

Authorizes redevelopment covenants as part of tax sales and lien foreclosures (OR SEE FISC NOTE LF RV)

Impact

The proposed law delineates that the redevelopment covenants must outline clear parameters and deadlines for any necessary demolition, rehabilitation, or improvement activities to make the properties in question compliant. These guidelines are significant as they aim to eliminate blight and other hazards presenting dangers to public health. Furthermore, compliance deadlines are strictly enforced, with periods not extending beyond three years post any applicable redemption period, thereby compelling buyers to act promptly to adhere to the conditions set forth.

Summary

House Bill 1037 introduces provisions allowing political subdivisions to impose redevelopment covenants as conditions attached to tax sales and lien foreclosures. This legislative measure aims to address properties burdened by governmental liens or deemed blighted, thus posing threats to public health and safety. Under this bill, purchasers of such properties are required to agree to covenants designed to remedy these issues and ensure compliance with relevant state laws and local ordinances, ultimately facilitating the redevelopment of these properties for better utilization within the community.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB 1037 appears affirmative among proponents who argue that the legislation empowers local governments to reclaim and revitalize distressed properties, effectively promoting community welfare. However, there remains concern from potential purchasers who may view the covenants as burdensome, particularly if they perceive the terms to be overly restrictive or challenging. Discussions surrounding the bill likely reflect a balance between fostering development and safeguarding the interests of property buyers.

Contention

Noteworthy points of contention include the enforcement of the redevelopment covenant provisions and the potential for the political subdivision to file certificates of noncompliance if the purchaser fails to meet their obligations. This could lead to the property being reverted back to the political subdivision, thereby forfeiting any financial claims against the buyer. Critics might argue that such measures impose excessive control on owners’ use of their properties, which could stifle investment and development opportunities if buyers view the risks as too great.