The City of Richfield is currently considering a lengthy and wide-reaching ordinance regarding vacant buildings – both residential and commercial.  This issue has come up in many cities recently but this proposed ordinance is one of the most aggressive ones I have seen.  Please read the proposed ordinance here.

Cities across the country today are dealing with large numbers of foreclosures and with that come problem properties for the cities to deal with – which costs time and money and also affects the surrounding neighborhood.  While Richfield’s desire to reduce/eliminate blight and to better manage costs for protection and code enforcement are admirable, this proposed ordinance goes well beyond what I believe necessary.

I wanted to point out a few areas of this ordinance that I thought are of particular note:

1. Vacant properties do not mean abandoned properties
   There are many vacant properties in cities that are regularly checked and maintained by the owners or a caretaker – while these properties may not have an occupant, they are not dilapidated or unsecured.  This ordinance makes no distinction between properties that are well cared for an those that are not.
2. Policing a vacant but maintained property should not bear any additional costs
   The City states in the cover letter to the ordinance that they are looking for the extra costs of monitoring vacant properties be assigned to the owners of those properties.  If a vacant property’s exterior is being maintained and the home is properly secured, then the City’s costs to “monitor” the property are no higher than with any other property in the city.  In many circumstances it is impossible to tell a properly maintained home is vacant.
3. “Snow birds” are given special treatment
   If the concern is that vacant buildings are a source of crime and disrepair, why are snow birds and other extended vacationers given special treatment?  A vacant property is a vacant property, is it not?  Snow birds still have to register the property but are given a waiver from fees.
4. Vacant homes become code compliance nightmares
   The ordinance would allow building officials to inspect any vacant building at will and look for any code violations on or in the property and enforce code compliance prior to re-occupancy – power they do not have on occupied properties, except at time of sale. (4A-6 Subd.7)
5. Properties vacant for more than 365 days can be required to be demolished
   While the provision does note that compliance officials can override this rule if a compliance officer approves a property plan, this leaves a very broad opportunity for the city to demolish problem properties and could be a shortcut to normal demolition procedures? (4A-4 (b) (4))
6. Significant power rests with compliance officials
   Many provisions of the ordinance allow decision discretion to be made by the compliance officials and such decisions therefore may be unequally determined in each case. (pg 4A-2, Subd. 4)
7. Many unintended parties may be impacted by this ordinance
   * Relocating homeowners in process of selling their home (any property vacant for 30 days is affected)
   * Estate situations 
   * Military deployments
   * Temporary employment in another location
   * Vacationing residents unaware of the ordinance
   * Landlords that have a gap in renters of more than 1 month (common especially in commercial)
8. The problems that this ordinance intends to address are largely short-term problems
   The huge influx in foreclosed homes these last few years has added significantly to the list of problem properties, but this influx appears to already be peaking and should wane in the coming years.  Consequently the broad and complex nature of this ordinance will have substantially diminished value in just a few years.
9. Most of the underlying issues can be resolved by general property maintenance ordinances
   * Occupied houses can have severe blight
   * Just like “time of sale” inspections, this ordinance will only have power over a subset of properties so it isn’t a comprehensive attack on city blight.
   *  Exterior maintenance (yard, debris, building, secured doors) should be an area of focus for all homes, not just the vacant ones
   *  This is a very involved compliance process, which means significant resources will be spent on this – time better spent in locating and addressing problem properties through conventional means.
   * “Problem properties” could have escalating enforcement and fines/penalties without targeting the innocent and compliant owners

We all desire stable, safe and  appealing neighborhoods but views on the proper approach to achieve such goals will vary widely. An ordinance with such impact needs discussion amongst all the stakeholders (property owners, real estate agents, property managers, city staff, city council) and an opportunity for dialog and input by the public at large before this is enacted.  The City of Richfield should slow this process down to allow for these conversations to happen before taking any further action.

A second reading is scheduled for March 22, 2011 and after that second reading, the City Council may vote to approve the ordinance at that time or any date subsequent. If you are concerned about this ordinance, the time to act is NOW!