Public Records Are Released

Vol. III, No. 234 - A hopefully final look at a difficult incident

On January 11th, this publication told the story of a ninety-year-old man who was arrested in a grocery store parking lot here in Troy. There was an open bench warrant for his arrest because of a property maintenance case tied to a house he once owned. The idea of a man that age in handcuffs over a code violation was alarming, and many people in the community rightly had questions about how this could happen. This entire situation has been part of much hand-wringing and commentary from many corners of the community.

From the start, this publication promised to keep asking questions and to seek more public records to better understand what took place. Some of the details just did not make sense. Why was this man arrested if the property had been sold? Why did normal public records requests come back with the answer that “those records did not exist”? Those questions were fair, and they deserved careful follow up, not rumors or guesses.

It is also important to repeat something that has been said from the very beginning. This story was never meant to blame one person, one office, or one level of government. In the first article on January 11, this publication said that it might be true that everyone involved followed the rules as they understood them. City staff, police officers, and court staff may all have done exactly what their policies and procedures told them to do. But if following the rules leads to a ninety-year-old man in handcuffs over a code violation, then maybe it is time to examine the rules themselves and the systems that support them.​

Since that time, many requests for public records have been filed. At first, those requests did not produce much information. The answer again and again was that “those records did not exist.” That response raised even more questions, and yes, this publication wondered if records were being withheld.

Now, after more work and a clearer picture, it is clear that the answer was actually correct. The records truly did not exist in the way they were being requested.

This is where an apology is needed. If anyone felt that this publication was accusing city staff of hiding information, that was not fair to them. In particular, there is a need to apologize to Mrs. Sue Knight, the city employee who handles public records requests. In every dealing with her, she has been professional and helpful. Mrs. Knight filled every request in the manner that was to be expected.

In this case, the evidence now shows there was no cover-up. She worked in good faith to answer requests as they were written. Any suggestion that she acted wrongly was misplaced, and this publication is sincerely sorry for that.

So how can it be true that the records did not exist? The answer lies in a serious error in the original criminal complaint filed with the court.

The ninety-year-old man owns more than one property in town. The complaint that was filed on November 5, 2025, said that a home and garage at an address on Michigan Avenue needed repair and paint. The problem is that the Michigan Avenue property did not have any outstanding property maintenance violations at all.​

Because of this mistake, when public records were requested for that Michigan Avenue address, there was nothing to find. The requests were matched to the wrong property. At the same time, the criminal complaint that became the basis for the bench warrant also used that wrong Michigan Avenue address. In plain terms, criminal charges were filed that pointed to a property where there were no documented maintenance issues.

Meanwhile, the true property with problems was at a completely different address owned by the same person.

Other records show that the city had been working with a contractor and a family member for some time to fix issues at the correct property. There were letters from the city, including an “Order to Repair Structure” sent in April 2025 that carefully listed the needed repairs and explained the possible consequences if the work was not done. Through spring and summer, the written record goes a bit quiet, but there were still efforts underway to get the work finished. Later in the fall, there was another letter, and then finally a criminal complaint in November. The problem is that the complaint did not use the address of the property with the maintenance problems. It used the Michigan Avenue address, which was clean.​

Looking at the full file, it is clear that the man and his family were not ignoring the city. The pace may have been agonizingly slow, but there were steps toward fixing the house. In fact, property records show that the Michigan Avenue property—the one wrongly named in the complaint—had already sold before the arrest took place. When officers stopped the man and told him there was a warrant connected to a property maintenance issue, it is easier to understand why he seemed confused; he no longer even owned that property.​

This confusion also connects to another rule in Troy’s property maintenance code. It is not supposed to be possible to sell a property that still has an outstanding order to repair. That is another reason this story did not seem to add up at first. The deeper look at the records shows that a series of small errors and mismatched addresses helped create a much bigger problem.

The good news is that city leaders have now talked openly about these problems and have promised changes. At Tuesday’s City Council meeting, the Director of Public Service and Safety explained several steps the city plans to take so something like this may never happen again.

One big change is about how the city will send important notices in property maintenance cases. In the past, staff relied on the official “tax duplicate” address on file with Miami County. That is still the legal standard, but going forward, staff will also send courtesy notices to any other address they know is connected to the owner, like a home address or a property manager’s address. The city already uses this kind of double notice in utility billing, and now it will be used more broadly.

The Director also talked about the need to focus on voluntary compliance whenever possible. That means city staff will keep trying to solve problems through phone calls, conversations, and letters before they move to court cases. The goal is to fix houses and yards, not to fill the court docket or send people to jail. This change is meant to lower the stress on everyone involved: city staff, neighbors, the court system, and especially property owners who may already feel overwhelmed.

Another important idea the Director raised is adding a civil enforcement option to the current system. Right now, property maintenance violations are treated almost entirely as criminal matters. Cases are filed in municipal court as misdemeanors, and if someone does not show up for a hearing, a bench warrant can be issued. That is exactly how the ninety-year-old man ended up being arrested.

The city is now looking at a dual-track system, where there would still be a criminal option for serious or repeated violations, but there would also be a clearly written civil process. Under a civil track, the city could use tools like civil fines, orders, or other steps that do not involve criminal records or arrest unless absolutely needed.

These changes will be worked into the larger Unified Development Code update that is already underway. That means City Council will have a chance to review and vote on new language about property maintenance enforcement. The law director’s office will help draft this language so that, in future cases, there is more than one path to solving a problem property. In simple terms, Troy is trying to build a system that is a little more flexible and a little more focused on fixing houses instead of punishing people.

From the beginning, the goal of this coverage has been to help the community talk honestly about how its systems work and how they can be improved. It is possible to care about safe, well-kept neighborhoods and at the same time care about how elderly and vulnerable residents are treated. It is possible to support city employees who are doing their best and still ask whether the tools they are given are the right ones. When a series of mistakes and rigid rules ends with a ninety-year-old man in handcuffs, the whole community has a reason to pause and ask what should change next.

If this story leads to better notices, more chances for voluntary compliance, and a civil option that keeps minor cases out of the criminal system, then some good can still come out of a painful event. That outcome would recognize the work of city staff, respect the dignity of the man at the center of the case, and strengthen Troy’s civic capacity for the future. All of which help build a better community for the future; which is hopefully, something we can all agree upon.

Announcing our January Community Survey!

Every other month, this publication takes time to ask our readers how they feel about the happenings in their hometown! What are the challenges? What are the opportunities? Is your hometown headed in the right direction? Our survey is the easiest way for you to express your thoughts. Next month, this publication will report out on the results.

Thanks for your time and your participation! It is greatly appreciated!

A New Way to Support This Work

Our readers and subscribers have been asking for a new way to support the work being done here at Civic Capacity! Some of our readers do not like the idea of having to sign up for another subscription service. Some of our subscribers occasionally want to give more support through a one-time transaction.

Civic Capacity is partnering with “Buy Me A Coffee” to give our readers, subscribers and friends an opportunity to give one-time support to Civic Capacity. Personally, I don’t like coffee, but I will never turn down a nice iced tea. If you feel compelled to support this effort, just click the button below.

Thanks for reading today’s Civic Capacity Newsletter! Please feel free to share this information with your friends and neighbors.

Also, please consider subscribing to our work. If you are a free subscriber, please consider becoming a paid subscriber. For less than $1 a week, you can get timely and conversational updates about the decisions that are impacting you and your community!