IRONWOOD, MI - Tuesday, July 22, 2008 - Seated at the table at last night's Blight Ordinance Review Committee were: City Commissioners Tom Laabs, Gemma Lamb, Suzanne Toth, and Bob Burchell; Planning Commissioners Jackie Powers and Debbie Bowles; City Manager Scott Erickson; Community Development Director Dan Petersen; Blight Enforcement Officer Travis Smee; and City Assessor/Building Inspector Dennis Hewitt. In attendance representing IronwoodInfo.com were Lou Bonagura and Arvo Toolanen. Steve Frank and yours truly were in attendance representing the Superior Chronicle. The Ironwood Daily Globe did not send a reporter to last night's meeting.

There is an interesting side-note to last night's meeting. Nine of the fifteen candidates from the last Ironwood City Commission election attended the meeting -- Jim Beckman, Lou Bonagura, Bob Burchell, Steve Frank, John Kasieta, Tom Laabs, Gemma Lamb, Suzanne Toth and this reporter.

Dan Petersen called the meeting to order after handing out a copy of the Blight Ordinance to the Committee members. To examine the Blight Ordinance [CLICK HERE].

Travis Smee gave a brief description the procedure he follows in order to enforce the ordinance. He told the Committee that most of the action he takes regarding blight is a result of telephone call complaints. He said after he receives a phone complaint, he goes and evaluates the situation personally. After examining the situation, if he believes the complaint was warranted, he goes back to his office and writes a letter to the property owner. After 10 days, Travis says he does a follow up inspection of the property. If no attempt was made to correct the situation, he then sends out a second notice with a $75.00 administration fee assessment. If, following another 10 days, no action was taken, a $150.00 fee is assessed. If, after another 10 days, the property is still not in compliance with the ordinance, Travis told the Committee, he then brings the issue to the City Commission to have the City abate the problem.

Tavis told the Committee that four properties ended up before the Commission last year. The City cleaned up the properties and the costs were added to the property owner's tax bill. He said the results, all-in-all, were quite positive. He pointed out that the City crews cannot enter a person's dwelling or paint someones house, however.

The Committee agreed that, for the most part, the ordinance changes to date have been a positive step in the battle against blight. It was the general consensus, however, that certain issues were not being addressed, and that the ordinance didn't quite have the "bite" it needed to be fully effective.

In general, there have been significant changes in grass complaints and complaints regarding cluttered yards, outside garbage and debris. However, as Steve Frank pointed out at last night's meeting, there is a much more important aspect that needs to be addressed. Severely blighted and abandoned homes are repeatedly sold at tax auction and most of them are open to the elements and are dangerous. They are an attractive nuisance, and nothing is being done to address the problem. The photo slide-shows below demonstrate the problem:

The home pictured above is located at 120 West Oak Street. The windows are shattered or boarded up; the roof is caving in; and the property is a hazard. The tall grass, although some may find it to be objectionable, is least of this property's problems.

The home pictured above is located at 123 East Oak Street. It is also abandoned. It is full of food waste and household garbage. It is open to the elements and an open invitation to mice, rats, skunks, raccoons and other rodents.

The front door of the home pictured above is wired shut. The property at 130 East Pine is scattered with debris. The back door is wide open and windows are missing or broken. An old van sits on the property. Once again the house is full of waste and garbage. It is an attractive adventure to any young kid. It is also a very dangerous place for kids to be exploring.

The house pictured above was a meth lab. A warning is clearly posted on the door of the 200 Alfred Wright Boulevard house. This property needs to be cleaned up. Many toxic chemicals are used in the production of methamphetamine.

The house at 233 East Pine Street is falling apart. The roof leaks; the floors are buckled; the foundation is collapsing. The house is in terrible physical condition and it needs to be razed. Once again, young kids would find this to be a fascinating place to play.

At 237 East Pine (above) the grass is knee high. Used lumber is stacked in the yard. The back entrance is overgrown to the point that the rear steps cannot be used, and one would need a machete to cut through the brush to get into the rear entrance.

The house picture above is located at 401 East Tamarack Street. It's a shambles. Used lumber is stacketed everywhere, and the foundation is in very rough shape. Windows and doors are either broken or missing. Demolition debris fills the structure. Although it is posted "NO TRESPASSING" little kids and news photojournalists don't seem to read those signs. This is a hazard to the neighborhood.

The home pictured above is located at 712 Sutherland Street. These photos were taken directly from the tax-sale.info website. This property along with several other blighted, abandoned homes are listed for State tax sale. The sale will take place on August 13, 2008 at the Michigan Tech Union Ballroom Building in Houghton.

The property is listed with a minimum bid of $4,900.00 and the description of the house is as follows: "This is a sturdy older 2 story house that has been sadly abused. It has recently been used as a duplex. It is pretty grubby, but a solid appearing building on a good foundation. It is a traditional Yooper cedar-shake sided house with the added feature of hardwood floors. There is a good amount of debris to deal with. Could be a sharp place with some work." According to the site, there is over 30 yards of garbage and debris inside the house that needs to be removed.

After much discussion and many suggestions, Manager Scott Erickson prepared a list of possible ideas to improve the current Blight Ordinance:

• Access to Inside of Homes - In cases where homes are open to the elements, there needs to be some sort of tool that allows the City to inspect the properties for code, safety, and other blight violations. The City of Ashland has a program that appears to be working, so Erickson said he will research their ordinances and make contact with them.
• City Grants for Home Demolition - Offering homeowners and prospective buyers City Grant money (perhaps $1,000) to tear down buildings by themselves. The City currently pays thousands of dollars to raze abandoned houses. The City is required to do procedures the general public is not required to do, so the cost for the City to raze a building is higher than it would be for a homeowner.
• Higher Fees for Blight Enforcement - Since Blight is a misdemeanor, the City cannot impose fines. The can and are, however, charge administrative fees to cover their costs of blight enforcement.
• Municipal Court / Civil Infractions - This reporter has been continually urging the City to initiate a city court for issues such as blight. Turning minor misdemeanors into civil infractions allows the City to impose fines and keep the fine money. If the City changed these ordinances into civil infractions, collection of fines would be streamlined, and there would be a financial incentive to the City to make sure fines were properly paid.
• City-Owned Property Maintenance - It was brought by John Kasieta that enforcement would be a lot easier if the City followed the same rules it expects the citizens to follow. He pointed out that there are several city-owned properties that have been neglected, and they should be addressed. "Do as I say and not as I do!" is a policy that rarely works.
• Tax Abatements/Core Zones - Erickson said he believed there are certain incentives the State offers that allow for tax abatements and capped taxes to have homeowners correct blight.
• Land Banks - Dan Petersen handed out copies of a University of Michigan report by Jessica de Wit entitled "Revitalizing Blighted Communities with Land Banks"

What is a land bank?

A land bank is a public authority created to efficiently hold, manage and develop tax-foreclosed property. Land banks act as a legal and financial mechanism to transform vacant, abandoned and tax-foreclosed property back to productive use. Generally, land banks are funded by local governments' budgets or the management and disposition of tax-foreclosed property. In addition, a land bank is a powerful locational incentive, which encourages redevelopment in older communities that generally have little available land and neighborhoods that have been blighted by an out-migration of residents and businesses. While a land bank provides short-term fiscal benefits, it can also act as a tool for planning long-term community development. Successful land bank programs revitalize blighted neighborhoods and direct reinvestment back into these neighborhoods to support their long-term community vision.

Why have a land bank?

Land is one of the most important factors in local economic development today and must be managed well to improve existing land use practices, enhance livability of communities, and support local community development. In recent surveys, the Brookings Institute found that on average 15% of the land in major American cities is vacant. Vacant and abandoned land does not produce sufficient property tax revenue for cities, which generally is their main revenue source. This lack of funds impedes a city's ability to sustain its operations, programs, and services. In addition, vacant and abandoned land discourages property ownership, depresses property values, attracts crime and creates health hazards.

To understand why it is important to have a land bank, it is necessary to assess the costly impact of vacant and abandoned land in communities. When there are vacant and abandoned properties in communities, neighboring property owners and the municipalities incur significant costs. The U.S. Fire Administration reports that over 12,000 vacant structure fires are reported each year in the U.S., which results in $73 million in property damage annually. In addition, abandoned properties tend to attract crime. A 1993 study of 59 abandoned properties in Austin, Texas, found that 34 percent were used for illegal activities and of the 41 percent that were unsecured, 83 percent were used for illegal activities. This crime drains police department resources and leaves residents feeling unsafe in their own neighborhoods.

When property owners neglect and abandon their properties, the local municipality must use its own resources to clean and maintain the properties as part of their nuisance abatement responsibilities to protect the public health, safety and welfare of its community. For example, from 1999 to 2004, St. Louis spent $15.5 million, which equates to nearly $100 per household, to demolish vacant buildings. Detroit spends roughly $800,000 per year to clean vacant lots. Abandoned and vacant properties drive down the surrounding property values, which lowers the property taxes that most municipalities rely on as a primary source of revenue.

Property abandonment can destabilize a neighborhood by causing an out-migration of property owners, who are worried about losing value on their properties due to surrounding vacant and abandoned land. A Temple University study suggests that, all things being equal, the presence of an abandoned house on a block reduces the value of all the other property by an average of $6,720. According to Emory University Professor Frank Alexander's research, "failure of cities to collect even 2 to 4 percent of property taxes because of delinquencies and abandonment translates into $3 billion to $6 billion in lost revenues to local governments and school districts annually." While it is difficult to quantify all of the costs associated with vacant and abandoned properties, it is clear that they place a tremendous cost burden on communities.

Land Bank Benefits

While abandoned and vacant properties depress property values, discourage property ownership, and attract criminal activities in the surrounding area, a land bank provides tools to quickly turn these tax-reverted properties back into usable parcels that reinvest in the community's long-term vision for its neighborhoods. Land bank programs act as an economic and community development tool to revitalize blighted neighborhoods and business districts. Land banks can benefit urban schools, improve tax revenues, expand housing opportunities, remove public nuisances, assist in crime prevention and promote economic development.

To read the entire "Land Bank" article [CLICK HERE].

• Work with Other Entities - Sometimes blight is a result of mental illness, poverty, or other problem that is beyond what the City can handle. It is important to evaluate every circumstance and use other resources to assist in the problem.
• Tackle Blight Before It Gets Out of Hand - Using programs like USDA, people with little income can either be granted funds or given low-interest rate loans to improve their properties. To read more about USDA programs available and how to register to them [CLICK HERE].

[AUDIO]

Jim Albert