|
In cities, like Clarissa, there are sections of housing and commercial properties that are owned by people who do not live in the immediate area. One reason for this is the relatively inexpensive prices that exist in rural cities compared to larger urban areas. This represents one area your city may need to address.
The properties purchased by out-of-town owners are for storage, rental, or other purposes and generally it works fine. However, in some instances the “owner occupied” care the property would normally receive declines or is non-existent because the owner may travel out a few times a year and is less likely to spend money on a property that is “good enough”. The small size of the city means these building become eye sores quickly.
Add on top of that the other factors of building age, expense to renovate, time factors, or the inevitable hard nosed individual who refuses to comply with minimal requests and you have a sizable problem for managing any small city.
We may as well throw out Eminent Domain for discussion here too:
“Eminent domain is the power of government to take private property for public use. The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says that private property may not be taken for public use without just compensation. Similar provisions exist in the Minnesota Constitution ( Article l, Section 13 and Article 13, Section 4). “ Source: http://www.leg.state.mn.us/lrl/issues/eminentdomain.asp
I am a staunch opponent of Eminent Domain. The leaders I have met, as a rule, generally are opposed to the idea. However, there is still a need for cities to be able to deal with problem areas and hazardous situations. I know a lot of misinformation and confusion exists regarding this topic.
 It is important to deal with blight areas in fairness to those who live in the community and for the overall economic health of an area. The condemnation processes by the big cities are very impersonal, and so the “machine” is able to roll along tackling blighted areas of a city without much backlash or notice as it relates to Eminent Domain. There are advantages and disadvantages on both sides of the issue, but this system I am convinced can not work in small city America.
Small cities are very personal politically. There are not levels of government and no “machine” can operate in the same fashion if it were implemented. It means for many cities that nothing gets done except in the extreme circumstances and situations which is unfortunate. O ne of the greatest assets a small city has in my opinion is the small city quality of life that must be preserved. Here are a few tips.
TIP #1: Sit and talk with your city attorney!!
In Clarissa we work with a great city attorney who came up with some alternatives to the traditional Eminent Domain procedure that the big cities use. I think it has created a situation that the majority of citizens agree with once it is EXPLAINED CLEARLY AND REPEATEDLY. (Notice the capitalized words!!!)
TIP #2: Explain your plan for dealing with blighted areas CLEARLY AND REPEATEDLY!!
Our city council did not want to take property away from anyone. However, we did want the old and dilapidated buildings either brought up to some minimum standard or removed if that was not cost effective for the owner. We are talking about honest safety and public health concerns. The old buildings in many cities are structurally hazardous, infested with mold because they are not secure or rodent and pest infested just to name a few.
I think we have had success so far with most owners in bringing up those buildings to some standard of safety and appearance. As a mayor and council we have bent over backwards and understand renovations take time and money. We are seeing change happen slowly and in the right direction because we have worked with the owners and explained the process repeatedly.
TIP #3: Implement your inspection process & development plan city wide. Include everyone!!
Our attorney worked up a system for us using Chapter 463 of Minnesota Statutes that allows us to deal with Hazardous Buildings. If you look around your city, like we did, there is year’s worth of work where we can deal with just hazardous buildings. It provides a way for the governing body to work with owners to clean up and upgrade their buildings over time in an organized and fair manner.
We felt it was vital to include everyone in this process and is what we did. It did create some waves, but everyone is viewing the slow and positive results. As you can see below success is an empy lot ready for redevelopment!
 In my next section I will give some more tips and definitions about what is in Chapter 463 of our Minnesota Statutes.
|
