Building a Better Community: Is it Time for a Vacant Property Ordinance?
The hallmark of well communities isn't just fixing problems, but preventing such issues from happening.
In November of 2022, I embarked on a mission to address a pressing issue within our city: the need for a new Vacant Property Ordinance. Such ordinances have proven successful in communities like Ashtabula, Conneaut, Sandusky, and Xenia, and my proposal drew inspiration from those models with the hope something could be implemented here in our hometown.
What prompted my concern? In the fall of 2021, the City's Planning Commission narrowly voted 4-3 to grant permission for the demolition of the building at 112-118 W. Main St., with plans to replace it with nothing more than a grassy lot. The lengthy and contentious deliberations surrounding this decision left our community no closer to a resolution even a year later. In fact, it is only within the last few weeks where we can see some glimmer of hope towards a resolution to this ongoing saga.
As I delved into the details and contemplated what was happening in our downtown, one question repeatedly crossed my mind: "What can our community do to prevent these types of drawn-out conflicts from recurring in the future?" Faced with the absence of anyone else raising this vital question, I felt compelled to take up the cause. In government, our duty extends beyond addressing current problems; it encompasses preventing them from arising in the first place. Thus, proposing a Vacant Property Ordinance became a logical starting point for discussions.
I was pleased that the proposal actually had a hearing in front of the council’s Community and Economic Development Committee. Furthermore, I never expected this ordinance to be adopted verbatim. It was merely a catalyst for dialogue aimed at preventing the abandonment of commercial properties, particularly in our downtown area.
What has become painfully evident to our residents is that property owners now have an incentive to leave buildings vacant. The Planning Commission's decision regarding 112-118 West Main Street has set a dangerous precedent: property owners may choose to keep their properties vacant, allowing rehabilitation costs to skyrocket to unsustainable levels, thereby gaining support for demolition and the creation of vacant lots.
These vacant buildings drive down property values, diminish the appeal of our downtown to visitors and residents alike, and, in this particular case, close off a public sidewalk for an extended period and even the shuttering of one of the town’s most vital streets.
It came as no surprise that the city administration was opposed to a Vacant Property Ordinance. However, their response was truly surprising; they proposed a Residential Rental Registration Program instead. Their recommendation was to abandon the draft ordinance presented and focus on addressing concerns related to vacant and non-owner occupied residential structures.
While I acknowledge that there may be issues with rental properties, implementing such a program would place undue burdens on small business owners who provide safe, decent, and secure housing for many residents. Any fees associated with this program would inevitably be passed on to hardworking citizens who already feel overburdened by taxes and skyrocketing rental rates. I believe such a program won't reduce the number of vacant residential properties; rather, it would be a financial strain on responsible landlords and tenants striving to ensure safe housing.
Moreover, a Residential Rental Registration Program would not address the root issue: preventing future discussions like the one surrounding 112-118 W. Main St. If the city administration had reservations about my proposal, it would have been appropriate for them to create and present an ordinance that actively addressed the issue we faced. Instead, they chose to highlight the shortcomings of the proposed ordinance and introduced a program that would increase the financial burden on our taxpayers.
Just because there may be some resolution to the issues the community has been facing with the 112-118 West Main Street, it is safe to say that little proactive action has been taken to prevent a similar issue from bring brought forward in the future. It’s time for us to build a better community and a Vacant Property Ordinance should be a part of the toolbox.
Thanks for reading today’s Civic Capacity Newsletter. It is the mission of this publication to better connect you to the decisions being made in the community. Please feel free to share this with your friends and neighbors, if you have found this information helpful. Also, feel free to share your ideas and insights in the comment thread.
Bill, very informative info. Question that needs more clarification. This is my take and wonder what I’m missing. Elected council members only comprise the committee that determines and makes recommendations to full council on legislation etc. So your proposal on “vacant property” was presented for discussion. From your article “city administration” was not in favor of it; but does “city administration “ have a committee vote on this matter? Or do they “ advise only”? Do not City council committees have the “power,responsibility “ to present to full council what they feel is best regardless of “city administration” advice? In this case, can I assume that the council committee was “swayed” by “city administration” advice?
Perhaps an article on how city council committees work and how “stuff” gats advanced to council and or “dropped” and never advanced would be of interest to folks, like me.
Unlike my friend, Steve, prefer to “read” rather than listen.
Vacant and under-maintained properties, both residential and commercial, blight the community and drag down financial and psychological investment. I do not understand opposition to policies that press owners of vacant properties to either take timely action to get the buildings into repurposed use or bow out and sell them to developers who will. The subtext of the argument that says "the owner's rights are sacred and they can do what they want with their property" is "the owner can harm the prosperity of their taxpaying neighbors without consequence."