The ordinance committee of the common council is reviewing the idea of a blight ordinance. An interesting idea, but one persons idea of blight can be another’s wild woolly garden. From the Hour:
Lacking evidence that existing city laws don’t address blighted properties, the Common Council’s Ordinance Committee may turn to residents for input.
At issue is whether the city should adopt an anti-blight ordinance, as favored by at least one resident, or if existing health, zoning and building department regulations adequately tackle run-down properties.
On March 28, at the direction of the committee, Assistant Corporation Counsel Linda Guliuzza met with department heads to discuss the matter, according to committee Chairwoman Amanda M. Brown.
“The consensus was the current system works quite well,” Brown said. “However, we will hold a public hearing to get public input. I think the public should be able to influence our decision.”
Brown said the committee first must discuss the recommendations stemming from the March meeting. Brown hopes that will occur later this month. For lack of a quorum, the committee did not meet Tuesday night.
According to Brown, Guliuzza, Chief Building Official William Ireland, Director of Health Timothy J. Callahan, Thomas E. Closter, director of environmental services with the Health Department, and Director of Planning and Zoning Michael B. Greene met on March 28 to talk about blight.
Greene said Wednesday that the planning and zoning department can take action, if a “property becomes so blighted that it, in effect, becomes a junkyard.” Unregistered vehicles littering a property, sfor instance, are not permitted. Also, the city has adopted a regulation limiting tag sales to four per year, so as to “prevent someone from using their yard as a business/storage area which can become blighted.” In some cases, a property becomes so blighted “it becomes a health issue,” Greene said.
“We met and discussed (blight),” Greene said. “We’re not saying there isn’t a problem. We’re just not sure what the magnitude of the problem is. The thought was let’s go to a (public) hearing and see what the magnitude of the problem is. Give us examples of where no department has jurisdiction and, therefore, a new law is needed.”
Property values are beginning to sound an awful like religion these days, with government actions beginning with “in the name of preserving property values…” The troubling aspect of the slippery slope of blight laws is that they lead quickly to the foothills of eminent domain. Or more generically, the breach of property rights. There’s something quintessentially American in the idea that you too can try out for Dancing with the Stars and become a slum lord, not necessarily in that order. Owner occupied blighted properties are not uncommon, and may in fact, be more prevalent, depending on how one runs a survey amongst the neighbours.
Then there’s the practicality of adding yet another nonenforceable law. Think about how sidewalks should be cleaned within 24 hours of a snowfall to understand how daily fines, inspections and enforcement get met. If you’re wondering, they don’t.
A more likely research project should be to see what the potential list of blighted properties is. Holding a public hearing doesn’t exactly produce the scientific based research most likely to yield the ROI of any pursuit of legislation. But a photo list of likely candidates would put the problem into perspective. Worth thinking about.
source: The Hour, City officials ponder ‘blight’ ordinance, April 17, 2008
