Wilmington City Council wants quicker action on neglected homes falling to ruins around town.
But not too quick.
For the city, the possibility of having to tear down someone else’s property means having to strike a careful balance: of protecting the surrounding neighborhood from an eyesore and potential public safety hazard; and of doing all it can to work with the property’s owners to avert demolition if possible.
The city wants to treat it fairly, moving fast enough to address a community problem but not so quickly the pace outruns financial stakeholders.
Under current policy, though, each case is afforded a long process–taking years, even.
During a workshop on the topic Monday, Councilwoman Laura Padgett called it a “sticky wicket.”
“Council needs to get these properties either repaired or gone so they don’t impact the neighborhoods,” she said. “On the other hand, you have to have respect for private property rights….”
After giving orders in May to demolish three long-ailed houses in the city limits–the city had tried at length to work with the owners–council members called for an update in policy to give the city a little more leverage and a quicker pace for the community’s sake.
Related story: City may get aggressive on dilapidated houses
In many cases, the city steps in after the owner of a house dies and heirs aren’t around or interested to assume responsibility for upkeep, renovations or selling the property as-is.
Right now, there are 243 active cases of run-down homes here, said Williane Carr, the city’s chief code enforcement officer. (Not all of them are vacant.)
Of that total, there are at least 43 that are far-gone enough for the city council’s attention; 38 or so are vacant, Carr said Monday.
Council members say they want to see these properties–whether through renovation or demolition and rebuilding–put back to good use not just for the benefit of their surroundings, but for the city’s property tax rolls.
But if the city moves too quickly on Wilmington’s problem houses, downsides may include a potentially great number of empty lots casting strange vibes to neighboring homes.
The public might also get a perception that the city is moving against low-income areas, which are generally where these falling-apart structures are, said Carr.
She did, however, try to clear the city of any such suspicion. Neighbors, she said, are the ones asking code enforcement to step in.
“The majority of our cases are complaint-driven,” Carr said.
The city did have a quicker policy once upon a time. In the late 1990s, the owners of properties on notice for such violations would get a hearing within 10 to 90 days, and then orders to repair or demolish with a compliance window of 90 days to 6 months.
Citations for failure to comply were $100 a day.
In 2005, the policy changed; council members at the time were worried houses were being razed too quickly, and neighborhoods had requested more time for property owners to comply.
The up-to-six-months window remained, but an “agreement to stay” entered the process, allowing 180 days to 2 years–or more–if the owners are meeting benchmarks on repairs or rehabilitations.
“If they’re not meeting those benchmarks on the stay agreement, then the fines automatically start,” Carr told council Monday.
The city’s efforts to reach the owner or owners of a dilapidated property–they’re often heirs, sometimes scattered throughout the country and difficult to find–are also careful and time-consuming, officials said.
Council members suggested limiting that to some extent to move the overall process along.
City Manager Sterling Cheatham said Monday he’d develop recommendations for policy updates council might want to consider.
Recent story: Another dilapidated house slated for demolition
Ben Brown is a news reporter at Port City Daily. Reach him at [email protected] or (910) 772-6335. On Twitter:@benbrownmedia
