Take grass, for instance. If your grass grows over 12 inches, under the current ordinance, property owners have 30 days to correct blight violations after receiving notification.
However, the town's proposed blight ordinance revision reduces that corrective period to 10 days, giving homeowners less time to fix the problem. Once the 10-day period passes, the town will fine the property owner $100 per day, escalating to $150, until the issue is resolved.
Town officials have also expanded the definition of blight to include inoperable vehicles and neglected vegetation, such as overgrown shrubs and trees. This change could give the town much more power to pressure homeowners.
What's especially alarming about this revision is the foreclosure threshold. It allows the town to foreclose on properties once the accumulated fines for blight reach $20,000. A homeowner could face several hundred dollars in fines per day if multiple violations are cited. Daily fines for violations—such as an unmowed lawn or an unused boat left outside—can quickly add up, with fines reaching this threshold in little time. These fines could easily push property owners into significant debt or cause them to lose their homes.
To be clear, my understanding is that the Blight Review Committee's goal is to target only truly blighted properties—those owned by absentee landlords, slumlords, and properties in hazardous conditions. The intent isn't to go after people facing hardships. The town's ordinance does allow for an optional verbal notice, but that's not enough. Before adopting this, the Town Council needs to consider how the blight law could be abused.
Protections need to be spelled out
Unless protections are codified in the ordinance (See proposed changes, PDF) , future town administrations could weaponize it. Even if the Blight Committee's goal is to exercise compassion, that's not a substitute for carefully crafted laws that aim to protect.
This proposed blight ordinance could harm vulnerable property owners, particularly the poor, elderly, and disabled. The town's revision shows no consideration for these populations. Over minor issues, homeowners could be hit with aggressive enforcement and escalating fines.
We can't assume that a future town administration won't engage in overly strict enforcement, such as fining for unmowed grass. A homeowner might have had to travel unexpectedly or could be undergoing chemotherapy. Imagine a single mother working two jobs who misses a deadline to trim her shrubs, only to face mounting fines that spiral out of control. Parking a car on the grass could also be a violation, making life difficult for those who live in areas without on-street parking. Additionally, some residents participate in "No Mow May," when grass isn’t cut for a month.
Supporters of the ordinance might argue that stricter enforcement will prevent neighborhood decay and protect property values. But minor issues—like some overgrown grass—rarely harm the community.
At the heart of this issue is whether we want to be a community that helps its most vulnerable members or punishes them for struggling. We don't want to become a community that turns into a nanny state or the worst version of a condo HOA, weaponizing blight laws to punish residents for their circumstances.
We should focus on what makes Enfield a great place to live—ensuring we have strong schools and building a supportive community—not using blight laws to fine and foreclose on our neighbors.
Comments
Post a Comment