META  —  At last Wednesday’s monthly meeting, Meta Alderman Otto Wankum and City Attorney Nathan Nickolaus disagreed with whether nuisance ordinances were being enforced in light of several ongoing issues.

“Nathan said that our dangerous building ordinance does not cover some of the things in here,” said City Clerk Deidra Buechter of the nuisance ordinance adopted in 2006 and updated a few times to cover emerging issues.

“We talked about it a long while back,” said Nickolaus. “I think the decision made with the dangerous building ordinance was enough, but really, what this covers is things that are not necessarily dangerous, but are more esthetic — stuff like paint and things like that — because I think it’s kind of the direction you guys are going. So, you probably need an ordinance that covers all those things, if that makes sense.”

“Does that cover the surrounding area around the building or just the building?” Wankum asked.

“This is all about buildings,” Nickolaus said of an ordinance he proposed. “We already have something for the surrounding area.”

“We ain’t getting it done,” Wankum said.

“Well, not for the fault of the ordinance, not because of the ordinance,” Nickolaus replied.

“No, but we do have that as a separate ordinance — trash — but we’re not getting that done,” said Wankum.

“I mean, it’s up to you guys, but the stuff that I’m seeing coming in on the pictures, and the stuff that I think is bothering you, is not generally covered by the ordinance that we have,” said Nickolaus.

“I think I have a big disagreement with that,” Wankum returned.

“For instance, the gas station on the highway,” said Nickolaus of the old Sherrell gas station on Hwy. 133.

“That’s not going to be covered by this,” said Wankum.

“Yes, it will,” Nickolaus insisted. “The paint.”

“Well, then it does include the trash around that building,” Wankum noted.

“No, the paint on the building,” said Nickolaus.

Aldermen later approved an ordinance regulating the exterior appearance of buildings — from the foundation to awnings and support structures — with violations to be handled through litigation if the property owner doesn’t correct the problem within a specified time. The ordinance also outlines an appeals process and authorizes the city attorney to file a lawsuit in the circuit court to compel the property owner to abate the nuisance. Alternatively, the city is authorized to abate the issue if the owner fails to do so.

“The biggest eyesore with that particular property is those gas tanks,” said Nickolaus. “They’re all rusty, chipped paint all over.”

“They can’t be used anymore,” said Alderman Steve Sherrell of the tanks. 

“You know they’re not going to voluntarily move them out because that’s going to cost the money to get them moved out,” Wankum replied.

“Well, I know they’re not going to volunteer, and they’re also not going to voluntarily paint them,” said Nickolaus.

Mayor Ivie Helton asked if the proposed ordinance would be an additional tool for the city.

“Yes,” Nickolaus answered. “So it covers a lot of the things that your current ordinance does not. So, as (Otto) points out, if something’s on the ground, all right, then we’ve got an ordinance to cover that, but we have a lot of things that haven’t necessarily fallen off. For instance, gutters are kind of a big problem. We get a lot of properties that have gutters that aren’t what they should be. You got a lot of mobile homes that aren’t properly skirted. You just look through the list. The biggest thing on it would be paint — people need to keep their houses painted.”

Helton noted that some homes are missing windows and other things, which Nickolaus said were not covered under the older ordinance.

“And it’s on this ordinance,” Wankum asked.

Nickolaus confirmed that was the case. “Like the ordinance title says, this is about the exterior appearance,” he added. “You guys looked at this a while back, and I thought we passed it.”

Clerk Buechter reminded the attorney that the city had not passed a building exterior ordinance, which is why aldermen discussed it.

“All right, I guess my question is, once we determine that such and such a structure falls under this ordinance, and we send that to you, how soon can that be turned around and get them their notifications?” Wankum asked.

“I know you want to talk about that issue,” said Nickolaus. “I’m happy to talk about that later, but you’re changing the topic that we’re talking about.”

“I don’t think so,” Wankum replied. “I’m asking you if this thing will cover it.”

“It’ll cover it,” said Nickolaus. “How fast it gets enforced and how it gets enforced are separate questions. The question is, do you want to regulate this sort of thing? If you pass the ordinance, then yes, we will take steps to carry that out and make sure that it gets enforced. If you don’t pass it, as you have before, then we won’t do these things. And so it doesn’t matter how long it takes us to do because we won’t be doing them at all.”

The city attorney explained that enforcement depends on what the ordinance outlines, but Wankum wanted more.

“If we feel that a particular building falls into this category somewhere, then it’s our job to let you know so you can do something about it,” he said.

“No, because it’s my license on the line, okay?” Nickolaus said. “So, if you guys say you want to prosecute somebody, and there’s no basis, in my opinion, for filing that lawsuit, and I file it anyway because you all tell me to, I lose my license. Not only that, I would point out to you all that you don’t have sovereign immunity for that. So, if you did try and enforce something like that against somebody and there is no basis for it, they can sue you all personally and Deidra as well. So, it’s just stupid and reckless to disregard my advice when I’m telling you I don’t see enough to prosecute. Now, we’ve had times like that, and you guys have come back and said, ‘Yeah, we think there’s something there,’ and I’ve changed my opinion. Sometimes I have, sometimes I haven’t, but it’s not your license on the line. It’s not you who has to stand up from the judge to say, ‘Yes, the law says this,’ when it doesn’t say that.”

Wankum retorted that if the board is telling residents to clean up their property and it’s not being enforced, it’s a futile effort.

“Well, I don’t think that’s happened,” Nickolaus replied. “We have gotten things done. There’s quite a number of buildings that we’ve cleaned up. To say that we’ve done nothing over all these years is just not true. I can give you examples where we have gotten things done.”

“I would love to hear those,” said Wankum.

Nickolaus said that property owner Rick Schubert cleaned things up last year. “You guys were satisfied with the cleanup,” he noted. “You passed on it, and we dismissed the case.”

Nickolaus added that earlier this year, Schubert’s property fell in disrepair, and the attorney pursued litigation again.

Wankum noted that the cleanup was not up to the city’s standard and added that it would continue to be a problem. “I don’t know how you think the law works, but if somebody speeds and we pull them over and give them a ticket for speeding, that doesn’t mean they’re not going to speed again,” said Nickolaus. “It’s much more the case with grass.”

Because grass is always growing, Nickolaus said the city would continue to deal with problems. “You can go to any town that does any code enforcement and ask them, ‘Hey, what’s your solution for making these problem people go away?’ They say there is no solution,” said Nickolaus. “You just have to deal with them over and over and over again. There are people who just won’t follow the law.”

Helton noted that it appeared if the city adopted the new ordinance, it would give aldermen more options to enforce issues not covered by the original regulation. She suggested sending a letter to offenders outlining the violation and demanding it be corrected.

“I would really prefer you didn’t go down that route because anything you send is from the government,” Nickolaus said. “It is the government telling somebody to do something. If you want to write a personal letter and say, ‘Hey, I don’t like how your lawn looks,’ that’s one thing. But anytime it comes from the government, it’s basically government action. One of the things that we talked about recently was this house that apparently has the branch stuck up as some kind of weird decoration, and it’s ugly as hell, but they have every right in the world to do that. That’s what the First Amendment’s about, and just because you don’t like it doesn’t make it illegal.”

“When that trash covers …” Wankum began.

“Let’s talk about what I’m talking about first; let’s talk about the tree,” said Nickolaus.

“What tree?” Wankum asked.

“There’s a dead branch that people have stuck up in their front yard,” Nickolaus replied. “You wrote them up for dead branches.”

“I did, along with 14 other things,” said Wankum.

“Let’s talk about the tree; stop changing the subject,” said Nickolaus. “The tree was not a violation. Okay? And I understand why you’d write it up. I don’t blame you for writing it up. What I’m saying is when I told you it’s not a violation, it’s not a violation. It’s just not; it’s art, and it’s ugly, but he has the right to have ugly art in his yard. We are not a homeowner’s association.”

“That was one little portion,” Wankum insisted.

“You came back and said it was really the trash,” said Nickolaus, noting, however, that he had to get enlarged photos with the trash circled to indicate it existed. “I’m happy to go ahead and prosecute, but that was so far away from the camera and so small.”

“So, I need to go into the yard,” said Wankum.

“You can’t go into the yard; I’ve told you that,” Nickolaus replied.

“So basically, people can throw crap all over the place in their yard,” said Wankum.

“How do you get that conclusion from what I just said?” Nickolaus asked.

“You just said it,” Wankum replied.

“When did I say that? You’re going to an extreme,” said Nickolaus. “I’m not saying that. We’ve enforced a lot of people with trash in their yard. We’ve made people clean up the trash in their yards. We’ve done it several times. So, what you’re saying is absolutely not true. You’re choosing to be disagreeable.”

“Would you want to drive with me? I’ll show you the damn yard and what I’m talking about,” said Wankum.

“I don’t disagree with you,” said Nickolaus. “I understand there are violations, and you send them to me, but you have to understand that, just like you exercise a certain amount of discretion in picking who you’re going to cite and who you’re not, my job is to review that and make a decision about what I’m going to file on and what I’m not. If you want to follow the law, that’s how the law works. If you want to just say Meta doesn’t follow the law anymore, we’re just going to tell people what to do regardless of what the law says — I mean, that’s fine, but I won’t work for you guys.”

“We’re kind of doing that now,” Wankum replied.

“You’re going around telling people to do things that the law doesn’t require them to do,” said Nickolaus. “If you’re doing that, stop.”

“I’m not telling anybody anything,” said Wankum.

“You just said, ‘We’re kind of doing that now,’” Nickolaus replied before Helton stepped in.

“Okay, time out,” the mayor said. “We do have to walk a very fine line with this because I don’t want us to get in trouble. All we really want is for the city to look nice. We want it to look decent when people drive through the town. There’s always going to be a handful of people that are never going to get it cleaned up the way we want, but we want to do our part.”

Helton added that years ago when she was elected to the board, several residents attended a meeting, at which a forum led to the development of several priorities. “One of the big priorities was cleaning up a bunch of these properties,” she noted. “We’ve kept that on the list this whole time, and we’ve tried several different ways. I know it’s a process, and it’s frustrating because we know that nothing works quickly when it has to do with the legal system. We just want to see some progress. That’s really all we want. We look at the same properties over and over again, and we never seem to get anywhere with them.”

“Surrounding those ugly properties are the ones who take care of their stuff,” Wankum replied. “They have to live with it, too, right?”

“That’s true,” Helton said.

Wankum said the situation degrades the value of people’s property “when you have 14 people who just don’t care.”

Helton added she doesn’t think it’s necessary to measure the height of grass in people’s yards. She noted her opinion that the less government is involved in her business, the better. However, that doesn’t change the fact that aldermen want the city to look nice.

“We want people to have their own property and do what they want to with it as long as it doesn’t carry over into neighbors and doesn’t make the place look like trash,” said Helton.

Clerk Buechter suggested that vacant properties are the most significant issue.

“That’s true, and the number is increasing over time,” Helton replied. “These are the kind of people that don’t live here. They don’t have any kind of vested interest in what the place looks like because they don’t have to look at it every day.”

“We had two properties that were sold on the courthouse steps,” said Sherrell. “Is there any way to speed that process up?”

Sherrell added that his stepsister purchased a burned-out house. “If it was up to them, they’d have it cleaned up tomorrow,” he said.

Nickolaus explained how the tax system works with regard to vacant properties. “If you don’t pay your taxes for the first year, the county will offer it up for auction,” he said.

“That’s what they did,” Sherrell said.

“Actually, no,” said Nickolaus. “They don’t sell it, generally, until the third sale. So, that’s three years in the process. Once somebody buys it, the person who lost the house has a year to redeem it by paying the amount that’s owed on it, plus interest. Generally speaking, your stepsister is not going to do anything with that house for a year because they might lose it.”

“I understand that,” said Helton. “I wouldn’t want to do anything either.”

“Can they clean up the grass and the outside of it?” Alderman Austin Buechter asked.

“Yes, they could,” Nickolaus replied. “They can do whatever they want. They could tear down the house and build a new one.”

“Could they do that now?” Sherrell asked.

“Yes,” Nickolaus answered. “They own the property.”

However, he added that within a year, that property could be lost if back taxes are paid.

“I’ll let them know they come down and maybe clean the yard and stuff,” Sherrell said. “That’s our big problem with that place.”

Nickolaus agreed that would be a good step.

He added that another good option is to talk to the people who purchased the property from the county and ask them to clean it up voluntarily. “That’s always a good place to start,” Nickolaus said, adding he would have to restart the legal process because the original owners — who were sued and served — no longer own it.

“I don’t think we need to take brand-new owners to court,” said Alderman Buechter.

“I would agree,” said Nickolaus.

Sherrell said he would advise his stepsister to clean up the property because he believes the original owners will not pay twice what is owed to reclaim it.

Nickolaus gave aldermen a two-page list of property owners in violation of the nuisance ordinance, noting that most are not vacant.

“This is what I’m getting at,” said Wankum. “We’ve got several that have been on it since I’ve been on the board, and we still ain’t got them resolved.”

Most of those individuals have been involved in the litigation process. “It’s not that we haven’t done anything,” Nickolaus said. “They come back year after year. They do enough to get us off their back.”

“Well, maybe enough to get you off their back, but the people around them still have to live with it,” said Wankum, noting one property owner hasn’t done anything to clean up. “You can’t even see through the yard.”

“They actually cleaned up a lot of the junk in the back the last time,” said Nickolaus.

“You ain’t been by there, have you?” Wankum asked.

“I have the pictures that you sent me, and you can tell that there’s a bunch of stuff that was there that’s not.”

The city attorney likened that situation to another property owner who moved quite a bit of junk.

“I don’t buy that one iota,” said Wankum.

“I know you don’t,” Nickolaus replied. “I’m happy to go after those people, but where you and I end up fighting isn’t those people, not the big violations, and not the vacant houses. Where you and I go toe-to-toe is when you write violations for people who are barely in violation. I mean, you have gone after Mr. Schubert, who has one of the cleanest properties in town. Now, you can say all you want, but we brought this up a year ago, and we had this fight once before. We showed the pictures to everyone on the board. The board said, ‘Yeah, it’s not worth going after anymore. He’s done enough.’ So. I dismissed the case. Now, you’re coming to me and saying, ‘Hey, you shouldn’t have dismissed the case.’ I shouldn’t have done what the board told me to do because you disagree.”

“Yeah,” Wankum replied.

“Well, that’s wrong,” said Nickolaus. “You don’t get to tell me what to do. The board tells me what to do.”

“I’ve been wrong probably more times in life than right,” said Wankum. “I don’t see any progress. I’ve seen very damn little progress, to be perfectly honest with you. We’ve got two rat holes right down Route B, going out of town, right across the street from one another.”

“But I’ll just point out you have others that you’ve never written up,” Nickolaus replied.

“Well, hell, we can’t get the two done,” said Wankum.

“That’s not why you haven’t written them up because that’s never stopped you before from writing people up,” Nickolaus said. “I showed you the last time we had this fight all kinds of properties that were in clear violation that you have never written up.”

“Okay,” Wankum said.

“I admit I haven’t been as fast as I should, and maybe not even as diligent as I should,” said Nickolaus. “If you want to get somebody else to do it, I’m happy for you to do that, but you need to admit that you have been very inconsistent in terms of who you’ve targeted.”

“So, it’s my fault,” said Wankum.

“Did I say that?” Nickolaus asked.

Once again, Helton intervened to calm the situation. “Let’s not,” she said. “We’re trying to keep some civility here.”

“I gotta say, I’m about done,” said Nickolaus. “The letter I got was extremely harsh. I showed it to some of the attorneys in my firm, and they’re like, ‘Why don’t you just dump those people?’ I wrote back a letter that’s pretty harsh, too, but I am tired of getting beat up for trying to run the system that you have no better alternative to. We have made some progress. I am sick to death of you saying we’ve had no progress because it’s just not true. And I’m sick to death of being accused of somehow coddling people not wanting to clean up properties. I gave you all the means to clean up the properties. I set up the system you had. I showed you how you could do it rather than hiring somebody to do it, which is where we were before. I’ve set up all those things for you, and we have made progress. I’m tired of being constantly criticized because everything doesn’t happen just like that. That’s not the way the legal system works.”

“Apparently,” Wankum said.

“Going forward, we continue to take pictures of the properties we feel violate our ordinance,” said Helton. “Let’s put this new ordinance into place if that’s going to help us out with some of these stragglers that aren’t covered by the other ordinance. We’ll send those over to you, and, at your legal discretion, you can determine which ones are valid to go forward, and we will continue to move along the best that we can.”

“I will say if I’m moving too slow, I don’t mind being reprimanded for it, and I have moved too slow, I get that,” Nickolaus said.

Alderman Buechter asked if the delays were due to covering too many cities or if something else was causing it. “We’re all just wondering because we do want to see more progress,” he added.

Though he admitted to having other municipalities to serve, Nickolaus said he is not prioritizing them over Meta. “I may start on something with you guys, and then I get off doing something else in some other place,” he explained. “It’s just a matter of trying to keep it moving to the top of my inbox.”

“Well, we’re a paying customer too, so we just want to have your full attention,” said Alderman Buechter.

“Absolutely, that’s a fair criticism,” Nickolaus replied.

Mayor Helton acknowledged there are several moving pieces. “There’s us determining where who needs to be in violation,” she added. “There’s the legal system, and then there’s obviously these people who need to do their part when we’ve exhausted all of our options. But, if we can show that we’ve done something as a city to go after some of these people and some of these properties, we can be a little bit more accountable to the other people who are keeping their stuff up and saying we’re doing the best that we can sure with the options that we have.”

Nickolaus presented five petitions for Mayor Helton to sign, which represent five court cases he will have filed last week. “I don’t see any reason why we wouldn’t get judgments against all of them,” he said. “I will tell you, though, the next part is a little uglier, and that is, we’re going to spend some money to tear these things down or even to mow them.”

“That’s the part that concerns me, and that’s the part that has stopped us in the past,” said Helton, noting a judgment against Melissa Williams gave the city the right to go in and clean up the property.

However, that costs taxpayer dollars. “My problem with that is the city forking out a bunch of money we don’t have laying around — that we could use for other things the town needs — and we didn’t have any guarantee we would ever see any of that money back.”

“That is the problem,” Nickolaus agreed.

“And we were not a charity,” Helton continued. “That’s the part that scares me. If we try to make the town look better, I also don’t want us to completely deplete our budget, so we can’t do anything else.”

Again, Nickolaus agreed, estimating tearing down a house could cost between $20,000 and $30,000. However, he said tearing down a house is relatively inexpensive compared to abatement. “It has to be treated as hazardous waste, or you can pay somebody to come in and remove all the asbestos from it, but that’s probably even more expensive,” he added. “I think it’s what you need to do. I think it’s what you should do, but it is the next we’re going to be arguing about. Maybe that’s a question of targeting. If we tear down a few, maybe that sends the message, I don’t know.”

“Maybe that’s something we have to do for the ones that haven’t touched anything in a really long time — just bite the bullet and take some money out of the budget and figure out where we can take it from,” Helton said. “But people are going to have to realize that sometimes there’s not enough to go around, so they’re going to complain about one thing or another.”

Nickolaus noted that Williams lives out of town and will likely do the bare minimum to keep the city happy. “Very few of these people are going to genuinely embrace the process and say, ‘Yeah, I want to really make my yard look good.’ They’re going to do the minimum,” he added.

With that, aldermen adopted ordinance #616 related to the exterior appearance of buildings.

Remaining business will be presented next week.