What Purpose Does The CEO's Vacant Buildings Registry Serve?

 

There are so many concerning things about the Vacant Buildings List which I recently received from the Code Enforcement Office, that it's difficult to know where to start.  Today I will focus on the fees associated with vacant buildings, as well as a few properties on and off the list.

According to the City Code, if a building is registered with CEO as vacant, the owner is required to pay a fee of $1,000.  You want to be on the list?  You owe us $1,000!  You remained on the list another year?  You owe us $2,000.  3rd year?  $3,000, and so on, up to a $5,000 limit.

There are 52 properties listed on the CEO's current Vacant Buildings Registry, which was updated 2 months ago.  If we are to believe what the poorly organized list indicates (and why shouldn't we?), just one of those properties has ever paid a fee of any kind -- and it happened 3 years ago.  "26 Oakwood Blvd. (Received Fee 3/9/20)" it reads, at the bottom of page 2, is the only entry on the list which mentions the word FEE. Apparently, that is the extent of any fees paid by owners of vacant properties, at least in the past 3 years.   Many of the properties on the list have been vacant for years and years, but you wouldn't know it by reading the list.

It's called a vacant lot, 
not a vacant building!

Then there's the listing of "247 Columbia Street Fire Damage Demo Permit Issued 12/3/19," in the middle of page 2.  The trailer on that property was destroyed in a fire, then removed, and yet, here it is still on the Vacant Buildings Registry over 3 years later.  There has not been a "building" on the property for 3 years. What purpose does it serve for that addtess to be on the list, if not to confuse?  It was never a vacant building anyway, just the charred remains of a trailer when the tenant was forced to flee. 

How about Galvan's two long-vacant houses at 70 and 72 N. 5th, which they have  ignored for like a decade?  They are gutted, the roof is in need of replacement, and no one is ever working on them.  Why aren't they both part of the vacant buildings registry?  Is it because Galvan hasn't come into the Code office to sign up for eligibility to be on the registry, so they can pay the annual fee to continue to do nothing with their rotting houses?  How many thousands of dollars in annual vacant building fees has Galvan NOT paid and the City NOT received because 70 and 72 N. 5th are NOT on the list?  The fee is designed to force property owners to fix their vacant buildings, to get humans into them instead of just rotting and then having to be demolished due to neglect.  No fee?  No effort to repair them!  Vacant properties not on the list?  The property will likely remain ignored by CEO, and remain vacant.

Stay tuned for more examination and critiques of the CEO's list -- there is no shortage of concerns and questions.