Vacant Property Registration Law Delayed
Council delays start of registration law to increase its awareness
A new law requiring owners of vacant property in Kent to register with the city has been delayed.
Kent City Council first voted early in October at a committee meeting to enact the new law, which requires owners to register their vacant properties for a yearly fee so the city can manage, track and ensure accountability for empty commercial and residential spaces.
At its regular meeting Wednesday, council voted to delay enacting the new law by approving it — but on a first-reading only. That means, unless adds an emergency clause, the law would need to go through two more votes before it takes effect.
"As usual, the public is not really aware of this," Councilman Wayne Wilson said. "So I’d like to get their input, at least to a second reading, at least prior to passing the whole thing. That’s why I made the motion to the first reading."
The new, 10-page law presents a few changes from the draft ordinance proposed in August.
Among the changes were a reduction in registration fees. Owners of vacant residential properties must pay $50 per year to register well-kept properties and $200 annually for properties that are not well-kept, which is defined in the ordinance as: a house or building with windows and doors in place or otherwise boarded up securely; grass is cut, weeds are not present and trees and shrubs are trimmed; and it's free of trash and debris and kept painted.
Owners of vacant commercial properties must pay a steeper fee — $500 for well-kept and $1,000 fee for not well-kept properties.
Councilwoman Heidi Shaffer said she still has some questions about the law, including waivers available for some properties.
"I want to explore the answers and maybe draft a better policy if we have three readings," she said.
Councilman John Kuhar said he's gotten a lot of calls about the issue and wants to have a few more meetings on it to let people talk to council about it.
"I do think it’s something that we need to get some public input (on) because it was very unknown," Kuhar said.
Chris (Kit) Myers
7:49 am on Sunday, October 23, 2011
What are the addresses of the properties that currently need managed, tracked and accounted for by the City of Kent, whatever that means?
It is hard to imagine the owner of any property wanting it to sit empty, and to make him/her to have to pay the city or prove to a board that it is for sale or rent is micromanagement at its finest.
Been There
6:28 pm on Sunday, October 23, 2011
I have had a house beside me sit vacant since before 1995. They are not good about cutting the grass, maintaining the shrubs, trees, garage, or even the house. It has been infested with squirrels and other rodents. They have never shoveled the driveway, which is a shared driveway with me, much less shovel the sidewalk. I am all for this law because the city has to spend man hours sending notices to cut the grass, maintain the outside of the house. If you don't want to live here fine, but don't let my property vaule decrease because of your laziness.
louislinus
12:17 pm on Sunday, October 23, 2011
I have mixed feelings on this issue. I feel very strongly about personal property rights but I also live a few houses down from a house that has been vacant for years. The house has beautiful bones but is in disrepair. The grass gets mowed but that's it. People should be able to do what they want with their property up until it infringes upon my rights. Don't we have nuisance laws that would take care of some of the issues. What is the point of this law? What does the city hope to gain?
Laurel Myers Hurst
1:01 pm on Sunday, October 23, 2011
My gut feeling is this is reactionary legislation tangled up in the story of the Franklin Hotel. Since that tale of woe is soon coming to and end, this legislation should also be abandoned. Keep the nuisance officer employed, but don't hire a new half-time position to track abandoned properties, please.
Chris (Kit) Myers
7:30 pm on Sunday, October 23, 2011
Council and City Manager: Is there nothing on the books to provide a resolution to the problem mentioned by "Been There" without inconveniencing everyone who has a house or commercial building go vacant for a time?
I see that the City has exempted itself and other government entities who own property (such as KSU) fron the law. I do appreciate the dilemma of "Been There" as the obviously vacant house KSU owns (220 South Willow) had a prowler hanging around a couple weeks ago scaring my tenants, and it's only a matter of time until it is discovered by junkies and other riff-raff. I KNOW the City is well aware of it, but does nothing. KSU can do no wrong! Who is the councilperson for that ward?
Yes, there is a problem, but the proposed ordinance seems to be overkill, will consume an inordinate amount of time for city officials, and really be a burden on good people who own property and take care of it. There just has to be a much simpler way.
Andy Esparza
7:49 am on Monday, October 24, 2011
WOW...next we will have to quarter troops ......find out who is behind this and vote them OUT
louislinus
10:58 pm on Tuesday, October 25, 2011
We'll have a hard time voting anyone out when 5 out of our 6 wards are running unopposed.
Chris (Kit) Myers
10:07 am on Wednesday, October 26, 2011
It's so much easier to sit back and bitch than it is to run for office, comment to Patch, or write a letter to the R-C.
I have seen no reporting of this proposed legislation in the R-C. I guess the esplanade is more important than this legislation that affects every homeowner or rental property owner in the city. Perhaps it was there and I missed it?
Yes, one would think there would be other people out there who are interested enough in the fate of the city to run for office, but it appears to not be the case.
I was the councilman from Ward 1, 1979-1983.
Tell your friends about Patch and how to access it. It is a wonderful form of media.