Who’s minding the store? By KAREN KENNEDY After months of conflicts, debates, stall tactics, and what now appears to be an impasse, the issue of a much-needed abandoned property ordinance for Meade County remains unresolved. This column has discussed the ordinance on numerous occasions to the point it seemed people must be sick and tired of hearing about it. However, reader responses indicate Meade County citizens are indeed interested in this issue and are very much receptive to learning more. Given this, I recently reviewed the proposed “new” abandoned property ordinance – Ordinance #2006-01 – and noted the sections of the ordinance that are new or different from the abandoned property ordinance which is currently in effect minus an enforcement officer to enforce it. A careful inspection of this ordinance reveals there are several portions of the ordinance that beg reconsideration. Difference #1: This section of the ordinance addresses historical buildings. The one glaring deficiency is that there is no definition given for “competent historical authority.” Shouldn’t this be an authority connected with the National Register of Historical Places or the Kentucky Historical Society in Frankfort? The decision makers should be those who possess the proper education to adequately assess historical value. Certainly the historical value of a property should not be based entirely on sentiment or because it was “cousin Clyde’s wife’s grandfather’s house.” Without a knowledgeable historical authority in the picture, we place ourselves on very shaky and unprofessional ground. There also needs to be a maximum timeframe attached to this process or else such a decision could drag on unresolved for years, exacerbating the problem and perhaps placing what might be a bona fide historical property in further disrepair. Other questions I have include: If this property has such historical value, why did the property owner allow it to fall into such neglect and disrepair and why is he – or anyone else – just now becoming concerned about it? Why should the code enforcement officer bring the matter to Fiscal Court for a hearing? Fiscal Court should be the lawmaker but not the judge and jury. We’ve got a court system for this; let’s use it. Also, where will the money come from to restore these buildings to their former grandeur and integrity? I would like to point out that I’m all for the restoration of historical buildings. We have so very few here in Meade County, and we really should make a concerted effort not to lose any more. That being said, old buildings are notoriously “money pits.” There must be a good reason to keep them, plenty of money available for restoration, and a practical plan. Having once owned and loved a circa 1849 house, I speak from experience. Let’s not throw out this portion of the ordinance; let’s just write it a little bit better. Difference #2: There still remains the verbiage that the code enforcement officer can only cite those properties on which he has received citizen complaints. As has been opined in this column before, this is selective law enforcement. Suppose someone complains about an abandoned property in his neighborhood. The code enforcement initiates appropriate action against the property owner per the procedures set forth in the ordinance. However, there is a second abandoned property in the neighborhood that no one has complained about, yet its condition is as equally poor as the one that’s received the complaint. Is it fair that the first property owner must work to bring his property into compliance yet his neighbor down the street is allowed to do nothing? Difference #3: We are not treating everyone equally if we exclude two of our property zones. The zone that is particularly problematic would be our A-2 zone that has been excluded from the draft of Ordinance #2006-01. This is a huge problem because there are numerous abandoned properties currently in the A-2 zone. Several weeks ago, I wrote an article about the number of abandoned mobile homes we have in this county and why we have them. Guess what? Many of these abandoned mobile homes are located in the A-2 zone. If we exclude A-2 from the ordinance, there will be no law to address the abandonment of these homes. Is this our intent? This portion of the ordinance also allows Paul and Mary to live in a nice brick home yet right next door is Mary’s old family homestead in utter decay and abandonment. Since Paul and Mary own the abandoned property next door – because it sits right next to the one on which they live – they get a free pass to keep this abandoned property for all eternity. Who’s the brain child behind this one? Difference #4: After I read the ordinance’s section on “Medical Hardship,” I couldn’t help but think of the Monopoly game’s “Get out of jail free” card because I think that’s exactly what it gives people. First of all, the person with the medical hardship doesn’t live on the property we’re talking about. It’s abandoned; therefore, no one lives there. This person most likely owns the property on which he lives as well as the abandoned property in question. If a person can’t keep up a property, maybe it’s time to sell it or deed it over to another family member who can see to its upkeep. It’s not like this ordinance is trying to kick a sick person out of his or her home. No one is asking for that. The only thing that should be expected is for someone to take responsibility for a property. Bottom line. Also please consider that to be deemed a bona fide “abandoned property” that property didn’t become so overnight. It often takes months or perhaps years for a property to find itself in such poor condition that someone objects to it. Once again, in this portion of the ordinance, you can see we’ve got Fiscal Court serving as the type of “court” I don’t think it is meant to be. It’s not a “hearing” body of government. Fiscal Court is supposed to come up with good laws for the county but not actually be the ones to enforce them. Is it appropriate for Fiscal Court to serve as the law maker, judge, and jury all rolled into one? No, it’s not. And not only do we have a code enforcement officer and Fiscal Court dealing with doctor’s notes and medical reports but we’ve got both the code enforcement officer and Fiscal Court delving into someone’s finances. Is this really appropriate? Would you want Fiscal Court delving into your personal business and making a judgment call about you? What qualifications do members of Fiscal Court possess that would allow them to make such decisions? If you read the entire section on medical hardship, it’s easy to see how such a medical hardship case could become quite the tangled web, holding the property in limbo for months or years. Do you see where all of this is going? We’ve got our Fiscal Court as both lawmaker and law enforcer. In addition, now we’ve got members of Fiscal Court who have suddenly become historical, medical, and financial experts. My gut reaction to this ordinance is that it is written in such a way as to be marginally enforceable and almost completely ineffective. It’s almost as if the intention is to purposely allow abandoned property situations to continue – to remain in limbo and languish in the Fiscal Court system. Certainly the ordinance is not written in a clear-cut manner that would allow violations to be handled in an expedient manner. Does this type of ordinance serve the people? Does this ordinance cut to the chase and get these abandoned properties cleaned up in a timely manner? But, please don’t take my word for any of this. My best suggestion to you is to obtain a copy of proposed Ordinance #2006-01 and read it in its entirety for yourself. Contact the judge executive or one of our magistrates for a copy. You might also want to obtain a copy of the abandoned property ordinance #2005-05, which can be found on file in the county clerk’s office in the Meade County Courthouse. Compare the two of them and see which one – if either – you feel does the necessary job. In the meantime, there sits poor old Ordinance #2005-05, all dressed up but no place to go. She really wants to mind the store – if only someone will let her. Got a topic you’d like to see discussed? Contact Karen Kennedy at 422-2155 or send an e-mail to messenger@bbtel.com. The Messenger will consider all topics and select those that best lend themselves to the column’s format. All comments in response to the column should be sent to the Messenger in the form of a Letter to the Editor. Click Here to Go Back
|
