http://www.oklahoman.com/article/5344937?embargo=1


The Oklahoma City Council on Tuesday set a public hearing for Oct. 7 on a new proposal to fight blight.

The council’s last effort — a registry of vacant and abandoned buildings — was outlawed last spring by the Legislature.

The latest proposal includes fines for building owners who fail to maintain their property.

City officials say they will use the power to impose fines to enforce property maintenance standards more aggressively.



Now it's up to the state legislature to find a new way to block this.

This has to be done with some delicacy, or else they just incentivize bulldozing, right?

That has always been my biggest concern. Need to make sure there are safeguards against unintended consequences.

Can't read the article, but I can probably guess what it says.

The city's best bet would be to take a slow and methodical approach to the problem, one that is well documented and gives the owners ample opportunity over a long stretch of time to respond.
1 - the property is identified as blighted and thus goes on a watch list. the city collects a list of problems with the property.
2 - the city needs to ensure that the list makes its way to the owner. The assessor's records can show the last known address of the owner, but keep in mind that the person may have moved and not notified anyone. That becomes important later. This letter needs to be a 1st notice with the list enclosed and a request to contact the city by phone/email/letter within 30 days to say they have received the notice.
3.
a. If they contact the city, then the city can start a process to ensure that the owner stays on track to complete the repairs. They can work with a liason to decide if it's economically feasible for the owner to make the repairs, decide if the property should be SOLD to the city at fair market, or if prioritized list can be developed to at least bring the property out of blighted state. It may not be rentable, but at least it wouldn't be blight (ie no broken windows, overgrown grass, broken trees, open roof/structure). The city would need to check in on that developed timeline to ensure compliance. If there is no compliance, the process can start over or skip to 3b.
b. if they do not reply, the city can send a 2nd notice of the same effect. Preferably after 30 days of sending the first. You don't want to make it take too long, but not too short to give people a chance to get organized.
4 - if they don't reply to the 2nd notice, then condemnation of the property should be examined. If the property is structurally sound, it should NOT be condemned. Sound properties should be taken by eminent domain. By this point, the property would have been considered abandoned. It took a LONG time to get to the blighted state, and several months to get to this point after the first notice. If 90 days is too short, then make the 90 days be the notice with a date included in the 3rd notice, by which time the property will be seized by the city.
5 - if the property is to be demolished, the cost of the demolition should be sent to the previous property owner. Failure to pay that can result in fines/arrest like any other city charge...ie towing.
6 - the city should establish a fund to work to repair those structures that are sound. Rehab the place and then sell it. That's the best outcome for a situation with non-compliant owners because the property gets restored in the community and is opened back up for a new resident/tenant.

I would also say that the portions where condemnation and seizure decision are made, a committee of people should be involved and not a single person. A simple majority in a 5 person panel should suffice. That panel should be made up of at least one person from that area....maybe make a committee including one person from each ward instead?

From the Journal Record:

Abandoned plans: OKC works toward rules for dilapidated structures

By: Brian Brus The Journal Record September 23, 20140

OKLAHOMA CITY – City Council members took a big step Tuesday toward working around limitations imposed by the state Legislature in dealing with dilapidated structures Tuesday.

The amendments would significantly escalate fines and improve the assessment and recoupment of abatement costs associated with more than 12,000 abandoned properties in the city. The council unanimously supported the proposed ordinance changes. Further discussion is planned for Oct. 7, with a final vote Oct. 21.

City officials last year commissioned a study to clarify the effects of dilapidated properties and suggest a solution. The work by GSBS Richman Consulting found that vacant and abandoned buildings in Oklahoma City cost $2.7 billion in lost property values annually and $6.5 million in city services.

Consultants suggested creating a registry, fees and a land bank. Similar programs have proven successful in other cities.

But then the Oklahoma Legislature quickly passed the Protect Property Rights Act to keep municipalities from creating such registries under the justification of protecting owners with well-kept properties from incurring unfair costs. The bill was supported by the Oklahoma State Home Builders Association, Oklahoma Credit Union Association, Oklahoma Bankers Association and the National Federation of Independent Business. The Oklahoma Association of Realtors this week announced that state Rep. Steve Martin, R-Bartlesville, and Sen. Greg Treat, R-Oklahoma City, will receive Legislator of the Year awards Wednesday at the group’s annual awards banquet for their work in getting the legislation passed.

City Councilman Pete White at the time said that legislators incorrectly perceived a conflict between personal rights and communal responsibility, and council members have since expressed frustration at how state government won’t let municipalities govern themselves. Tuesday’s ordinance language was a response to the constraints created by the new state law, City Manager Jim Couch said.

Bob Tener, the city’s development services director, said staff has rebuilt last year’s abandoned buildings ordinance to create what he called an escalation strategy for fines related to exterior property maintenance code violations, with penalties rising from $100 to $300 and $500 on subsequent responses by city employees.

“The proposed ordinance will create a schedule of escalating class A fines to increase the pressure on the offender to remedy the problem,” Couch said in a supporting memo to council members.

Further, the city’s police, fire and development services departments will jointly create a tracking system – not a registry – to tally the costs of responding to problems reported at properties identified as abandoned. Some empty buildings attract vagrants, for example; lack of property oversight allows fires to start. He said one apartment complex had 17 police calls last year.

Tener said bills for those abatement costs will be sent to the property owners and mortgage holders on a quarterly basis before liens are filed. The total revenue expected from the program is $564,300 annually.

Responding to concerns by Councilman Larry McAtee that previous efforts stirred up a hornet’s nest of conflict in the real estate industry, Tener said city officials are working with a consortium of nonprofit, private sector and government partners in a manner similar to the city’s successful Strategic Neighborhood Initiative program in rehabilitating declining neighborhoods.

“I’m pretty excited about the opportunity to do a little more – I won’t say aggressive – proactive work,” Tener said.

State Rep. David Dank, R-Oklahoma City, and Rep. Scott Inman, D-Del City, have requested an interim study of the duties of landlords to maintain properties to discourage criminal activity. That request will be considered Sept. 24. Another interim study has been proposed by state Rep. Kay Floyd, D-Oklahoma City, to look at public service response costs involving abandoned buildings.

I am not sure how this could be done, but I would like to see the fines for the area go back in to the same area. So, if there is a home in Classen-Ten-Penn that is decrepit and the city gets $1,000 from that one property owner, that money goes in to a fund to help the neighborhood, whether it be sidewalks, grand entrances to the neighborhoods or parks, that would be for the neighborhood association to decide. Thoughts?

Interesting idea.

I like that idea. There's a lot more paperwork and coordination involved with that. You'd probably get a lot of pushback from the city though. If they are able to collect everything into one pocket, then they can put things into where they need them and wouldn't be pigeonholed into an exclusive use fund. I don't know what you'll ever get to the point where there isn't something that can be done, but if the funds can only be used there, you could end up with not much money in a fund for an area. Then we'd have to hope the city would pair that up with other money in the budget to do things. Bu ti have a feeling that it wouldn't work that way.