Developer Agreements preferred. Fix-and-flips…not so much.

Fixing and flipping homes, one-by-one, is not the most effective way for cities and townships to pursue neighborhood revitalization.

Rather, the issuance of requests for proposals (“RFP’s”) is a better way for municipalities to transition non-performing properties owned by municipalities onto the market as “performing properties.” While at the same time, A) providing investment opportunities for real estate investors, and B) aligning investment opportunities for real estate investors with the municipality’s goals.

Eliciting the submission of proposals from developers is the way to do it.

Furthermore, a fix-and-flip, one-home-at-a-time approach can’t function in a neighborhood centric manner. How could it? Ten homes available to rehab. Ten individual investors. Ten individual investors…ten home renovations. Ten home renovations…not cohesively aligned. 

Whereas, within a request for proposals, neighborhood revitalization goals can be intertwined with investment opportunities. Thus, creating a proverbial “win-win.”

Developers are presented with an investment opportunity through the request for proposals. Win #1. 

The municipality receives multiple proposals from multiple developers. From which, the municipality possesses the opportunity to select the proposal which best speaks to the municipality’s objectives. Win #2. 

Hence, my reasoning for the utilization of requests for proposals. For land bank agreements. For the designation of redevelopment entities.