I don't understand the purpose of Steve's comparison in his blog of the Hart Building (720 W. Sheridan, Chip Fudge, occupied & thriving) and Sunshine Cleaners (SW/C 1st & Classen, unknown owner, burned & vacant) in the context of this story. I particularly didn't understand his reference to an "incentive" to keeping Sunshine vacant: "Why should the Sunshine Laundry owners be given the incentive – yes an incentive – to not improve their property?"

I'm certainly not defending the owners of Sunshine, but what is the issue so long as the building is secure and not a public nuisance?

I don't understand the purpose of Steve's comparison in his blog of the Hart Building (720 W. Sheridan, Chip Fudge, occupied & thriving) and Sunshine Cleaners (SW/C 1st & Classen, unknown owner, burned & vacant) in the context of this story. I particularly didn't understand his reference to an "incentive" to keeping Sunshine vacant: "Why should the Sunshine Laundry owners be given the incentive – yes an incentive – to not improve their property?"

I'm certainly not defending the owners of Sunshine, but what is the issue so long as the building is secure and not a public nuisance?

It is not secure and it is a public nuissance. From Steve's blog: The old Sunshine Laundry has been subject to fire and police calls.

Now, he is didn't say how many calls had been made, but with no roof on at least half of the structure not to mention the pictures of the interior (see this thread for evidence: Sunshine Cleaners - 1st and Classen Boulevard - OKCTalk (http://www.okctalk.com/showwiki.php?title=Sunshine+Cleaners+-+1st+and+Classen+Boulevard)) which show traces of squatters and so much damage done it would take a lot of money just to bring it up to code.

I don't understand the purpose of Steve's comparison in his blog of the Hart Building (720 W. Sheridan, Chip Fudge, occupied & thriving) and Sunshine Cleaners (SW/C 1st & Classen, unknown owner, burned & vacant) in the context of this story. I particularly didn't understand his reference to an "incentive" to keeping Sunshine vacant: "Why should the Sunshine Laundry owners be given the incentive – yes an incentive – to not improve their property?"

I'm certainly not defending the owners of Sunshine, but what is the issue so long as the building is secure and not a public nuisance?

The incentive is basically that you can let your property sit and be judged as "salvage" by the County and pay next-to-nothing in taxes. Start putting money into it, and you'll have to pay more taxes (but your value/income should go up too).

A dilapidated, abandoned building is a nuisance to the neighborhood and bad for the City overall.

The incentive is that as long as it's kept in poor shape, it has much less of a tax assessment, which makes it easy on the owners and bad for the City who needs the revenue.

Pete, it looks like posts are being duplicated in two threads. One in General Real Estate Topics and one in General Civic Issues.

Pete, it looks like posts are being duplicated in two threads. One in General Real Estate Topics and one in General Civic Issues.

I merged two threads to just this one.

Yes, I saw where Steve wrote that it had been the subject of police & fire calls, but he didn't provide a time frame or context (I've had the police and fire departments at my house, but that doesn't mean we should tear it down).

Further, Steve has simply used tax revenue as a definition of worthiness. If the Sunshine building was torn down entirely, the owner could make an argument that it should be taxed at an even lower rate because NO improvements exist. Then what do you have? No blight, but less tax revenue.

Yes, it's an eyesore. Yes, it's a public nuisance. Yes, the owners should be outed and shamed. Yes, they should sell it to someone who will invest, build and improve the neighborhood. But, yes, it's also their property and they're free to do with it as they please, so long as it is secure doesn't pose a hazard. I'm also not happy with continual delays with the Tower Theater or Nick Preftakes or the Brewer brothers, but that doesn't mean that the city has the right to tell them what to do.

But, yes, it's also their property and they're free to do with it as they please, so long as it is secure doesn't pose a hazard. I'm also not happy with continual delays with the Tower Theater or Nick Preftakes or the Brewer brothers, but that doesn't mean that the city has the right to tell them what to do.

They will still be able to do as they please, they just will be paying more in taxes.

In the study, it showed there was a huge incidence of police and fire at abandoned versus occupied buildings. So, you have the buildings contributing the least in terms of taxes with the most demand for expensive services.

Freedom! Liberty! I have the right to let my property decline and be a meth den because I am an American, dammit!

Sorry but I just have to smh at stuff like this. People who say such things have obviously never lived in an urban environment where this is a problem. At its most basic argument, the city is just looking out for the itself and the taxpayer. Lower property taxes paid in+higher likelihood of police and fire call means the city is losing money on each and every one of these abandoned properties. And that $ has to come from somewhere, typically your pocket.

I can tell you that most big cities have something very similar to this. We are tardy to the party here, and its long overdue.

Yes, I saw where Steve wrote that it had been the subject of police & fire calls, but he didn't provide a time frame or context (I've had the police and fire departments at my house, but that doesn't mean we should tear it down).

Further, Steve has simply used tax revenue as a definition of worthiness. If the Sunshine building was torn down entirely, the owner could make an argument that it should be taxed at an even lower rate because NO improvements exist. Then what do you have? No blight, but less tax revenue.

Yes, it's an eyesore. Yes, it's a public nuisance. Yes, the owners should be outed and shamed. Yes, they should sell it to someone who will invest, build and improve the neighborhood. But, yes, it's also their property and they're free to do with it as they please, so long as it is secure doesn't pose a hazard. I'm also not happy with continual delays with the Tower Theater or Nick Preftakes or the Brewer brothers, but that doesn't mean that the city has the right to tell them what to do.

Actually, they're not free to do with it as they wish. They can not, for example, operate it as a meth lab. Cities have codes and zoning that govern how property is used. That is common and has been in place for decades. Would you be OK if I opened a meth lab in the house next to your's? After all - if I bought the property, isn't it my right as you argue it for me to do as I wish?

What's particularly bad about the current situation is that there is such a demand for housing and commercial properties, and yet people just sit on them because it doesn't cost them anything.

I've heard so many stories about owners being approached about selling an abandoned property and they just sit on them for decades.

This is not only bad for the tax base, it's terrible for the neighborhoods. It's really pretty absurd that the current situation has been allowed for so long.


What I really hope is that once these properties are on a registry, that the City will actually issue citations when someone calls about municipal code violations. To me, this would be far more effective than some small surcharge.

If you read through the muni code, it is actually quite strict -- it just isn't enforced. You have to keep your property secure, in decent shape, grass cut, etc. Almost none of the vacant properties around town come close to meeting these requirements and they should be fined accordingly.

Tomokc, I hope I didn't offend you with my response. But I could also propose opening a sirachi (sp) hot sauce plant next to your home, or a strip club or a live rock venue, based on the idea that a person's individual property rights should be paramount.

What I really hope is that once these properties are on a registry, that the City will actually issue citations when someone calls about municipal code violations. To me, this would be far more effective than some small surcharge.

If you read through the muni code, it is actually quite strict -- it just isn't enforced. You have to keep your property secure, in decent shape, grass cut, etc. Almost none of the vacant properties around town come close to meeting these requirements and they should be fined accordingly.

If memory serves, squeaky wheels can get code enforcement out, but little else will. My memory from when I worked in south OKC is there's not much active enforcement happening, but eventually there may be some modicum of reactive enforcement.

What I really hope is that once these properties are on a registry, that the City will actually issue citations when someone calls about municipal code violations. To me, this would be far more effective than some small surcharge.

I know sometimes I tend to have my head in the clouds and not a firm grip on reality, but what I would like to see happen is a registry developed (realistic IMO) and a planner (non-engineer planner -- not realistic in OKC IMO) work with these identified properties in a calculated manner to find the best possible use for these properties that benefits both the city AND the owner. There's got to be a win-win possible here, I think.
If you think my idea is loopy and you've heard it before, see my comments about getting people off subsistence payments in the WalMart Food drive thread. Same concept.

My only concern is remembering something similar in Tulsa, not all that long ago. Something was instituted to urge along activity on empty structures.
Fairly quickly the empty structures were gone, replaced by empty lots. Most/all of the now empty lots were still owned by folks who were not only still in no hurry to sell or develop, but a bit peeved as well.

Steve, no apology necessary. We're good.

I don't propose meth labs, brothels and the like anywhere because they are illegal. Similarly I don't propose allowing a hot sauce plant next to a single family neighborhood because that's contrary to how we zone our city. C'mon people, these things are obvious, they don't happen, and this isn't what we're talking about.

If we're talking about the city recovering the cost of providing municipal services due to police and fire responses to a property, then charge per response the same way that police charge for responding to repeated burglar alarms (they do - I paid them when a commercial alarm system went on the fritz at a business location I own). In fact, if a large bar (think of the big ones along I-40) has police called repeatedly on weekends, the owner should pay for that as well. Do you need police for a funeral procession? Absolutely charge for these things. But don't raise the owner's taxes because his property is vacant and poorly-maintained.

BTW, I think I DO have a meth lab next to my house! It's a rent house with people coming & going all hours of the day & night, and I've had several discussions with the police. The neighbors and I would love to be rid of them, but everyone's hands are tied until an illegal act is witnessed and reported. Next to my office is a property where the owner never cuts his grass. We report it to the city all the time, they cut the grass, and assess the owner the cost.

My only concern is remembering something similar in Tulsa, not all that long ago. Something was instituted to urge along activity on empty structures.
Fairly quickly the empty structures were gone, replaced by empty lots. Most/all of the now empty lots were still owned by folks who were not only still in no hurry to sell or develop, but a bit peeved as well.

Did Tulsa do anything to combat the sudden demolition derby that arose?

Property owners still have to go through an application process to demolish any structure.

Property owners still have to go through an application process to demolish any structure.

Which hasn't seemed to stop many people in OKC...

Which hasn't seemed to stop many people in OKC...

There has been some notable saves, such as the Gold Dome and hopefully the old Film Exchange building.

Which hasn't seemed to stop many people in OKC...

Demolition is only reviewed for appropriateness in HP districts and urban design districts, covering about 5 square miles out of 620... The rest are just demolition permits reviewed to make sure utilities are off, occupants out, etc.

Yep. This is my biggest concern, too. If this leads to wholesale, poorly-conceived demolitions it is a net loser. There should be incentives/disincentives in place to combat this. The purpose of this should be to accomplish one of two things:


Encourage renovation
Encourage sales of noncontributing properties

There are of course many buildings that can/should be demolished, but that should only be undertaken with proper consideration, not because it saves somebody a few bucks. Buildings lost forever are also lost forever to the tax rolls (unintentionally ensuring noncontributing status), and as we have seen, it can take many, many decades before new buildings appear in their place, if ever.

Pete - the OKC Action Line is actually pretty decent at getting citations issued etc. I know many neighborhoods that are making concerted efforts to drive off slum lords etc by using the codes to their advantage and others - I'm looking at you Plaza District - that should be using them very aggressively to help police their areas.




What's particularly bad about the current situation is that there is such a demand for housing and commercial properties, and yet people just sit on them because it doesn't cost them anything.

I've heard so many stories about owners being approached about selling an abandoned property and they just sit on them for decades.

This is not only bad for the tax base, it's terrible for the neighborhoods. It's really pretty absurd that the current situation has been allowed for so long.


What I really hope is that once these properties are on a registry, that the City will actually issue citations when someone calls about municipal code violations. To me, this would be far more effective than some small surcharge.

If you read through the muni code, it is actually quite strict -- it just isn't enforced. You have to keep your property secure, in decent shape, grass cut, etc. Almost none of the vacant properties around town come close to meeting these requirements and they should be fined accordingly.

^

Glad to hear that.

I know several here have complained in the past that they have been slow to cite property owners.


I hope more people will call and report properties -- they usually only take up issues that get reported by citizens.

Did Tulsa do anything to combat the sudden demolition derby that arose?

I don't recall. Sorry.

Pete - the OKC Action Line is actually pretty decent at getting citations issued etc. I know many neighborhoods that are making concerted efforts to drive off slum lords etc by using the codes to their advantage and others - I'm looking at you Plaza District - that should be using them very aggressively to help police their areas.

My neighbor has been in a code violation process since December 2011. He has a court date of January 24, 2014 for that violation. He keeps getting his citation extended because he shows "progress" on this property maintenance violations. He owns multiple residences. I do not agree that the code enforcement citation process is as effective as it could or should be.

Plaza District is a commercial district. It has very few, if any, of its own actual businesses that need code enforcement assistance anymore. The neighborhoods around need it.

Another thing, almost 99% (ok, I don't know the exact figure) of enforcement is complaint-based. Unless someone in a neighborhood takes it upon themselves to call in (or email/fill out the online form) the complaint, it won't get touched.

Very few cities do any proactive enforcement but rather rely completely on citizen complaints.

That has always struck me as very odd because municipalities make a ton of revenue from proactive motor vehicle enforcement: speeding, parking, etc. They also make a lot of money from enforcing other misdemeanors. Often, this is a very significant part of their operating budget.

I've never understood why most are hyper-vigilant about those things (often to the point of absurdity) but often won't even enforce the municipal code when those violations are brought to them as they sit in their offices.

And frankly, I believe keeping weeds cut and structures presentable would have a much more positive impact on a community's quality of life as opposed to setting speed traps.

Do they all think a Walgreens is going to come make a million dollar offer for their slum house?


That's exactly what they think. Their property taxes are low enough that they can just sit on it. If somebody comes along in 10 years and buys it from them they'll make a lot of money. Often they have an unrealistic view as to what their property is worth, and the taxes are low enough that they aren't forced to reassess that view.

^

And many acquired these properties for next to nothing, so they have little investment in the first place.

But in the meantime, the citizens and many private interests have invested billions to improve the City all around them, and they selfishly wait for a payday they never really earned. In fact, in the cases where the City has to intervene, they are working against the best interests of the community.

Yep. This is my biggest concern, too. If this leads to wholesale, poorly-conceived demolitions it is a net loser. There should be incentives/disincentives in place to combat this. The purpose of this should be to accomplish one of two things:


Encourage renovation
Encourage sales of noncontributing properties

There are of course many buildings that can/should be demolished, but that should only be undertaken with proper consideration, not because it saves somebody a few bucks.
We agree on something.

Can they not use existing nuisance abatement laws/consequences to give more incentive?


Nope. The laws essentially create a set-up where it's better to board up and keep it secured than it is to keep things occupied and in good shape. The Walcourt is a good example (NE 13th & Walnut). Been boarded up for 30 years, and in relatively good shape. Many, many people would love it buy it and re-use it.


The incentive is basically that you can let your property sit and be judged as "salvage" by the County and pay next-to-nothing in taxes. Start putting money into it, and you'll have to pay more taxes (but your value/income should go up too).
Somehow in this hard hitting discussion the actual fines never got mentioned. The city unanimously approved a ~$270 first time fine and ~$190 charge for every year after that. This was reported by KFOR, not NewsOK. No one appreciates these abandoned properties littering the neighborhoods but this sounds like bad policy.

I've advocated many times to simply raise the property tax rates on vacant/abandoned properties (VABs). That way you don't give government bureaucrats the opportunity to screw things up based on their own decision making. It also gives people an incentive to keep their homes livable rather than tear them down, as mentioned above. Unfortunately this is another case where the council approves a study by an outside firm (GSBS Richman), the firm tells them what they want to hear, and they do what they want. I will gladly charge the city for my advice, maybe then they will listen to it and I'll be better off!

I've advocated many times to simply raise the property tax rates on vacant/abandoned properties (VABs). That way you don't give government bureaucrats the opportunity to screw things up based on their own decision making. It also gives people an incentive to keep their homes livable rather than tear them down, as mentioned above. Unfortunately this is another case where the council approves a study by an outside firm (GSBS Richman), the firm tells them what they want to hear, and they do what they want. I will gladly charge the city for my advice, maybe then they will listen to it and I'll be better off!

Not true at all. The City cannot raise property tax rates, other than possibly increasing mills to pay for more GO Bonds, and only when a GO Bond election is held. This would have to be done through county government. And even then, I believe state legislation (or maybe even the state constitution) would have to be changed to allow taxation based on land value, not personal property value. Additionally, property taxing and assessment is still part of government bureacracy because an elected official has charge of assessors and assessments.

Also, how is fining someone for having a VAB bad policy? I don't get it.

They definitely need the power to tax land value rather than improved value. The costlier it becomes to hold unimproved land the more land will flow from speculators to those who want to do something with it (lower prices). Regarding the assessor's office v. the city government bureaucracy, it is a less subjective decision to estimate a property's value than to decide to levy a VAB fine. So there's less margin for error. The fine is bad policy because the vast majority of land in OKC city limits isn't worth building on except for a DIYer like me. Also many of these properties are beyond saving given the cost of labor. So naturally this policy will lead to the demolition of livable properties while an increase in tax rate for VABS would lead to development.

^

And many acquired these properties for next to nothing, so they have little investment in the first place.

But in the meantime, the citizens and many private interests have invested billions to improve the City all around them, and they selfishly wait for a payday they never really earned. In fact, in the cases where the City has to intervene, they are working against the best interests of the community.
Which is why you'd think they would sell for a reasonable amount. But I know, Ive dealt with this before, everyone thinks their property is worth more than it is. They hear of what something sells for on a busy, hard corner and then think their property which is off the beaten path must be worth that too.

Very few cities do any proactive enforcement but rather rely completely on citizen complaints.

That has always struck me as very odd because municipalities make a ton of revenue from proactive motor vehicle enforcement: speeding, parking, etc. They also make a lot of money from enforcing other misdemeanors. Often, this is a very significant part of their operating budget.

I've never understood why most are hyper-vigilant about those things (often to the point of absurdity) but often won't even enforce the municipal code when those violations are brought to them as they sit in their offices.

And frankly, I believe keeping weeds cut and structures presentable would have a much more positive impact on a community's quality of life as opposed to setting speed traps.

Its not that easy. Most code complaints that involve an occupied house are resolved very quickly, barring extenuating circumstances. The occupied houses that drag on tend to have mental health issues related, at least in many cases. On others, there are economic factors -- I've seen people prosecuted, fined almost $4000 (for repeated violations) and put on "time-pay" status for years, paying ten or twenty dollars each time they are hauled back into court and threatened with arrest.

The unoccupied ones are more complicated. The easy ones get resolved quickly, but the ones that remain tend to fall in to two groups -- those that have been abandoned by absentee landlords and those that have unclear ownership because of estates that were never probated. Finding a responsible person and getting service on a ticket cost tons in research time and usually only result in a bench warrant that will never be executed.

Bottom line -- there really is no money to be had from code enforcement fines.

Not sure if this has already been brought up somewhere else...
Bill to stop crackdown on vacant structures advances in Oklahoma legislature | Oklahoma City - OKC - KOCO.com (http://www.koco.com/news/oklahomanews/okc/bill-to-stop-crackdown-on-vacant-structures-advances-in-oklahoma-legislature/24694452)


The Oklahoma legislature is moving forward with a bill that would stop cities from cracking down on vacant structures.
Last week, a House committee passed HB 2620 that would stop cities from creating a vacant structure registry and charging property owners “fees” for owning vacant property. Back in December, the City Council of Oklahoma City passed a vacant structure ordinance that defines a vacant structure as “…any building or portion thereof that, regardless of its structural condition, is not currently occupied.”

The Oklahoma Association of Realtors worries that homeowners would be forced to sell below market value in order to avoid paying the fees associated with owning a vacant structure. According to the ordinance, vacant property owners would pay an initial fee of $285, plus an annual fee of $190 and a monthly “visual assessment fee” of $190.

The ordinance was presented to the city council by the Community Progress Leadership Institute, which is based in Cambridge, Mass. Tuesday, the city council voted to pay for a group of people to travel to that Institute on the campus of Harvard University to learn more about enforcing the vacant properties ordinance.

The bill to prohibit that ordinance will soon be going before a full vote of the state House of Representatives.

Wouldnt a city know whats best for themselves rather than the folks at the capitol?

Why would you reckon the state cares at all? Is it something like Senator Imhofe's crusade against the FAA? More of a legislation nee personal issue situation?

Realtor lobby $$$. Pure and simple.

The legislature in this state is a ****ing joke. It will be one of the main reasons why I leave Oklahoma.

Realtor lobby $$$. Pure and simple.

In fact, this was on the news last night and the person who was saying that OKC's plans were not fair or right was labeled as part of a Realtor's association. Hmmm.

The legislature in this state is a ****ing joke. It will be one of the main reasons why I leave Oklahoma.

http://i.imgur.com/tIe87hb.jpg

Hemingstein is right, traxx. At points it seems like it hopeless and the only thing to do is just leave.

Oklahoma House approves measure to ban city vacant property registries | News OK (http://newsok.com/oklahoma-house-approves-measure-to-ban-city-vacant-property-registries/article/3939889)

As some feared, the Oklahoma House passed a bill that prevents any city from creating a vacant property registry. It now goes to the Oklahoma Senate for consideration. As other posters asked, "Why is this the business of the state legislature?" Next time you see a realtor, thank them - they led the fight which bans any city in Oklahoma from creating such a registry.

The Oklahoma House passed a bill Tuesday to ban city registries for vacant property. House Bill 2620, pushed by a coalition led by the Oklahoma Association of Realtors, came in response to the Oklahoma City Council’s approval of such a registry late last year and other cities interested in regulating such property.

Rep. Steve Martin, R-Bartlesville, is the author.

The bill passed 68-23 and now goes to the Senate.

Realtors also are supporting a related bill, House Bill 3363 by Rep. Jon Echols, R-Oklahoma City, said Matt Robison, vice president of government affairs for the Oklahoma Association of Realtors. Echols’ bill would “better define abandoned and neglected property,” Robison said.

Oklahoma City estimated that there are 12,000 vacant or abandoned buildings in the city, and relied on a study that cited rundown houses and commercial buildings as an across-the-board drag on property values. The Realtors and others objected to fees associated with administering the registry, among other things.

More brilliant "leadership".

What happened to all the "local control" blather from that bunch at 23rd & Lincoln?

This is similar to the tobacco lobby several years ago getting the state to enact a law that no city or town could make tougher anti-smoking laws than what the state had on the books. The party that always talks about local control is doing the exact opposite.

My guess is that there will be a tougher battle in it passing in the senate.

It's more "small government" that the Republicans in state legislature want us to have.

Rep. Steve Martin, R-Bartlesville, is the author.

There's your problem. He's a wild and crazy guy who likes the American women with their big American breasts.

What happened to all the "local control" blather from that bunch at 23rd & Lincoln?

Looks to me the R who currently control state govt. are seizing local control quite well.
Oh .. you thought they meant they were for bolstering more local control? Well ... aren't you just the cutest little thing, bless your heart.

We have a representative who said we need to have open carry because he was once threatened by a turkey.

Let that sink in.

We have a representative who said we need to have open carry because he was once threatened by a turkey.

Let that sink in.

Yeah, but a wild, rabid turkey with HUGE FANGS!

I can't believe that the senate would pass this (or the governor sign it), but stranger things have happened.

If so, how can the city enumerate this information on these blighted buildings without violating the law?

Oklahoma Realtors praise property law | News OK (http://newsok.com/oklahoma-realtors-praise-property-law/article/4850498)

Morgan Building (March 10 2012) - a set on Flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/williamhider/sets/72157629190536578/)

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7048/6970088949_4cb3a3ee52_b.jpg

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7052/6970098209_f293a01d0a_b.jpg

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7200/6823974446_558094edc6_b.jpg

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7182/6970094889_77c3ffe12c_b.jpg

StreetView (https://www.google.com/maps/preview?authuser=0#!data=!1m8!1m3!1d3!2d-97.501892!3d35.471443!2m2!1f153.25!2f86!4f75!2m5!1 e1!2m3!1ss483y0NCODlzJZmzmRnwGQ!2e0!7e11&fid=5)

I have wanted to go inside this Morgan building since I was Working at Foster Pool next door to it in the early 90's

Editorial from The Oklahoman on hypocrisy of GOP led legislature regarding nuisance properties.

Problem of abandoned property won't solve itself | NewsOK.com (http://m.newsok.com/problem-of-abandoned-property-wont-solve-itself/article/4918687)

Editorial from The Oklahoman on hypocrisy of GOP led legislature regarding nuisance properties.

Problem of abandoned property won't solve itself | NewsOK.com (http://m.newsok.com/problem-of-abandoned-property-wont-solve-itself/article/4918687)aaahh it's like cancer, if you ignore it, it will go away.

Editorial from The Oklahoman on hypocrisy of GOP led legislature regarding nuisance properties.

Problem of abandoned property won't solve itself | NewsOK.com (http://m.newsok.com/problem-of-abandoned-property-wont-solve-itself/article/4918687)

It's a matter of personal freedoms to be a ****head landlord letting your properties rot.

Oklahoma Realtors praise property law | News OK (http://newsok.com/oklahoma-realtors-praise-property-law/article/4850498)

They knew they couldn't get a win from a rational body so they took this issue to a bought and sold state legislature.

They knew they couldn't get a win from a rational body so they took this issue to a bought and sold state legislature.

Its amazing how much easier it is to sway 100 or so dimwit legislators with an open hand than it was to sway 5 council members. Speaks how moronic and special interest-centric our state lawmakers are.

Its amazing how much easier it is to sway 100 or so dimwit legislators with an open hand than it was to sway 5 council members. Speaks how moronic and special interest-centric our state lawmakers are.

Why wouldn't these 100 or so dimwit legislators respond with a "why do I care" regarding what municipalities do with abandoned or decrepit properties?
What's that? They were told to say what they did by their handlers? oh . . .