COLUMN: Setting the record straight on resident habitability ordinances

Just weeks ago, while demolishing an abandoned house, City workers found the body of a lady missing since 2006. This tragic story is one that has become all too common here in the City of Florence.

Curing the blight of abandoned and dilapidated properties upon this city, and ending the crime and violence that their presence fosters, has been a focus of my tenure in office. During my first 100 days, I personally signed petitions against some of the worst abandoned and dilapidated properties in the city, and instructed the city staff to move with all deliberate speed against those properties. They have done so and, to date, the city has demolished 35 buildings and cleared 240 lots. This progress is not enough. In spite of our efforts, there remain an estimated 2,500 abandoned and dilapidated properties in the City of Florence.

The current ordinances under which city staff are forced to operate are part of the problem. One central obstacle is the fact that the current residential habitability ordinance provides for an appeals board that has not been staffed by the city for decades. Without this board, property owners are deprived a route to appeal city decisions regarding a property’s habitability; and thus, the city’s actions are subject to legal challenge.

In early October, after having held 10 council meetings on this issue over the last year, the city council voted to direct staff to prepare a comprehensive re-write of the ordinances affecting dilapidated property. Staff has done so and the resulting bills, which I have sponsored for passage, have been circulated among members and the public for over a month and can be found at the city Web site, www.cityofflorence.com. The proposed changes strengthen and streamline the process by which the city addresses dilapidated property.

These ordinances recognize the city’s obligation to provide public safety. In essence, they simply provide that property owners have a legal obligation to maintain their property in a condition that is habitable for humans and not a nuisance to their neighbors. If property owners do not meet this minimum standard, the city may order them to do so. If they still refuse, the city may undertake to remedy the problem by demolition, if necessary, and recover the city’s expenses through a lien upon the property itself.

Critics incorrectly claim that these ordinances will be used to take citizens’ property because of minor defects such as leaky sinks or peeling paint. To the contrary, the bill’s definition of habitability requires only that property have such minimum necessities as inside running water, a bathtub, a toilet, heat, electricity, effective walls and roof. Moreover, the habitability ordinance does not provide for a taking of property that fails to comply; instead, it provides for an order requiring the owner to make the property habitable for humans. Only if the owner refuses to comply does the ordinance allow the city to act at the owner’s expense.

Critics also oppose the proposed ordinances as expansions of government power into private contractual matters and argue that landlords are entitled to rent uninhabitable property to tenants who have no choice but to live in squalor. However, it is not government action that has created the 2,500 abandoned and uninhabitable properties in our city. To the contrary, it is the city’s past failure to exercise its power and enforce its housing code that has allowed these threats to public safety to infect our community.

Protecting its citizens from the dangers of fire, vermin, disease, and crime posed by these abandoned and uninhabitable properties is precisely government’s role. No excuse justifies inaction in the face of this threat to public safety and the overwhelming demands by the public for action to advance the public good. For these reasons, I support the passage of the proposed ordinances.

— Stephen J. Wukela is the mayor of Florence.