Exit133.com: City Looking To Change Nuisance Code

City Looking To Change Nuisance Code (19. September 2006, 13:58 by Derek Young) ~ Cleaning Our House

We talked about this once upon a time based on some early vague information. Now we know more. The Neighborhoods and Housing Committee met yesterday to discuss changes to the nuisance code that basically would create a 21 day turnaround on nuisance violations. If it passes, a message will be left on the door of the property, or handed to the person present. A letter will also be sent to the property owner. The property owner would have 21 days to fix the problem. If they chose not to do so, a contract crew, managed by Public Works, would clean the property and fine the property owner.

If adopted, the ordinance would pertain to the entire city, however, it would be enforced in the Community Based Services areas first as a pilot, and it wouldn’t go after newly reported cases there, it would first address the backlog of approximately 700 cases in these areas.

What do you think?

Public hearing: Oct. 3
First reading: Oct. 10
Second reading: Oct. 17

Previously on Exit133

Commenting Is Closed
Comments are allowed for two weeks from the posted date. If you want to make a comment or reopen this discussion, please contact us with your request. Thank you for visiting.

One quick comment. According to Anderson, who spoke at a North Slope community meeting a couple of weeks ago, the property owner will not be “fined”, but charged for the cost of mitigating the nuisance should the property owner not mitigate the nusiance themselves.

The reception to this proposed revision to the Nuisance Code in the North Slope meeting was sustained, and what seemed unanimous, applause.

The revision is largely targeted at landlords who run sub-standard properties, although of course homeowners would be affected as well.

Also note, Anderson wants to see rental properties regularly inspected for code violations, and to create incentives for landlords who maintain properties within the code while creating dis-incentives for landlords who maintain sub-par properties.

1 | Posted by rcc | Sep 19, 03:40 PM

Quicker off-the-top-of-my-head comment b/c I have to leave… It’s interesting that “nuisance” (as well as Dangerous, Graffiti, Derelict and others) are some of the items updated (if you find the button) on the govME map. Sounds like a great idea with actual teeth, unless in real-life it turns into a bigger waste (mis-use) of time for city officials, being forced to answer all complaints, legit or bogus. Or if it became a big-brother thing making it like a neighborhood covenant, which I’d want no part of. I have more immediate concerns about drugs and other crime, but I’m sure after reading more comments tomorrow I will feel better about this proposal. I do applaud the intended goals, if clearly defined.

2 | Posted by Dave L. | Sep 19, 04:30 PM

I whole-heartedly support any attempts by local government to address nuisance properties. However, I have little faith in the city to actually follow through with enforcement. Tacoma has a great record of “all bark, no bite” when it comes to cleaning up this city.

The “Dirty Dozen” program where the city targeted the worst properties in Tacoma is a great example of lots of talk with little action. I had a dirty dozen house on my street. After absolutely nothing being done to improve the condition of the property it was removed from the list and is the same or worse condition when listed. The program has had some success, but overall it’s been a bust.

Another example is the abandoned auto program. What a joke! I have two cars in my neighborhood that were marked months ago (of the at least 15 junk cars within a few blocks of my home) and there they sit, with the paint still on the windshield. I’ve quit calling in junk vehicles because although the cars are quickly marked, they’re rarely towed.

I am a subscriber to the ‘broken window’ theory, so I have high hopes that this proposal will be embraced and we’ll see some follow through, but I ain’t holding my breath.

3 | Posted by cck | Sep 19, 08:16 PM

I think the concerns are fair, although the experience in our neighborhood with the abandoned car program has been excellent.

Anderson instituted programs like these in the past, and he believes in them (nuisance clean up and landlord compliance). So far, the guy has performed pretty well, and he’s staking his reputation on these programs in neighborhood meetings. So, if they fail, people will notice.

I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt to see if he can make them work. And it’s also true they won’t work without cooperation of neighborhoods and people like us. We get the neighborhoods we work for and deserve.

Give him real credit, as well, for focusing on nitty gritty issues, such as the streets. The $48 million tax proposal on the ballot is smart – the city will NOT be issuing bonds (borrowing) so there won’t be any interest cost, therefore more of our tax dollars go to fix the streets instead of paying money to bondholders. Smart – pay as you go. And it’s the first half of a two-part program that will cost an estimated $110 million. In my view, I’m really happy to see the focus on infrastructure, as it’s WAY overdue.

Anderson is the guy in the chair today, we might as well support these various efforts.

And, no, I don’t work for the city, am not related to Anderson (or anyone else in city government), nor do I have any financial interest in any of these programs or the city in general, other than I pay taxes and live here.

4 | Posted by rcc | Sep 19, 08:53 PM

I had another thought…

If they’re not picking up abandoned cars in your neighborhood (and there might be a code requirement that the car sits for some period of time after it’s marked), why don’t you write to Anderson and tell him, and then share both the letter and response through this blog? It would be interesting to know how he’d respond to such a question, yes?

I’ve got to believe they privatize towing the vehicles, and if they don’t they should. That’s what Seattle does, and the towing companies are aggressive.

5 | Posted by rcc | Sep 19, 08:59 PM

Just commenting as a reminder that this hearing is today.

(This system worked really well in New Haven. If the bills from the City were not paid, a lien was placed on the property. If the liens began approached a level comparable to the value of the property – many years on abandoned property, the City would begin the process to confiscate the property. I don’t expect this last step in Tacoma as the properties are worth 3-4 times those in New Haven.)