In 2022, Waggoner Engineering [an engineering firm that brought a fresh, though unwelcomed (by some long-serving members of the City Council) perspective to the City] presented a sobering reminder of the scale of the problem of blight in Columbus. That report revealed over 20% percent of Columbus property could be classified as dilapidated. Clearly, the City has a long way to go in addressing this dilapidation issue, but there seemed to be bright spot when, in a March 2022 Dispatch article, the Code Enforcement Director said, “it’s a misconception that there is a long list of properties on the abatement list.” She went on to say the oldest property was about seven months old and that the City could catch up in about two weeks.
Columbus Matters requested a copy of “the” abatement list through an official public records request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). It turns out the information in Columbus has yet to be freed. In a response, the City stated A Better Columbus/Columbus Matters would need to first pay the City $445.40 to obtain the list because the Code Enforcement Director claimed she spent “about 20 hours” [in quotes because the City provide no substantiation of the time] creating a list. Somehow, the City misunderstood the FOIA request that requested a list Columbus Matters understood already existed based on previous reference to “the abatement list.”
Jeff Turnage, the lawyer that says he only works, not for the Mayor, not for members of the Council, not the citizens, but only for the majority of the City Council [note that his engagement letter is only signed by the Mayor and this could be a good question for the Mississippi Attorney General]; reminded us that the City is under no obligation to create something that does not exist. We agree the concepts of FOIA requests do not establish a standard for creation of documents to satisfy requests though, admittedly, we would hardly be as adept at circumventing FOIA and ethics rules as Mr. Turnage.
But really? The City did not have a formal list of properties that the City Council under advisement from its fee-earning lawyer have voted to declare “immediate abatement” or provide for an extension prior to abatement? “Immediate” by normal definition infers a sense of urgency. For Columbus City Council purposes, “Immediate” could mean when it is politically advantageous. This raises questions about how the City knows what properties it voted to demolish, how the progress of demolitions is measured, and how the City chooses which properties to take action on and when. Without such controls and metrics in place, some in the administration may be inclined to use the power of Code Enforcement for political retribution or political benefit. In other words, without proper procedures corruption could flourish.
Citizens have identified properties that need to be addressed, only to have the city close the issues because of the “age of ticket.” Such action is deeply concerning. This suggests that the city is not taking the issue of blight seriously, and that it is more concerned with closing tickets than with actually addressing the underlying problems.
Should Code Enforcement apply equally across the City or should Code Enforcement be more strictly and timely applied? The age-old question of what came first, the chicken or the egg concept applies. Does the City have this high level of blight because of Code Enforcement neglect or is blight growing so fast that Code Enforcement cannot keep up. Answering that question first could lead to a better response. Is Code Enforcement incorrectly staffed or is dilapidation the result of other more complex issues, e.g. abandonment due to City dissatisfaction, a growing elderly population without maintenance resources, concentrations of owners of rental properties with low maintenance standards (slumlords), substance abuse issues, what-have-you? Identifying the why of the dilapidating growth problem should direct the response but the City of Columbus usually doesn’t operate like that.
The city needs to take a more comprehensive approach to addressing blight. Some solutions include:
- Make an annual assessment of blighted properties. Ask whether the number or area size increases or decreases and understand why. Develop a plan of action to decrease blight and improve property values.
- Use the SeeClickFix system that the City is already paying to use to be transparent and efficient system for tracking code enforcement violations and Code Enforcement responses.
- Invest in resources to address the underlying causes of blight, such as enforcing the current codes, implementing a vacant property fee, and encouraging home owners to bring their property up to code or simply sell the property.
- Ensuring that all neighborhoods are treated fairly when it comes to code enforcement but that code enforcement prioritize sensitive areas, e.g. main thoroughfares and in-town 16th Section.
- Don’t prioritize overgrown grass over vacant/unsecured or burnt properties.
- Be more responsive to citizen complaints about blight. If citizens identify a property that is a problem, the city should take action to address it, regardless of the “age of ticket.”
Blight is a serious problem that negatively impacts the quality of life in Columbus. The city needs to take action to address this issue, and it needs to do so in a way that is fair and equitable.
The County committed $500,000 to the City for a blight elimination program. The City Council voted to use $1million of the CARES money toward blight elimination. The Federal Government approved funding another $3,000,000 of the program. Is the City sitting on this money the same way they have sat on the $1.7 million for Propst Park?
Meanwhile, the Interim City Planner suggested the City enrich rather than penalize derelict owners by purchasing “immediate abatement” properties. The Code Enforcement Director therefore suggested “pausing” her code enforcement procedures, while the City Planner pursues the process of asking about owners’ interest in selling, obtaining environmental surveys, contracting appraisals, etc. The City Council agreed with pausing the enforcement of codes to allow enrichment of derelict property owners and so it was decreed. By the way, the City recently installed cable television for code enforcement [that should come in handy while code enforcement is paused].
The City’s blight buying program provides many opportunities for corruption. In fact, the last program suffered from some scrutiny by the City’s long-serving auditor that identified the City loaned funds to its “blight partner.” That blight partner was none other than BH Properties, controlled by Jabari Edwards. Jabari Edwards, remains a close associate of many that are, or have been, in Columbus politics although he is currently under federal indictment for multi-million dollar fraud.
Why not work on both approaches, enforcement of codes and rewarding derelict owners that want to get rid of worthless property simultaneously? Will an unintended consequence of a short-sighted solution to blight cause more owners to become derelict in hopes of a government payout instead of property maintenance?
The Interim City Planner explained what a lengthy process the blight program could be (more the reason to continue with code enforcement.) No one asked why has the Code Enforcement Director allowed these properties to further deteriorate neighborhoods for years? The City of Columbus own approach to blight through fertilization by the Offices of Code Enforcement and City Planning could be one of the causes.
A Dispatch article reported that this house at 215 St. N is one of 15 houses awaiting demolition and that the City would be caught up in a few weeks. What the report left out is that City officials were notified by a concerned citizen in June 2020. It did not come up before the council until July 2021 and parts of it still is unsecured and rotting today, undemolished.
Meanwhile, the property owner of this home went before the City Council and asked for more time to work things out with his contractor. One Councilman said the “neighbors have been complaining.” Yet, most of the neighboring properties are vacant lots. He became aware of the City’s demolition of the structure, not by notification, but by observation. It may have been possible for him to salvage something of value if a date of demolition were provided in advance. Are some citizens more equal than others?
The 1226 6th Ave N property has been in severe disrepair for years. However, when Columbus Matters requested the past five years “violation notices” from Code Enforcement, it showed no records of dilapidated property violation until October 2021 and it was to be repaired or demolished by November 2021. Meanwhile, walls continue to fall down. Of note, this property is owned by former City Councilman and current State Representative Kabir Karriem.
