A recent article in discusses the hiring of a “codes advocate” to be the go-between between the code department and residents in Kansas City, MO. The article has an intriguing quote, “The idea is it will save the city time and money in the long run by having this advocate handle smaller nuisance issues and letting enforcers handle bigger problems.“

This is the crux of the MuniReg solution. Allowing the trained staff to focus on the more difficult issues, all at no out of pocket expense.

For additional information, please click on the following link.

New hire to help property owners resolve nuisance violations in south Kansas City

 

So I came across an interesting article, the headline, and in fact the article itself, was very matter of fact. The headline read “Code violators owe Estero more than $2M in fines. The Village Council is asking for tougher enforcement.”

The Village of Estero FL, has approximately 19,000 people. $2,000,000+ in outstanding fines is a significant number for a community this size (any community really), but as I looked into this further, I believe it underscores several greater issues. Fixable issues!

Some quotes from the recently passed resolution referenced and linked in the article.

“Code enforcement liens are not super-priority liens co-equal with taxes, but are instead inferior to existing liens of record.” So that bears the question, if a municipality is actively taking the approach of fining for code violations, how many times were liens on additional properties, extinguished at sheriff sale, where the bank (mortgage is the priority lien) acquires the property? What was the cost (time & effort) for the village that was never recouped?

In a case where the homeowner, as the resolution states “have abandoned their properties or are so underwater to other lienholders that additional liens alone will not suffice” Were there open lines of communication between the bank and the village, or did municipality struggle to identify the lienholder or get no response from whoever they believed to be the lienholder, like numerous other communities? This is fixable.

Many municipalities across the country are looking to make these liens co-equal with taxes. That would be one solution.

Here are two more quotes “Excessively high lien amounts that exceed the market value of a parcel will never be paid in full.” “Similarly, as the recent financial crisis revealed, lenders may also be unwilling to foreclose in order to avoid inheriting a troubled property and the hard costs of remediation.”

The article itself discusses two properties (Sherrill Lane and Mockingbird Lane) where the fines exceeded the appraised value of the properties!

In a vacuum, these policies are warranted and have merit, but there are other factors that need to be incorporated.

Is there a mortgage? Who is the lienholder? Is there active litigation regarding the property? Is the homeowner in bankruptcy? Is it an investment property with no mortgage? Is it in probate? What is the neighborhood condition? These are all factors that can determine what action a homeowner or any interested party will take or will not take regarding the upkeep of the property.

It seems what we have here, is a very reactive approach. Fine, mitigate and hope to recoup as much as possible – rinse and repeat.

This is not meant as a reproach to Estero. Their issues along with those of Tulsa OK, seem miniscule, compared to another recent article. As the Estero article says, the village has one code officer, I have no doubt he/she has more than their hands full. It is also clear that this is a prime focus of the village leadership, for which they should be commended.

It’s another example of the “need to get off the hamster wheel”. I have encountered many exact scenarios over the past 17 years.

My goal is to use that experience and passion to assist communities like Estero to prosper.

 

In a recent article from WJAC, discussing the Governor’s new initiative, DCED Deputy Secretary of Community Affairs Rick Vilello has a very profound quote.
“Vilello says blight often begins with small blemishes. First it starts with a broken window, or grass that’s not cut, or snow that’s not shoveled and suddenly the neighbor says I want to move,” says Vilello.
The article continues “But he believes blight can be reversed when a community gets the right resources.”
Many communities in Pennsylvania have adopted a vacant property registration ordinance to not only address current blighted properties, but perhaps more importantly, mitigate the chance of additional properties becoming blighted.

To view the article, please click here.

To view the Governor’s Press Release, please click here.

I have been blessed many times in my life, and in many different aspects. One area I do not take for granted was the opportunity to witness first-hand how my late father-in-law, an Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year Award winner, built his business, Safeguard Properties, into the largest mortgage field service company in the nation. He employed very effective, non-traditional methods.

Many tried to emulate my late father-in-law but never enjoyed the same success. So, what was the “secret sauce”?  I will not disclose all of his secrets that I have incorporated into MuniReg, but I will share one key secret – do the right thing, even if it may take away revenue opportunities.

I witnessed a discussion he had with HUD officials when he was advocating for pre-approval to board all broken windows, regardless of location.  At that time there were only a handful of “pre-approved boarding areas” in specific cities.  He encouraged HUD officials to adopt the policy to avoid repeated vandalism and numerous window replacement costs while properties sat vacant during the lengthy foreclosure process, despite his company profiting each time a window was re-vandalized.   Why?  Because it was the right thing to do for the community at that time.

He was the fiercest and original advocate for fast-tracking foreclosures for vacant and abandoned properties. First, gathering a consensus of all stakeholders from banks to consumer advocates and then taking the message to the Statehouses. He would often say the only one he was hurting was himself. The shorter time a vacant property remains in the foreclosure process meant less inspections and maintenance would be needed by his company. Why?  Because it was the right thing to do for the community at that time.

In reflection of my late father-in-law I often ask, how can I replicate his strategies within MuniReg?

There is a small percentage of communities that require registration of a property based on mortgage “default” by the homeowner, which is a misguided and dangerous approach.  By complying with the ordinance one can argue the registering party (bank/mortgage company or their agents) is disclosing confidential information – a borrower’s delinquency. I am not a lawyer, and don’t play one on TV, but am a consumer advocate and know the difference between right and wrong.  And disclosing a homeowner’s delinquency is wrong.

The right thing to do is require registration only at the earlier of 1) vacancy and 2) filing of Notice of Default/Lis Pendens, a public document. This clarification is important not only because of privacy protection for homeowners, but also because default does not cause blight – vacancy and abandonment causes blight.

Some municipalities,  just by utilizing the term “default”, though intending to the filing of the notice of default/lis pendens leave it open to misinterpretation.**
If the intention truly is for default, that is even more egregious. There is nothing that can be done with the information. One can not approach the homeowner offering assistance because you are shining the spotlight on the fact that his/her privacy has been violated.

Do banks realize when they comply with these types of registries the impact it could have on their Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act compliance? If they are not compliant, what is the exposure to liability for the community requiring this type of registration?

In 2019, with privacy concerns so prominent, a risk like this is just not worth taking.

So, if for whatever reason a municipality wants to require registration based on delinquent mortgage payments, thereby assuming unnecessary risks, MuniReg will be unable to provide services and assistance.

However, MuniReg will continue to advocate for the privacy of the homeowner, because it’s the right thing to do.

**The issue/concern is requiring registration upon “default” of mortgagor. Requiring an inspection of the property and then registration only upon discovering property is vacant/abandoned, I believe should not be of concern

“Zombie Foreclosures” a thing of the past? Not if you read this article! Great recommendations, especially geared towards avoiding foreclosure but as it pertains to blight, recommending transferring a property “as-is” is scary. Vacant property registration programs are a valuable tool to allow communities to rise to the challenge.

The U.S. Mortgage Market Needs Better Plumbing

 

“Summerville town officials say they have been aware of the home and are monitoring it. Town code enforcement staff still need to determine what bank owns the foreclosed home. Town spokesperson Mary Edwards said staff will not know who owns it for another three to six months.”
This is a quote from a media report in South Carolina earlier this week.

Within hours of discovering the article, MuniReg provided Summerville code enforcement with the name of the bank and phone number/emails of individuals (decision makers) at the bank.

Another quote from the report – “If the home is not cleaned up after six months then town can issue fines.”

Summerville code enforcement was provided by MuniReg with proof of transfer of title. The timeline was just moved up by 6 months!

After watching the frustration of neighbors (and I’m sure the code staff had similar frustrations) we were ecstatic and honored to help.

This was without a formal partnership and a vacant property registration ordinance in place! Imagine the possibilities!

Real results! Real solutions! Real relief!

 

Let us be a resource and solution for you and your community.

What a great way to mobilize the community! Click here for an article from the Oakland Press promoting the initiative.

The best part is the clear webpage created by the Township outlining the program including commitments and benefits.

Direct oversight and involvement by the township Supervisor is a great community engagement approach.

To access the Township’s website please click here.

 

A recent report from the Peoria Journal Star discusses their resident officer program.
“The officers are located in strategic areas around the city. They work from their city-owned homes to establish close connections with the neighborhood, rather than reporting to the station for routine patrol duties. The job entails various ratios of patrol, traffic enforcement, detective work, public relations, neighborhood cleanup, code enforcement and landscaping duty.”

This program is conducted in several areas in Illinois including:
Elgin Police Dept. Web Page
Rockford – Governing Magazine
Dekalb Web Page

 

 

Update May 2, 2024
As a direct result of the lawsuit filed in Bedford OH, Mount Vernon OH is discussing repealing its own ordinance.
For more information, please click here.

Update January 11, 2023
A recent article by the Urban Institute examines “Crime-Free Housing Ordinances”, the various legal challenges, the consequences and the overall effectiveness of these programs.
To view the article, please click on the following link:

Legal Challenges to Crime-Free Housing Ordinances Bring Effectiveness into Question

Update November 12th 2023
The Wisconsin Law Journal recently discussed a lawsuit filed against the city of Milwaukee and Milwaukee Police over the city’s Chronic Nuisance Ordinance.
According to the article, one of the complaints is found in similar challenges across the country. The complaint states the ordinance has the effect of deterring plaintiffs, and other similarly situated parties affected by the law, from seeking police assistance by placing them at risk of losing their businesses and paying substantial fines.

For more information, please click here.

According to a recently concluded DOJ investigation, the city of Anoka (MN) “crime-free” housing program discriminates against people with mental health disabilities. Under the ordinance, Anoka can penalize landlords for “nuisance calls” to their properties.

For more information, please click here.

In addition to the below, we have reported on several related matters;

2/26/2023: New Orleans Padlock Law
11/7/2022: Indiana Court of Appeals Ruling re: emergency calls as proof of a public nuisance
12/27/2021: What is a nuisance
10/29/2021: More trouble than its worth
7/31/2019: Nuisance Property Guides

Update: May 16,2023

Delaware State lawmakers are considering legislation that would prohibit municipalities from enacting laws requiring landlords to evict tenants for criminal activity by the tenant, a member of their household or a guest.
For more information, please click on the following link;
Proposal to bar municipalities from requiring eviction for “criminal activity” advances in Senate

A very real challenge for municipalities!

How to protect citizens in dire need of protection (specifically victims of domestic abuse) while creating effective legislation that protects and improve the neighborhood at large.

This has been a point of discussion for several years. A recent article (click here) in the St. Louis Dispatch discusses letters sent by housing and civil rights advocates to six cities across St. Louis County saying their “nuisance ordinances violate residents’ constitutional rights”.
Would perhaps behoove municipalities to proactively take a fresh look at existing ordinances.
This is an issue being discussed across the country.
Please click on the following links for additional information:

Zanesville OH ended up scrapping the section authorizing “private cause of action section intended to grant private citizens the ability to declare their neighbors nuisances in addition to law enforcement.”
“Had the committee chosen to keep the private cause of action section in the ordinance, residents would have been given a structured guideline for monitoring nuisance activity in their neighborhoods and declaring certain properties nuisances.”
Obviously contingent on the “structured guideline” but is this an (the) answer to municipal budgetary concerns and increase community engagement? Will it put necessary pressure on homeowners to adhere to their responsibilities to not negatively affect the neighboring properties. Won’t it improve pride of ownership? Pride of community?

Council taking final vote on nuisance abatement ordinance next meeting