City Council: Please Pass New Property Maintenance Ordinance
 By Joe MedleyThe Kansas City Post Back in May, Mark Forsythe wrote an editorial suggesting changes to the City’s nuisance and property maintenance codes (Kansas City Must Toughen Its Property Code Laws ). I agree with what amounted to Mark's wish list of items that would help save many of the city’s deteriorating buildings. Last week the City Council referred a new nuisance and property maintenance codes ordinance to the Public Safety and Neighborhoods Committee. The ordinance changes aren’t exactly what Mark proposed in his column, but they’re still a vast improvement over what we have now. During the most recent state legislative session in Jefferson City, a law was passed that allows municipalities to establish something called “administrative penalties” for municipal code violations. Using the new powers granted by the state, the proposed City ordinance would impose administrative enforcement providing “an alternative method for the city to gain compliance with provisions of the code prior to any formal court action." In other words, rather than going to court, a person cited under this proposed ordinance could request a hearing with city officials. At first glance, this doesn’t sound like much of an improvement. Yet surprisingly, this ordinance seems to have some teeth. For starters, recurring offenses are counted against the property owner rather than the property. This means that slumlords who continually buy and sell property do not get a clean slate. The City can also place liens on the properties of owners who don’t pay their fines. Fines can also be imposed on corporations, which was previously not allowed. In the past, City officials had to identify an individual within a corporation to hold responsible for nuisance and maintenance violations. My favorite part of this new ordinance is the following line. “Every day that a violation continues shall be considered a separate offense, for which the violator may be arrested, tried and convicted without necessity of further notice." Even though the maximum fine is a paltry $1000, this clause means that in many cases it will be cheaper to fix the property than to pay the fine. The downside is that since it is cheaper to demolish than repair, this new ordinance may lead to the destruction of more historic buildings. Will it pass? That remains to be seen. The ordinance was introduced at the August 2 City Council meeting and referred to the Public Safety and Neighborhoods Committee. I am trying to contact the members of that committee to find out what chance the ordinance has of making it to the full council in its original form. So far, I’ve only spoken to 6th District Councilman John Sharp. From that conversation it seemed to me that Councilman Sharp's chief concern was to make concessions for out-of-town developers. He even cautioned me that things can change in committee. Given what I know about Councilman Sharp, I’m going to guess that he’s the one who wants to change the ordinance. Do not let Councilman Sharp, or any other councilperson water down this ordinance. Please contact your city council members, particularly the ones that serve on the Public Safety and Neighborhoods Committee before this Wednesday's PS&N Committee meeting. Let them know you support Ordinance No. 070851 as written. It does not need to be "softened" or made "more friendly" to developers. It may not be a perfect piece of legislation, but it certainly does not need to be made "less perfect." |
posted by Mark at 7:41 AM
Comments on "City Council: Please Pass New Property Maintenance Ordinance"
-
Dan said ... (1:10 PM) :
-
Mark said ... (1:26 PM) :
-
eastsider said ... (2:15 PM) :
-
Mark said ... (2:51 PM) :
-
Joe Medley said ... (5:54 PM) :
-
Bob Asher said ... (9:49 AM) :
-
mainstream said ... (9:49 AM) :
-
Bob Asher said ... (9:50 AM) :
-
Dan said ... (9:56 AM) :
-
mainstream said ... (10:06 AM) :
-
eastsider said ... (11:30 AM) :
-
Dan said ... (2:26 PM) :
-
mainstream said ... (2:48 PM) :
-
mainstream said ... (2:52 PM) :
-
Dan said ... (3:56 PM) :
-
mainstream said ... (4:45 PM) :
-
Dan said ... (11:25 AM) :
-
mainstream said ... (12:45 PM) :
-
Dan said ... (10:13 PM) :
post a commentI'm sympathetic to wanting to improve the system, but the proposed ordinance is worse than nothing. It is unconstitutional and does not solve the problems.
I'm no judge. I'm not even a member of the bar, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express...
I don't see anything that jumps out as unconstitutional. Care to elaborate?
two that I see
first you have to pay a fee before you can have a hearing to determine your guilt.
second the codes officer that writes the citation doesn't have to be present at the hearing, so you can't confront your accusor.
eastsider,
You're basically paying for an arbitration hearing in lieu of a court date. It's not uncommon for bodies to charge for that service.
As for the "not facing your accuser" issue, it reads to me like the evidence can be presented, and if the accused chooses to challenge that evidence, the hearing officer can request the codes officer be present.
Once again, I'm not a judge but I believe in administrative hearings or arbitration the rule of law is slightly different. You as the accused waive some rights by requesting the hearing in the first place.
Finally, am I the only one that finds it frustrating we're discussing what I feel to be a very important piece of legislation on this stupid blog? If Joe Medley hadn't written this piece I would have heard nothing about a major piece of pending legislation.
I wish to post a correction regarding John Sharp. It was not out-of-town property owners he wanted concessions for. He talked about how he was concerned about abuses by out-of-town developers. He neatly avoided the issue of abuses by local slum lords.
Need a link to the actual text of the Ordinance, please.
Prime Buzz came out with a very relevant upcoming problem with the same Public Safety and Neighborhoods Committee.
The problem is that Brooks and Curls want to take $125K earmarked for minor home repair and give it to 12th Street Heritage development corp, currently run by Rodney Bland.
The big deal is that there is a LONG waiting list of people for for minor home repair money, and these two council people want to give it to a group with a history of financial mismanagement.
This $125K request was UNANIMOUSLY rejected by the Citizen's Advisory Committee (led by Father Rotert).
With Jolly out, that leaves only two other people on the committee to vote on it (along with Curls and Brooks who are sponsoring it) Sharp and Circo.
The previous director was asked to leave due to financial misdealings, and this may be a politically motivated move.
This sends a terrible signal, and the money should be used for the longlist of people that deserve it, not 12th Street Heritage.
There is a reason the Citizen's Advisory Committee rejection of the funding was unanimous.
This is a very serious issue and many neighborhood groups have problems with this as well.
Ooops, got it. Sorry to waste your time.
Sorry to be so opaque in my Constitutionality mention. Under the Hancock Amendment, you can't charge the fee without getting voter approval.
Good work in getting some discussion started on this topic, though!
The City attorney can rule on the constitutionality of the provision.
I suggest we look at the Landmarks Commission, and their upcoming new rules as well, that will allow for fines to be asessesed daily, not just one time.
This is a very big deal - most individual and corporate developers will look at a one-time $500 fine as a cost of doing business - and they do. I've personally witnessed this happen.
A daily fine changes and improves enforcement dramatically - with historic porperty preservation and well as general code enforcement.
mainstream --"This is a very big deal - most individual and corporate developers will look at a one-time $500 fine as a cost of doing business - and they do. I've personally witnessed this happen"
This section is word for word in the old code, they can do it now but don't. I doubt if that will change.
Section 48-72
http://www.municode.com/resources/gateway.asp?sid=25&pid=10156
Eastsider
No, Mainstream, the City Attorney cannot rule on the constitutionality of the ordinance. The Missouri Supreme Court can, though, and will rule against its constitutionality in a year or two, after a case winds its way up through the system. And we will be back at the stage of trying to pass a good ordinance, with a couple years wasted in the meantime.
Dan, you're soooooo melodramatic.
Of course the MO supreme court can, but someone can pick up the phone and ask Galen his advice, or use whomever their outside counsel is. It happens every day - if you can get him to return your phone call.
He probably would on this issue, and perhaps he's already reviewed it.
That's a much more cost effective way of figuring things out taking it to the Supreme Court.
And quicker.
And...for all of you out there THAT DON"T LIVE IN BROOKSIDE, the landmarks commission levies fines, every month practically, against people who don't follow the rules, without their representation.
Haven't seen any of those cases go to the supreme court.
And they don't work because the fines aren't enforceable via lien or huge in magnitude.
But upcoming rules chnage that, and anybody who lives in a real urban neighborhood will appreciate them having more teeth.
Hrrrmmmpf.
Mainstream - I wasn't being melodramatic - I was being factual. I suspect that Galen, being a bright guy, would agree with me. Even if he doesn't, though, I'm right, and I'd hate to see the ordinance fail because it violates the Hancock Amendment, wouldn't you? So, as I have argued throughout, this ordinance needs to be fixed before it should be passed. The article asks us to call our city council members and let them know we support the ordinance "as written". We shouldn't.
Ok, Dan. Forgive me, when I say rule in the context of the city attorney, I meant give his professional opinion and advice, which Galen's paid to do. Obviously only judges can "rule" in that strict sense.
My point is that standard operating procedures are that we get legal councel on stuff so we can do our best to ensure we don't get sued.
And that's city counsel's job. (not "cil", "sel")
As for your interpretation of the Hancock Amendment and its applicability here, I'll just repeat that city commissions issue fines all the time, to the extent that the city is delegated that authority by the state. You don't need voter approval.
Today, as we speak, other commissions can issue fines. Now, does that result from a strict, specific voter approval? Or is this a broader delegation of state authority that can apply in many circumstances?
I think the latter, but I'm not an expert. That's never stopped me from opining on matters before, and it won't stop me here.
Just remember Dan, I'm right, and you're wrong.
New fees can't be imposed without voter approval under the Hancock amendment.
Dan, I have a lot of respect for your knowledge of the law and politics, it's certainly more comprehensive than mine.
So I respectfully defer to your judgement.
However, I still disagree. The City can institute penalties (financial and otherwise)without having to go to voters all the time. The MO consitution delegates powers, and enforcement powers to cities so that government can do it's job -- without having to take the time and money for voter approval and every fee.
And one of these days I'll prove it to you.
Perhaps our bone of contention rests between the definition and terminology of new fees versus penalities....
And if you're going to be so darned nice about it, I'll go ahead and admit I could be mistaken. I do think there are problems, but it Galen signs off on it, I'd imagine he's right and I'm wrong.