BLUEPRINT BUFFALO 57
The NVPC team suggests Buffalo’s first-tier suburbs can select from the following menu of actions to enhance their existing code enforcement approaches:
• Establish local vacant properties program coordinators. Local designation of vacant property coordinators is a practical alternative to a full vacant property task force, especially for small towns. Each coordinator would act as a liaison among the various departments, agencies, and property owners in the region.
• Establish vacant properties registration programs (perhaps to include both com-mercial and residential units). The registration program should be coordinated with the regional real estate information system recommended in Strategy One.
• Pursue civil judicial actions for complex cases. The suburban towns and cities also rely exclusively on criminal prosecution when owners fail to heed violation notices. These jurisdictions should also consider using civil actions in certain com-plex code enforcement cases.
• Create a housing repair and revitalization fund. Many property owners just do not have the financial or physical ability to maintain their homes. For deserving property owners, the local governments need access to a pool of resources to pro-vide grants and low interest loans to facilitate repair, rehabilitation, and reuse of substandard and vacant properties. Perhaps the local jurisdictions could band to-gether to create a regional housing repair and revitalization fund.
Current Suburban Code Enforcement Efforts
Most property owners maintain their homes and commercial properties in these three first-tier suburban communities. Yet local officials worry that as time marches on, the housing stock will decline, and economic and demographic changes will eventually cre-ate more property-maintenance problems.
Each year Amherst, Cheektowaga, and Tonawanda confront more vacant property cases as more and more people run into personal financial problems and walk away from their home mortgages. Because out-of-state banks proceed slowly through the mortgage fore-closure process, the property can remain an eyesore for many months (even years) as the building inspectors track down the bank or owner to ensure they maintain the property.
If no one maintains the property, the state property maintenance code enables the city to issue a notice, cut the grass, and assess costs against the property.
Like the City of Buffalo, the three first-tier suburban communities studied during this project—Amherst, Cheektowaga, and Tonawanda—rely almost exclusively on the clas-sic “notice of violation” to gain compliance with the large majority of their housing code cases. If the owner fails to comply (generally within three to six months) the local housing inspection departments, working with their city or town attorney, pursue criminal pros-ecution. Although this approach seems to work fine for the typical housing code case, in which simple repairs are needed and the owner lives in or near town, more complex cases are not so easily resolved and can cost jurisdictions thousands of dollars.
Cheektowaga files several hundred criminal cases per year. Under New York statutes most housing code violations are infractions that come with a maximum fine of $250 per day per violation (local court procedures require separate inspection dates for each day alleged in the complaint). Per New York law, the city could file the case as a misdemeanor criminal prosecution under certain conditions (repeat offenders). However, misdemeanor
BLUEPRINT BUFFALO 58
criminal cases would require the town’s attorney to make several court appearances to settle the case, make the appropriate motions, and so forth. The local officials from all three communities felt that such an approach could be time-consuming and costly, espe-cially since the town judges generally dismiss the criminal cases once the owner shows proof of compliance.
For repeat offenders or more complex cases (multiple properties or serious and substan-tial violations), building and housing officials in all three jurisdictions felt the fines and penalties were insufficient and not a deterrent for landlords. For some landlords it might be cheaper to fight the case in court than to finance repairs on multiple properties. For most property owners, having to go to court and hire an attorney is deterrent enough.
Unfortunately, the property owner under either scenario is not placed on any probation (informal or formal) that would make it easier for the local governments to pursue future court actions against repeat offenders.
The NVPC identified other code enforcement challenges as part of its work with these three suburban communities:
Reactive versus proactive stance: Staffing levels within the respective housing/
building inspection departments of these three local governments has remained relatively constant while the number of complaints continues to grow.As of fiscal year 2006 Amherst had two full-time housing/property maintenance inspectors.
Cheektowaga had four full-time inspectors and two part-time inspectors who cover certain areas or zones within the city. Cheektowaga hopes to add another position in fiscal year 2007. Ten years ago these departments conducted more proactive in-spections and investigations. Today community groups and tenant organizations are more engaged and more knowledgeable about the code enforcement process—as a result they generate more complaints. Some taxpayer groups create their own warning notices and lists of violations.
Preference for Rehabilitation over Demolition: All three suburban communities pre-fer repairs and rehabilitation over demolition. Amherst rarely demolishes a building;
when it does, the costs for city crews and contractors (over $20,000) has proven diffi-cult to recoup in a few recent cases. Given such experiences, the town board and town attorney are reluctant to approve future demolitions. Cheektowaga has demolished only three buildings in the past 28 years. While most of the buildings and housing stock are more than 30 years old and tired, they are structurally sound and are prime candidates for rehabilitation and reuse. The state property maintenance code also fo-cuses more on fixing up properties than tearing them down. However, Cheektowaga’s town board recently adopted a zero-tolerance policy to more aggressively pursue mit-igation or demolition of fire-damaged buildings.
Establish Local Vacant Properties Program Coordinators
For smaller municipalities and townships, a dedicated investigation team or enforcement unit might not be practical. An alternative would be to create a vacant property coordina-tor who acts as a liaison among the various departments, agencies, and property owners.
Such coordinators generally take more of a compliance approach than one of enforcement, providing a point person for staff within the local government and a point of contact to work with single-family property owners, realtors, landlords, and neighborhoods. Hav-ing a vacant property coordinator has worked well for the city of San Diego over the past
BLUEPRINT BUFFALO 59
ten years, especially in helping owners and the city creatively resolve some of the more complex and sensitive vacant property challenges.
Develop a Vacant Properties Registration Program
The suburban communities should put in place a program requiring owners of vacant or abandoned properties to formally register them within a specified time since the initial vacancy (e.g., six months or more). Such registration provides a point of contact in case the property becomes a public nuisance, and encourages the owner to devise a timely rehabilitation plan by imposing a sliding fee—the longer the property remains vacant, the greater the fee. Through its research into other registration programs, the NVPC identified the following common element of successful vacant property registration programs:
• A broad scope that requires registration of many different types of vacant and abandoned properties, not just those that have not gone through the foreclosure process.
• Clear guidelines and directions for the property owner to abate the inherent nui-sances of maintaining an abandoned building, such as boarding, fencing, and removing trash and debris from the interior and exterior of the premises. Some cities, such as San Diego, require owners to file a written statement of intent or a repair plan with a time frame for returning the property into productive use.
• Ownership information that requires a local point of contact or agent who will accept service of legal notices and who works or resides in the city or county. Such a requirement can make it easier to locate owners when they fail to respond.
• Insurance on the property and/or a performance bond posted to cover potential costs to the city should it have to abate nuisances on the property.
• Registration fees to cover the estimated costs for city departments to monitor, inspect, and reinspect the property routinely.
• Administrative fees and/or civil penalties that increase annually or after several months of vacancy.
• Assessment of fees and penalties as a municipal lien when they have not been paid and officially become delinquent.
AS PART OF ITS NEIGHBORHOOD CODE COMPLIANCE
DEPARTMENT, San Diego’s vacant property coordinator is charged with a variety of responsibilities: (1) identifying vacant properties throughout the city; (2) maintaining a list or database of properties; (3) administering the city’s abatement ordinance to clean and secure vacant properties; (4) coordinating efforts among city departments (e.g., code compliance, police, and the city attorney’s office); (5) communicating regularly with community groups, the real estate industry, and financial institutions; and (6) performing liaison tasks with the city’s vacant property task force. See J. M. Schilling, San Diego Case Study, available at www.icma.org/vacantproperties.